| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 11/26 |
| 2005/4/23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:37328 Activity:nil |
4/23 Here's a preview of the 2008 election, why Hillary is
already out, and a few relevant names: David Rosen and
Aaron Tonken, who is already in jail.
David Rosen (the man who will turn on Hillary)
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1389524/posts?page=1,50
\_ I really don't know why you bother not saying it's from FR. -John |
| 2005/4/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:37324 Activity:very high |
4/22 Quote going around the blogs today:
"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is
absolute -- where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should
he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his
parishioners for whom to vote -- where no church or church school is
granted any public funds or political preference ... I believe in an
America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish --
where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on
public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any
other ecclesiastical source -- where no religious body seeks to impose
its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the
public acts of its officials." - president John F. Kennedy
\_ Why did JFK hate America?
\_ JFK was the first Catholic President, he had no choice but to
come out strong against religion, since he was a religious
Minority. And there were wingnuts in the red states who
actually thought the vatican might have sway over US policy
It is similar to why Clinton had to be so hard on drugs during
his presidency as a known pot-smoker. -phuqm
his presidency as a known pot-head. -phuqm
\_ phuqm, it's hard to take anything you say seriously after
reading the last sentence in this paragraph. There is a
kernel of truth in what you say, in that Clinton indeed
expanded the war on drugs more than any other president
before him in part to appear as a Democrat that was
"tough on crime." However, calling him a "known pot-head"
just makes you sound like a Freeper. That's okay, one more
motd crank we don't have to pay attention to.
\_and one more humor impaired whiner. Here, I'll give you
the bland version: "Because Clinton took so much heat
over his (admitted) marijuana use, he could not afford
to appear soft on drugs." (Does that make it easier
for you to parse oh humorless one?). Also, you or
someone editing at the same time as you stepped on
two of my posts, punk.
\_ So?
\_ and he is wrong. The 'separation' metaphor is a 20th century
contrivance by Justice Black in Everson that completely distorts the
original intent. Time to put this absurd notion in the trash
bin of history.
\_ the wall of seperation metaphore was taken from a letter by
Jefferson in 1802. However, you are right that Kennedy is
wrong above. And right in general that it is a bad metaphore
which does not capture the actual intent of the 1st amendment.
-phuqm
\_ Jefferson was in France during the time the Bill of Rights
was ratified. He later collaborated with Madison to
write the Religious Freedom act in Virginia, which was
explicit about a separation. At the writing of the
Bill of Rights almost every colony had a State church.
Jefferson himself as President funded Christian missionaries.
This type of Federal support for Christian institutions
continued until the beginning of the 20th century.
In another letter, to Rev. Samuel Miller on
Jan. 23, 1808 Jefferson stated, "I consider the
government of the U S. as interdicted by the
Constitution from intermeddling with religious
institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or
exercises. This results not only from the provision
that no law shall be made respecting the establishment,
or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which
reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the
U.S. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious
exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline,
has been delegated to the general government. It must
then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any
human authority."
Lastly, it is someone ironic that Pres. Kennedy uses
invokes this decision since Justice Black was
radically anti-Catholic and even a former member of
the KKK.
\_ umm, thanks for the history lesson and all, but i'm
not sure why this is a response to me. Do you think
you are adding or subtracting from what I said?
Who cares where Jefferson was when the Bill of Rights
was ratified? Why is that relavent to this
conversation? -phuqm
\_ Umm, thanks for the history lesson and all, but i'm
unclear on why this is a response to me. Do you
think you are adding or subtracting from what I said?
Who cares where Jefferson was when the BofR was
ratified? How does that impact anything that has
been said? -phuqm
\_ JFK's statement cannot be wrong. The statement 'I believe
in an America where []' is very different from 'I believe
that in America []'. JFK's statement is an expression of
what America OUGHT to be rather than what it is (or is
required to be under the establishment clause). There is
nothing wrong with his belief that America should have
more religious separation than the constitution requires.
\_ There is more than one way to be wrong. One can be
wrong headed. Obviouly I am not suggesting that he
is wrong about what he believes (though, I don't know
that he did believe that). I am saying that what he
believes in (allegedly) is wrong. -phuqm
\_ There is more than one way to be wrong. One can, for
example, be wrong headed. I obviously did not mean to
suggest that he incorrectly stated his beliefs (though
he may well have). -phuqm
\_ Perhaps I was not clear. JFK statement indicates
that he knew what the 1st amd required and was
arguing that this was not enough: the policy
of America ought to be complete separation
despite the fact that the framers didn't require
that. One can disagree w/ his assessment, but the
assessment cannot itself be wrong.
\_ Side note: wouldn't it be nice to again have a president
that could speak in complete sentences?
\_ Wouldn't it be nice to have a well spoken liberal
candidate that could actually win the election?
\_ Hell, liberal or conservative, it's fine with me.
Anything would be better than the leader of the
free world giving us all the sneaking suspicion
that he can't even tie his shoes.
\_ You mean like Reagan? Yes.
\_ reagan was very charming, regardless of whether
or not you agreed with what he said. |
| 2005/4/22-25 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:37319 Activity:high |
4/22 Thoughts on the "nuclear option"? Seems truly crazy to me.
\_ Is this in relation to something?
\_ Uh.. do you follow the news at all?
\_ Until both sides are willing to do a 24-hr round-the-clock
filibuster, I don't think it's reasonable to even talk about it.
You can break a filibuster with endurance if you're willing to stay
up late. And if the other side is willing to stay and fight it,
maybe the majority should reconsider. On the other hand, I think
the Dems are going nuts blocking judges.
\_ 10 out of over 200 is nuts? Maybe the majority should remember
what "compromise" means. I bet you'll be the first screaming
for cloture rules to be reinstated when the D's take back the
Senate.
\_ Well, "10 out of over 200" is misleading. The Democrats
blocked 17 of 52 Bush appellate nominees, roughly 1/3. Of
course, the Republicans blocked 16 of 51 Clinton second
term appellate nominees too. So the Democrats are slighly
less accommodating, but both sides play this game.
\_ I really don't mind "this game". For the most part, these
nominees are fine. When someone leans far enough to either
side to get more than 40 people to say NO, it _should_ be
a red flag.
\_ Explain to me again how this is "going nuts."
\_ Did I comment on "nuts" one way or the other? I merely
explained that "10 out of over 200" is misleading, when
it was really "17 of 52". Nor did I single out the
Democrats, when I took pains to point out that
Republicans did the same thing. You need to 1) calm
down, and 2) work on your reading comprehension.
\_ This is a bit deceptive. The Clinton nominees were
blocked, but by the majority in the Senate, not by a
filibuster.
\_ You can approve judges if you can get 51 votes out of the Senate
(or 50 votes + VP Cheney) every time. Considering you have 55
Republican senators, all you need are 50 rubber stamps to pack
the courts. Breaking a filibuster requires 60 votes.
Filibustering is rarely used, because who wants to stay up all
night when you could compromise?
However, you can also get 50 votes to make a rule that says you
can't filibuster anymore on judges.
In which case, you can then employ 50 rubber stamps on any judge
you want.
Is this legal? Yes.
Is this good for America? I really doubt it.
\_ Don't you also need to attain cloture on a rule change?
\_ Apparently not.
\_ Staying up all night sounds so theatrical and dramatic, but
in the modern Senate all that is required is for a senator
to state an intent to filibuster. Requiring a senator to
pull an all-nighter might interfere with the real Senate
business of sucking up to special interests and banging
underage pages.
\_ What's your point again?
\_ Just correcting the inaccurate claim that a filibuster
requires a senator "to stay up all night". Some of us
care about factual things.
\_ So all a senator has to do is "state an intent
to filibuster"? What do they do after that?
Note how I haven't claimed "that a filibuster
requires a senator 'to stay up all night'". Read
the wording carefully -- the words are "who wants
to stay up all night when you could compromise",
not "a filibuster requires a senator to stay up
all night".
\_ Well, the exact words were "Filibustering is
rarely used, because who wants to stay up all
night..."
\_ Why don't you answer my question, which
should address the key question of how
difficult it is to filibuster.
What does a filibustering senator do after
stating an intent to filibuster?
\_ Do? Nothing. If there are enough votes
for cloture, fine. If not, the filibustered
bill gets tabled. You might want to read
the wikipedia entry on filibusters.
\_ I did read it. Please quote the section
which shows (in more or less words):
"If there are enough votes for cloture,
fine. If not, the filibustered bill gets
tabled."
Be very careful with your interpretation.
\_ "What happens if the Senate fails to
invoke cloture? The debate
continues. Generally, the Senate
majority leader . in this case
Frist . will simply give up trying
to have the chamber vote on the
measure in question and move on to
another issue."
http://csua.org/u/btx
\_ What's your problem?
Why aren't you quoting wikipedia
like I asked? You're the one who
brought up wikipedia.
\_ I am large, I contain
multitudes.
multitudes. --chiapet
\_ The Constitution explicity names six instances where supermajorities
are required, appellate judge nominations is not one of them.
The use of filibusters to prevent nominations is historically
rare, until Bush's 1st and 2nd term.
A Senate majority is allowed to change procedural rules, and so
they should.
Lastly, it is a sad day indeed when espousing the beliefs of the
founders, as did Janice Rogers Brown, makes you a controversial
nominee. Unfortunately this is not the first time.
\_ "A Senate majority is allowed to change procedural rules, and
so they should." Just because you can doesn't mean you "should".
Legal? Yes.
Good for America? I really doubt it. |
| 2005/4/18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:37234 Activity:low |
4/18 OKC Bombing Linked to al-Qaida
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/4/17/112700.shtml
\_ find a non newsmax link and i MIGHT click on it.
\_ Hillary Clinton killed Vince Foster to keep this
from leaking out.
\_ But HRC is merely a pawn in the game masterminded by the
Freemasons and the Jews!
\_ Yeah, whatever. How much did the Illuminati pay you to post
that red herring? |
| 2005/4/17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:37227 Activity:nil |
4/16 Doing the jobs American's won't do. First aircraft mechanics, now
ship builders for the Navy.
Audit Shows Illegal Workers Hired
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1384322/posts |
| 2005/4/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Finance/Investment] UID:37121 Activity:nil |
4/8 Dear motd guy who pointed the census graph, I imported data to
Excel and it's clear to me that the top 5% are gaining yearly income
at a rate much faster rate than the poorest. The exaggerated data point
is 1992 when the top 5% richest got 24.3% increase in income and the
poorest got a measly 1.57%. I mean, we can stop arguing whether income
gap is increasing or not because clearly it is. I mean, what is your
stance on this now? Do we start arguing whether income gap is a good
thing or not? FYI: http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/f03.html
I think that our argument is becoming more and more similar to M$
lawsuits. First M$ lawyers argue that they don't have a monopoly,
and when they failed to convince people otherwise they argue that
monopoly is GOOD for the industry (by unifying standards, etc).
\_ I thought the argument was about whose fault it was (Clinton's).
\_ How so? The chart showed the gap growing steadily over the last
twenty five years. Note that I am not discounting this line of
reasoning, as the hollowness of the Clinton boom shows up in
other sources. This source did not lead me to that conclusion,
though. -- ulysses
\_ Perhaps, but it's easier to say there's a growing disparity
in wealth (like, no, really?) than to assign blame for it to
Clinton.
\_ Because one is true, and the other is trollish.
\_ What this may be missing is that the top 5% richest people are
not always the same people. People's income (and wealth, which
is not the same) goes up and down over time. What if I said
that the gap was increasing, but that 10 years from now the
people in the bottom 5% would be in the top 5%? (Not true, but
illustrating the point.) Would the gap matter so much? To me,
what matters most is turnover. How hard is it to get into the
top x% and how hard is it to stay there? Historically, wealthy
people lose their wealth within 3 generations. There is pretty
good wealth turnover in this country unlike in, say, Europe.
\_ If you lose your wealth after only 3 generations, then it means
that you're either not Jews or Asian. In another word, just
another regular Joe white trash.
\- Check out this book (Perfectly Legal): http://csua.org/u/bmb
It is a bit tendentious, but much of the stuff is really
disturbing and some of the statistics are so over the top
[like in wealth distribution] it's not a matter of marginal
interpretation. BTW, reading this during tax season can
lead to depression. --psb
\_ "Perfectly Legal, The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax
System to Benefit the Super Rich - and Cheat Everybody
Else". Partha, you already know this is happening, and
so does everyone else. Why should I spend $16 on Amazon
(who by the way donates 1/2 mil to Republicans) to read
about something I already know is happening?
\- then dont buy/read it. or get it from the lib. --psb
\_ Is this an anti-Republican, pro-Democrat book in disguise?
\_ Oddly enough, it's an old Chinese proverb that wealth doesn't
last pass 3 generations.
\_ Look jackass, I pointed out that graph to prove to you that
your contention that the poor got poorer during the Clinton
Administration was demonstratably false. I never said anything
about the rich getting richer. That is your trip. I even agreed
with you. Keep ranting on about it if it makes you feel better. |
| 2005/4/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:37103 Activity:high |
4/7 Watch popular conservative blog get it wrong on authenticity of
Schiavo memo: http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2005_03.php#009953
The third possibility is that the memo is a Democratic dirty trick.
At the moment, that looks most likely. It is easy to picture how the
document could have been constructed. A Democratic staffer wants to
put in some language that will sound authentic for a Republican memo.
What does he do? He steals four paragraphs from the Coalition's web
site. Then he adds the explosive political observations which are the
whole point of the exercise--weirdly out of place in a "talking
points" memo, but good politics for the Democrats.
\_ You stopped taking your meds, didn't you?
\_ i think a republican staffer just resigned for writing the
memo - danh
\_ A Florida Senator's legal counsel with close ties to... Tom DeLay.
\_ You are correct.
\_ Bahh, I have no need of your useless facts or logic!
\_ From the Sun-Sentinel in Florida: http://csua.org/u/blx
\_ You stopped taking your meds, didn't you?
\_ Do you see the black helicopters too?
\_ You two do realize the paragraph is taken verbatim from the URL?
\_ Powerline is no better than The Free Republic.
\_ Nor is Sean Hannity, nor Rush Limbaugh, nor Michelle Malkin,
nor any of the other commentators who jumped on the meme that
the memo was forged by dems.
\_ Wow--I guess it's a good sign that I hadn't heard this nutty
theory. Sounds just as wacky as the Dems who claim that the
CBS memos were authored by Karl Rove as a trap for the left.
\_ To her credit (never expected to say that...) Malkin came
to her senses today.
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/002017.htm
\_ Not really. Rather than apologize for spreading a
false rumour, she gets all snarky and defensive
ands makes a bunch more unsubstantiated attacks.
\_ Actually she links to an earlier blog entry where
she says other bloggers believed the forgery rumors,
not her, and another blog where she attacked the
believability of a report suggesting so.
now why do i feel so dirty?
\_ Powerline is just as much of a right-wing loony bin as Dailykos over
on the left.
\_ Mediamatters has an entire timeline on how this crap got into the
mainstream media. This all just reminds me of that Negativland
record "Helter Stupid."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200504070005
\_ Heh.
"I think within a week or two it will become clear that it--that
memo was a forgery, possibly written by Democrats on the Hill in
an effort to discredit Republicans." -Tucker Carlson |
| 2005/4/5-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Reference/Tax] UID:37075 Activity:high |
4/5 Pope JP2's death reminds me of Ronald Reagan's death. I don't agree
with most of Reagan's policies and in fact I think they're stupid.
Tax break for the super wealthy, military spending explosion,
aggressive [redneck] foreign policies, etc. However, when he's on
camera he's so nice looking and charming and I just can't help it
liking him. Ditto with JP2. I don't agree with b-control and other
crap JP2 says but I still like him for some reason.
\_ A tax cut that moved the highest bracket from 70% to 28%. 70%!!?!
How did we ever allow that? It's immoral!
\_ You shouldn't tax the rich, they CREATE jobs and equal
opportunity for everyone! Just look at Microsoft, WalMart,
and Dell! Every employee looks so happy and they REALLY believe
in their company! Let's all turn America into one big happy
corporate family. Yeah!
\_ You're being dense. Nobody's arguing against taxing "the
rich" (what the hell kind of dumbshit stupid, ill-educated
American fat-buttocked Fox viewer demagoguery is that,
anyway?) The point is that taking 70% of a person's
earnings is, besides being counter-productive (as it removes
the motivation to excel, etc. etc.) is just theft. Please
stop it with the "anyone who argues against fleecing teh
r1ch is a bloated plutocrat pig, workers of the world
unite!" horse shit, it's unworthy. -John
\_ According to your argument, any tax at all is "theft."
What is the difference between taxing at 70% and 50%?
50% and 20%? Do you think that all taxes should be
abolished because they are "theft"? Why not? What is
magical about 70%? Plenty of countries tax at
a marginal 70% rate and somehow manage to muddle through.
\_ I believe that any tax taken, regardless of rate, by
a government that does not do its utmost to use its
citizens' money responsibly and conservatively is
theft. Nowhere from my statement can you infer that I
belive "any tax at all is theft". Furthermore, while
there is a large gray area, there comes a point at
which taxation is oppressive. I maintain that, once
more of your earnings are taken from you as taxes than
go to you, a boundary of what is reasonable has been
crossed. And I believe you used the magic word,
"muddle". Is that something to strive for? -John
\_ Microsoft has made a lot of very ordinary Americans very
wealthy.
\_ The Waltons were smarter than Gates, they made sure their
money didn't leak out as in the case of M$.
\_ It is inhumane to tax the super rich. Imagine the pain
Paris Hilton has to go through when she can only afford to buy a
BMW 740i instead of a Ferrari Testarosa, or the suffering of
George W. Bush when he can only play at a cheapo 4 star golf
course instead of a full fledged 5 star golf course. It's
simply unusual and cruel punishment.
\_ It doesn't even cause that. They still afford what they want.
\_ Don't forget Paris resorted to making herself a porn in order
to afford a BMW 740i. That's cruel punishment.
\_ Do you not understand how marginal tax rates work?
\_ Yes I do. A 70% marginal rate is immoral.
\_ What a strange and twisted version of ethics you must have.
\_ I could argue it's immoral to allow billionares to exist when
there are people starving.
\_ It's immoral to allow my neighbor to own a Ferrari when I
only drive an Audi. What the fuck kind of argument is this?
Spawning season on planet thick? -John
\_ Having to drive an Audi is not very much like starving
to death. Your analogy is flawed.
\_ Of course it's flawed, it's downright silly. Now tell
me where exactly the line is. Until then you have no
argument. And from whom should we expropriate assets
to feed all these people? Billionaires? Millionaires?
Over $500k? $100k? Yes it sucks that there's poverty
and starvation and hurt and whatnot and we should all
do what we can, but please, do give me a working model
that relies on a Robin Hood approach. -John
\_ Just because I cannot give you an exact answer
without further experimentation doesn't mean
that no experiment is worth doing. Sweden is
a pretty good working model, I would say. So
are Canada, Denmark, The Netherlands, Germany,
France, Italy and even Switzerland.
\_ I am going to guess that you subscribe to the
utopian ideals of Europe and Canada instead
of witnessing the realities.
\_ No, I have been to all these countries.
Canada and The Netherlands are especially nice.
\_ Holland *USED* to be nice. My mother
was born there and lived there until 16.
All the rest of her family is still there.
They used to always make fun of how bad
things like education, crime, and medicine
were in the US. Now, many of them are
shopping for houses here in the US. It's
not nice like it once was. The system is
collapsing.
\_ Sweden has been haemorrhaging educated
professionals for years who forsake it for the
UK (!) and its lower taxes. All Scandinavian
countries have massive immigration problems, and
can't cope (as the rest of Europe) with their
overburdened welfare systems. Switzerland has
way lower taxes and stingy welfare, and will face
the same problems. You're right about "it's
worth trying something". But blind truisms about
redistribution of wealth at the expense of "the
rich" isn't it. Some people will always simply
be wealthier than others--life isn't fair; you
cannot enforce uniform economic equality. -John
\_ No one is arguing for enforced equality. That
is a straw man you made up to avoid talking
about the real issue: what is a fair top
marginal rate. You claim that 70% is immoral,
but have provided no evidence as to why that
is so, other than your feelings. Sweden is
doing fine economically actually, much better
than the rest of Europe. And "the line" to
answer your previous question, is that point
where society provides enough resources to
keep anyone from starving to death. I don't
think it is too much to ask from those who
are the primary beneficiaries of that same
society.
\_ OK. To be honest, I would add "a roof over
everyone's head" and even "education" to
that mix. I simply massively criticize the
extreme polemicization of the idea of
forced redistribution--i.e. the systematic
fleecing of "the rich" rather than a
decent tax system (which nobody's arguing
against.) Governments are massively
inefficient organizations, and it's wrong
to use the classic European welfare states
as examples of how to do things right--they
have been either stagnant or coming apart
at the seams. Yes, Holland is nice, but as
a visitor don't let utopian visions cloud
your impressions. I spend a lot of time
in W. Europe and the UK, and there are too
many problems to elaborate on, a lot of
them caused by over-bureaucratization and
crazy government taxation & fiscal
intervention. -John
intervention. Oh yeah, and as for Sweden,
you've probably read the Rijksbank report.
Look at http://tinyurl.com/6ut95 too. -John
\_ Communist! Seriously, by American
standards you are some kind of loonie
liberal.
liberal. I have no doubt that bad
government is bad. I see lots of
bureaucratic bungling in San Francisco,
and we have much less to work with than
they do in the Scandanavian countries.
But the solution to this is to make
the government institutions more
efficient. The Swedes seem to like
their government just fine, so they
must be doing something right. Thanks
for the link, btw, I had not seen that.
http://csua.org/u/bm1 (The Economist)
Sweden is the second fastest growing
economy on that list. And if you go
by GDP/capita, which is what really
matters to a person, they rival the US.
It's growing quickly, the quality of life is great, and according to many _/
economic indicators, they're just dandy. However, this relies on adherence to
a social contract which is slowly coming apart, cultural homogeneity (ditto),
and enough people working to keep up the fun (ditto.) Economic excellence,
entrepreneurship, and personal mobility seem disparaged (i.e. don't get above
your station, sit around having smiling blond babies.) Same in many European
countries. The Swedes (except for aforementioned educated professionals who
are fleeing in droves to avoid taxes) love it, which is great. This model
would not work in many other places--note how high taxes, bureaucracy and
govt. inefficiency have just about destroyed the German economy--and frankly
it frightens me just a bit. And yes I probably am a bit of a commie in some
respects--I think that (a) I deserve quality and accountability for _my_ $$$,
and (b) it doesn't have to cost an arm and a leg. -John
\_ I would argue that the massive deficits of
the USA give a false sense of economic
health.
\_ please do.
\_ that's not very Randian of you
\_ Or very Jeffersonian.
\_ "The property of this country is absolutely concentred
in a very few hands ...
Another means of silently lessening the inequality
of property is to exempt all from taxation below a
certain point, and to tax the higher portions of
property in geometrical progression as they rise."
-Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785
\_ He was referring to land, which is truly a limited
resource.
\_ So would you agree to cut taxes on one's primary
home, and ramp up tax rates on 2nd, 3rd homes
etc? Currently we have the opposite. The tax
situation is better on a 2nd investment home
and there's no limits.
\_ Sounds reasonable to me. -pp
\_ Just cut down on Asian immigration.
They're like the Jews in the 30s, buying up
cheap land (Silicon Valley land is cheap
relative to expensive Tokyo and HK properties)
and screwing up us natives. Go final solution!
\_ Somehow I doubt you're a "native"
\_ Price per sq ft living space in SF is going
to beat HK soon.
\_ Don't forget the previous paragraph to his letter:
(I am talking about "people starving" vs.
billionaires and morality, not necessarily
Jefferson's views on an income tax)
"As soon as I had got clear of the town I fell in with
a poor woman walking at the same rate with myself and
going the same course. Wishing to know the condition of
the laboring poor I entered into conversation with her.
... As we had walked together near a mile and she has so
far served me as a guide, I gave her, on parting, 24
sous. She burst into tears of a gratitude which I could
perceive was unfeigned because she was unable to utter a
word. ... This little attendrissement, with the solitude
of my walk, led me into a train of reflections on that
unequal ision of property which occasions the numberless
instances of wretchedness which I had observed in this
country and is to be observed all over Europe."
\_ "The rich alone use imported articles, and on these
alone the whole taxes of the General Government are
levied ...
We shall soon see the final extinction of our national
debt, and liberation of our revenues for the defense
and improvement of our country. These revenues will be
levied entirely on the rich. ... The farmer will see his
government supported, his children educated, and the
face of his country made a paradise by the
contributions of the rich alone, without his being
called on to spend a cent from his earnings."
\_ Look, the Gov't should never get more of my income than I do.
That's simple enough.
\_ the government didn't get 70% of anyone's income. Get
a clue. -tom
\_ I am sure it did happen. Why not?
\_ Of the income in the bracket. Are you sure no one ever
had an effective tax rate of >50%?
\_ My overall tax rate, including state and federal
was about 40% in 2000, so I would not be surprised
at all if someone had a 50%+ rate at some point
when the tax rate was higher.
\_ Don't forget to add 8% sales tax, > 50% gas taxes,\
etc, etc.
\_ Don't forget to add 8% sales tax, > 50% gas taxes,
etc, etc.
\_ They were both previously actors.
\_ Ah-nold!
\- As I have said many times, this is really at core a conversation
about "what we owe each other". Well, there are other ways to
formulate the core question, but it isnt a conversation about
tax policy alone. You might want to for example google for
"wilt chamberlain, nozick, liberty upsets patterns". I dont
have a problem with people being wealthy and in general a very
asymmetric distribution of wealth. And I also dont think you
can do much about say the wealthy having better health care
than the avg person. But in certain areas, we can do something
about keeping a level playing field or try to have a "floor".
While the Nozick view about voluntary contribution to Wilt ->
nobody can complain when he is rich, is complelling, these
claims that spending money = free speech liberty in a political
context, so there should not be any limits on campaing spending
seems iffy and other areas where the state can do something
about buying influence [like say legacy considerations in
college admissions, buying organs etc.]. And if you do want to
tlk about tax policy, let's look at what people actually pay
rather than one number, the highest marginal tax rate.
\_ Although I agree 70% is way too high, there should definitely
be market controls to regulate the free market (not necessarily
taxes). I believe a "completely" free Market will eventually lead
to a caste society with a limited middle class. The gap in pay
between average workers and large company CEOs surpassed
300-to-1 in 2003, but in 1982, it was just 42-to-1. Annual pay was
$26,899 in 2003, up just 2.1% from 2002 according to the Bureau of
Labor Statistics. The average large company CEO received
compensation totaling $8.1 million in 2003, up 9.1% from the
previous year. The average worker took home $517 in their
weekly paycheck in 2003; the average large company CEO took
home $155,769 in their weekly pay.If the minimum wage had increased
as quickly as CEO pay since 1990, it would today be $15.71 per hour,
more than three times the current minimum wage of $5.15 an hour.
http://tinyurl.com/5tc4t
\_ Are you stupid? EVERYONE knows that the wealth gap is increasing
disproportionally esp. in the US and everyone knows that the
current Reagan-worshipping administration doesn't really give
a damn. You don't need to spend 10 million dollars on formal
inquiries to find out if Clinton had sex in the Whitehouse or
not; it's just common knowledge.
\_ Speaking of Clinton, the wage gap grew tremendously under
Clinton.
\- clinton didnt try to repeal the billionaire estate
preservation tax. however his pardon of marc rich does
give us an example of of the problems that can be avoided.
\_ Does it ever shrink? Did it grow more under Clinton or
under Bush?
\_ i believe more under Clinton, but he had a booming
economy for 7+ years.
\_ As wages have DROPPED under bush, this whole point
has a definite apples-to-oranges feel.
\_ This is simply not true. The poorest quintile's share
of national income grew under Clinton. Unless you are
talking about something else, like the average ratio\
of CEO pay to worker pay. What are you talking about?
talking about something else, like the average ratio
of CEO pay to worker pay. What are you talking about?
\_ References please
\_ google for: wage gap under clinton. here's an example:
http://www.ncpa.org/pd/economy/pdeco/dec97nnn.html
\_ Here are much better statistics:
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy441/trends/share1.html
Go look at the whole site. The top got richer,
but the poor did not get poorer. It was the middle
class that really took a hit under Clinton.
\_ That's an odd conclusion to reach from the data
there.
\_ In 1992, the bottom quintile took 4.2% of
the national income. In 2000, they took
4.3%. 4.3 is larger than 4.2, right?
\_ I was talking about the "middle class ..
took a hit" conclusion. The quintiles
moved, but the data are incomplete. Did
the second or fourth quintile grow?
\_ http://csua.org/u/bm0
The top quintile made a bunch more
and the bottom stayed the same. It
should be pretty easy to figure out
who is left and what happened to them.
\_ Look at the full data:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/f03.html
income increased for all levels
through the clintotn years. Bush
takes office and the bottom gets
taken, the middle slows and the
top keeps rising.
\_ I'm all for Bush, Cheney and Co having wild & raunchy
bestiality S&M orgies 24/7 in the White House if it will
make my stock portfolio go back up to 2000 levels when
Clinton was getting in trouble for getting his cock sucked.
\_ Well you could have done *better* than 2000 had you gotten
in/out of Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Enron. A lot of
Texans didn't get in/out of the tech era, but now they're
pretty happy with the current administration. Sucks 2 b u.
\_ I did fine actually, just no longer rich on paper. |
| 2005/3/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:36724 Activity:nil |
3/16 New White House cliche: "We were all wrong"
We were "all" wrong about WMD, "all" wrong about deficits:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050316/greenspan_2.html
\_ Don't forget: "If confronted with the same evidence we had back
then, I would recommend exactly what I recommended then" |
| 2005/3/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:36714 Activity:moderate |
3/16 Why is Congress investigating steroid use in baseball? Were the
steroids illegal?
\_ Yes. But it seems that there might be a few things more pressing
for Congress's attention right now...
\_ My question would be: why does the Congress care about steoid use in
baseball? If it's legal, leave them alone. If it's illegal, leave
them to the judicial branch.
\_ Bread and circuses my friend. Bread and circuses.
\_ Interestingly, congress gave baseball a special exemption from
anti-trust law. So they do have special status according to
congress.
\_ Kind of like how our tax dollars are wasted policing things like
illegal MP3 and movie trading? Or for that matter, the whole
"war on drugs" which has resulted in nothing but wasted lives
and wasted money? Welcome to the world of politics, my friend.
\_ I'm not your friend.
\_ Welcome to the world of politics, you dick.
\_ I think he was being mildly patronizing and you're clearly
too stupid to pick up on that, my overly literal and rather
obtuse friend.
\_ I knew he was being patronizing and was calling him out on
that. Now who's being obtuse, friend?
\_ Hmm. No, it's still you. Train harder, grasshopper.
\_ You're a doody-head! NYAH NYAH NYAH!!!
\_ I guess this means that you're not \my\ friend
either...thank God.
\_ Just for fun, order these by how much the government spent on each:
Investigating Bill Clinton's alleged real estate fraud
Investigating why the last space shuttle tragedy happened
Investigating the 9/11 terrorist attacks
\_ Looks like you already have. |
| 11/26 |
| 2005/3/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:36592 Activity:high |
3/9 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/08/politics/main678902.shtml Hilary Clinton may run in 2008. WTF are the Democrats thinking? First they bring in the oh so boring Goring, then the uncharismatic Kerry, and now this? How lame can they be -disillusioned, former democrat \_ in other news, her financier pleads guilty to massive fraud, and her finance director is indicted. Ex-Stan Lee Chief Peter Paul to Plead in Securities Case (demands Hillary to "take responsibility") http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1358025/posts Obviously this is part of the VRWC Obviously this is part of the VRWC -Disillusioned Freeper \_ Look, if you are a former democrat, we aren't really interested in your opinion. She *might* run. If you were a democrat, you *might* have something to say about it. But you don't, so shut up. I personally think she is a great candidate. -former independent up. I personally think she is a great candidate. It is listening to people like you that got us John Kerry. Howard Dean would have been the candidate if the Democrats had any sense. He either would have A) won outright or B) energized the party by adding millions of enthusiastic young people to it. Instead we got boring Kerry. -former independent \_ Dipshit, the party was energized. Kerry got far more votes than Gore did, and raised more money than any candidate ever except GW in the same election. Let's face it: Kerry didn't lose, Bush won. \_ Are you former democrat? \_ I'm a former independent. I joined so I could vote in the 2004 primary. I supported Dean until he dropped out, but I genuinely liked Kerry, and was happy to support him for the remainder of the race. \_ Droopy face didn't have a chance. What we really need is a character who isn't going to be owned by a weak accusation like "flip flopper." Kerry did not have the charisma nor the strength to beat Bush and we are getting killed or it now. You need someone that people can like, like frat boy Bush, to actually get some votes. -mrauser \_ Look, it is hard to beat an incumbent president. Since the Great Depression it has only happened three times; once after Watergate, and twice during significant recessions. "We didn't beat the incumbent" is the expected result. We don't need to wring our hands about what we did wrong; I do think we need to figure out what the message will be in 2006/2008. I wish the Democrats would do a better job of not letting Republicans frame the issues. -tom \_ Not to disagree with you, but Ann Coulter framing the issues: http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43219 \_ Ann "the best way to talk to a liberal is with a baseball bat" Coulter? Is that the kind of framing you refer to??? \_ Coulter's spittle is not really what I'm referring to. It's more like things like "death tax" or "welfare reform", where the Republicans have managed to frame the debate in such a way that the Democrats argue not over whether the Republican ideas are fundamentally wrong, but over how to implement the Republican ideas in a different way. -tom \- That is Grover Power. \_ Are you ready? Are you? Here comes... "Howard Dean - chairman of the party that supports murder, adultery, lying about adultery, coveting other people's money, stealing other people's money, mass-producing human embryos for spare parts like an automotive chop shop and banning God - has called the Republican Party 'evil.'" Feel the love. \_ I got a granny who's never seen an online forum that could troll better than this. \_Say what you will about my Darlin' Anne, THIS is funny: "Aspiring first lady Teresa Heinz claims the election was stolen through the machinations of a vast conspiracy involving Republican polling machine manufacturers. We eagerly await a Michael Moore documentary to flesh out the details." \_ THIS is an old gag is what it is but whatever floats your boat... |
| 2005/3/8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:36581 Activity:moderate |
3/8 Why do conservatives have such a deep personal hatred of Hillary
Clinton? I've seen her referred to as the "Evil One" on freerepublic,
and I'm a little confused as to why the hatred for her is so personal.
\_ She's feminism, pro-choice, and lying bitch all rolled into one.
They do have some regard for toughness, so in this respect think
she bests Bubba in this respect.
\_ Her power makes their penis seem even smaller.
\_ From what I remember in the early 90's, it was because she was
very active in pushing her health care reform plan even though
she was never elected as a policy-maker. At least that's when the
hatred began. |
| 2005/3/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36565 Activity:very high |
3/7 Isn't it weird that 33 people got killed in Iraq today and it's no
longer on headline news? Instead, Michael Jackson's trial is
on it. It's like we no longer care about deaths in Iraq. Weird.
\_ But those are brown people.
\_ good point, thanks. I guess they'll be on headline news when
they're white, or when they're brown people with special
Vitilgo skin whitening disease and noses that change frequently
\_ MJ is white though
\_ and female.
\_ And he *loves* children.
\_ It's not on the Conservative Media Cartel's list of stuff the public
should be informed about. Kind of like Gannongate, which, if it
had happened under President Clinton, would be broadcast 24/7 like
Monica Lewinsky was.
\_ Oh come, ON. You don't think there's a difference between a
reporter getting 1-day passes to press conferences, and a
president commiting perjury?
\_ Do you think there's a difference between lying a personal
matter and lying about the need for war?
\_ Do you think there's a difference between lying about a
personal matter and lying about the need for war? Or how
'bout marital infidelity vs. outing a CIA agent working on
WMD proliferation (to bring the argument closer to Guckie).
I'm sickened that Clinton would cheat on his wife. I'm
sickened that he lied under oath. But it was a personal
matter and a civil suit and it was thrown out as meritless.
Also, no one fucking died.
\_ it was not thrown out. He was disbarred in Ark. and
before the USSC. The suit was settled for money.
How is Iraq and different than Kosovo, at least we
are fighting on the right side this tims.
\_ Are you pro-Serb? I am not quite energetic right now
enough to tell you why Iraq is not Serbia. - danh
\_ It smelled of "Christian: good. Muslim: bad."
bullshit. I'm guessing emarkp.
\_ The settlement was on appeal. The case was dismissed
in a summary judgement: "There are no genuine issues
for trial in this case." - Judge Susan Webber Wright
\_ 'Also, no one fucking died.' I think it's a little trickier
than that. People can die because of indirect action
(sanctions, etc), and inaction. If you want to pin
unintended casualties on Bush, I will pin people Saddam
killed during Clinton's term on Clinton. -- ilyas
\_ Don't forget Vince Foster. He died.
\_ I think we should execute Bush for killing Iraqi
children. With his texan, oil-stained hands. -- ilyas
\_ How many millions starve to death each year just
because there is no profit in feeding them???
\_ We are talking about American lives here.
\_ Wow, I'm impressed. That was a very successful
subject change. "Dang, he caught me in a stupid
statement! Change the subject! Bush Bad!"
\_ Conservatives prefer a bumbling but honest fool to an
intelligent prevaricator.
\_ A political hack, with no journalistic experience but
working as a prostitute, somehow gets a press pass
in order to lob softballs week after week. Yes, this
is a scandal. Not on the order of Monicagate though. |
| 2005/2/19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:36250 Activity:nil |
2/19 emarkp, jrleek, did it piss you guys off when Clinton had sex with all
these women? Did you think that he was an incapable president for
having sex in white house and that he should have been impeached for it?
\_ I have a related question. How many of you were pissed off that
the President of the Nnited States had to settle for a fat ugly
LA girl? If he's going to be boining in the White House it
should have been a HOTTIE.
\_ I'm getting tired of these anonymous questions directed at me. I'll
just comment that Clinton was not impeached for having sex in the
white house. -emarkp |
| 2005/2/19-20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:36249 Activity:nil |
2/19 Looking for quotes that are syntactially different, but are equivalent
semantically. I'll start:
\_ BlockBuster: "There is NO LATE FEE. There is a restocking fee after
7 days"
\_ "The end of late fees... the start of more."
Clinton: "I did not have sex with that woman. Monica Lewinski. I did
have oral actions with her."
Bush: "There will be NO DRAFT. Extended volunteer will be required
for some people."
\_ who are already in the military... Nice one troll.
\_ Some soldiers who were already scheduled to leave
or wanted to leave have not been allowed. --> Draft.
\_ Is that "equivalent"? |
| 2005/2/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Science/Space] UID:36165 Activity:high |
2/14 Eileen M. Collins, commander of the upcoming space shuttle flight, a
former colonel in the Air Force and a veteran of three spaceflights,
said "I'm a person who won't even get on a roller coaster at an
amusement park because they scare me. I've been on one once, and I
won't do it again."
I find this very hard to believe.
http://csua.org/u/b1q (Yahoo! News)
\_ Typical error about military astronauts - they are not former
\_ You should read Chuck Yeager's autobiography where he claims that
he now drives like an old lady. Just because someone can tolerate
risk when they're in control and NASA engineers are in charge of
safty doesn't mean they like to put their lives in the hands of
random idiots for fun.
\_ HH would test pilot first run planes but was afraid of doorknobs
\_ Do recomend the Aviator?
\_ It's got some cool visuals and is neat for the whole 1930s
glam environment, but drags a bit and is pretty Hollywood-y,
and has too many random loose ends. See a matinee. -John
\_ HH?
\_ Just a guess: Howard Hughes.
\_ Heh, right. Gotitnow. -PP
\_ "Could I pass the challenge of a background check? My answer is
absolutely. Not only could I pass the background check and the
standards applied to today's White House, but I could have
passed the background check and the standards applied on the most
stringent conditions when my dad was President -- a 15-year period."
-President GW Bush (August 1999)
\_ And this is relevant because? Get over it - you lost
\_ Our President is a former cokehead / drunk!
An astronaut is afraid of rollercoasters!
Also: Get over it - our President is still an object of
ridicule.
\_ All presidents are objects of ridicule.
\_ Not Clinoccio!
\_ Correct, but we now have one whose oral abilities
are comparable to or worse than Dan Quayle's
(ob Clinton-Monica joke)
\_ [political troll deleted]
\_ I'm terrified of rollercoasters. I don't like being up high on a
structure that shakes. But I enjoy flying. |
| 2005/2/11 [Politics/Foreign, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:36149 Activity:high |
2/11 Jesus fucked on a crutch. 49% of americans believe Foreign Aid is
one of the two biggest government programs.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/sspoll020905.pdf
(scroll down a bit)
\_ Hey but it is down from 67% when Clinton was President!
\_ 49% of Americans being complete tards? Sounds about right. That's
the big peak of the bell curve right around that 50% moron point.
\_ It's closer to 51%. |
| 2005/2/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:36133 Activity:very high |
2/10 "No one could have imagined" a plot so monstrous as
crashing civilian passenger jets into the twin towers of the
World Trade Center and the Pentagon. -Rice in front of 9/11 Commission
http://csua.org/u/b0q (AOL news)
FAA got 52 Warnings before 9/11.
\_ Did anyone here see the Lone Gunmen pilot episode? Apparently
Rice didn't.
\_ That's nice troll. Why don't you read Robert Serling?
\_ Uhm, you realize that the government gets literally thousands
of terrorists threats each day, don't you? If the government were
to follow up on every threat made we would simply be paralyzed.
You also realize that the world contains 6 billion people, and
it's virtually impossible to monitor everyone, right? I'm sure
the WTC got at least two threats a day before 9/11. What are
going to do, shut down New York?
\_ Condi's specific claim is "no one could have imagined" it.
Obviously, that's not true. -tom
\_ Got evidence for this claim? The first and third ones.
\_ Agreed. Maybe that was the terrorists' strategy before 9/11 --
spreading lots of rumors on non-existing attack plans to numb the
intelligence community.
\_ Maybe. But the FAA itself knew about the possibility.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=609895
All that aside, let's see you defend the suppression of info.
\_ Suppression of info? What a wonderful world of fantasy
you live in. On the one hand you chide the president and
his men for keeping America in constant fear of terrorism
using the alert level system, then you go back in history
and complain that before 9/11 we weren't scaring the
American public into preventing 9/11. Sorry, but you can't
have it both ways. Stop flip-flopping like a Kerryite.
Do you want to live in a safe society or do you want to
live in a free society? There's no such thing as a
completely free society that is completely safe, so pick
and choose, chimpy.
\_ Uh, no, I was talking about them suppressing info NOW,
about what was going on THEN. get it? And pointing out that
Rice's statement is patent bullshit.
\_ You know, if Clancy can think of it to put into one of his pulp
novels, it's that much of a stretch of the imagination.
novels, it's not that much of a stretch of the imagination.
\_ From the independent.co.uk link above: "The latest pages note that
of the FAA's 105 daily intelligence summaries between 1 April 2001
and 10 September 2001, 52 of them mentioned Osama bin Laden,
al-Qa'ida, or both." -- so much for the "thousands and thousands"
threats BS -- they obviously were pretty sure about this attack.
\_ The FAA is one organization amongst many. If you collectively
take up all the organizations such as the FBI, CIA, the
Secret Service, the Armed Forces, NASA, the American Postal
System, Amtrak, etc. etc. you'd realize that the government
does get literally thousands upon thousands of threats per
day. And before 9/11 nobody even knew or cared much about
Osama Bin Laden. Hindsight is always 20/20. If you want to
blame someone you should go and blame Clinton for not picking
up Osama from Sudan when he was offered to us on a silver
platter by the Sudanese government.
Yesterday it was Khaddaffi, today it's Osama, tomorrow it
could be you. Anyway, terrorists aren't only middle eastern,
remember an incident in Oklahoma City? So let's try to take
your head out of your ass and utilize that brain of yours and
actually think this through before making overarching comments
based on a small dataset.
\_ You seem to think volume excuses failure. Keeping us safe
is their JOB.
\_ You seem to assume that law enforcement is 100% effective.
Unfortunately, the real world is much less perfect than
what you assume. If you had ever taken a course on crime
you'd realize that perhaps 10% of all crimes are reported,
and of that 10% perhaps 25-50% actually are followed up on.
\_ Of course not. There were increased threat reports.
There were signs everywhere. There were warnings
from the previous administrations' people. Bush's
White House did NOTHING to act on any of it. On the
day, the Hijack Coordinator at the FAA said he didn't
know if he had the authority to order an intercept of
a plane, off course and flying low. DIDN'T KNOW.
Intercepts are ordered all the time. Any time a plane
does something it's not supposed to. And the guy
DIDN'T KNOW. that doesn't fucking bother you?
\_ Blame Reagan for arming him, training him and giving
him an international stage.
\_ That Osama from Sudan story is total BS -- what would we
have charged bin Laden with, exactly, in 1996? Remember,
before 9/11, we actually respected international law and
such, and didn't just throw people we thought might be
dangerous in Gitmo. The Clinton Administration tried to get
Saudi Arabia to take bin Laden and convict him but the Saudis
wouldn't take him, fearing a extremist backlash. So, since
you say "20/20 hindsight and all", what EXACTLY should Clinton
have done, remembering that back then we actually paid more
than lip service to the Constitution and international law?
There are thousands of threats made every day, and it is the
job of the government
to deal with that. They stop many attacks, they miss some,
but it is their job to identify the really really big ones
and prevent those. And they failed on 9/11. Now, if there
was zero intelligence or warning they can be excused but
it is becoming clear they had a pretty good idea and didn't
do enough. It is also the airlines' fault for always
resisting tougher security measures. We created Osama
bin laden, and when Clinton handed over the keys to Bush
HE SPECIFICALLY WARNED BUSH THAT TERRORISM AND BIN LADEN
AND AL QUEDA WERE THE BIGGEST THREATS to this country. So
none of this "before 9/11 no one knew/cared about bin laden"
There is also the possibility that 9/11 could have happened
with or without bin Laden being alive/free. What's
interesting is that you excuse the Bush admin from not
stopping the attack saying no one is 100% perfect yet somehow
Clinton does get blame -- he has to be 100% perfect?
\_ Clinton gets the blame because all of the planning
happened under his watch and he did very little. The
Cole was bombed, the WTC was bombed, and Clinton
thought a missile strike was enough. Clinton was wrong.
He doesn't need to be crucified for his mistake, but it
was a mistake nonetheless. We don't really know how
seriously Bush would have taken these threats if 9/11
did not happen, since he had barely been in office. We
do know what Clinton did or did not do, though.
\_ WTC bombing under clinton was, what, 3 weeks into his
presidency? Have you heard of Project Bojinka? Year
2000 bombing plots? Bush was in office for 9 months.
His people didn't listen to ANYTHING the clinton people
said. We paid the price.
\_ How did Clinton respond to the WTC bombing and
what did he do to prevent another? You can't
blame Bush for 8 years of Clinton ineffectiveness.
\_ He arrested and prosecuted those involved you
dumb fuck! He made anti-terrorism a focus of
the administration. They stopped Project Bojinka.
They stopped the New Years bombing plot. How many
convictions did Ashcroft deliver? How many will
Gonzales? You really have no fucking clue.
\_ I do not think you can credit Clinton for
stopping the Millenium plot. The truth is
that Clinton didn't really do anything to
enhance US security at home or abroad in
spite of frequent attacks against the US.
\_ Who would _you_ credit? Ressam and 3
accomplices were stopped, arrested,
convicted, and Ressam was flipped. Under
who's watch?
\_ What policy or action of Clinton's
led to the arrest? It was just a
suspicious official looking for drugs
that happened upon the plot.
\_ Border guards had been alerted to
look for suspicious activity. There
was definitely a degree of luck, but
you can encourage luck by paying
attention. Jordan warned us. Clinton
and Co. took notice.
\_ Yeah, Bush was only in office for about a year of
calendar time, but with all the vacations he was
taking, who can say how much work of any kind he did.
\_ Not even a year, but Bill was in office for eight.
Just comparing Bush's terms to Clinton's so far
it is clear tha Bush is better at this, BUT he
also has Clinton's failures to point to.
\_ Better at what? Also,, list Clinton's "failures"
in this arena.
\_ Embassy bombings, USS Cole, Saudi bombings, etc
\_ Here's another analogy that perhaps will help those who don't
understand how difficult it is to keep something like airlines
secure. Even if you did only get one threat everday for a week
day and you knew say that there was a 70% chance it was real,
you'd have an exceedingly difficult time pinpointing where
and actually when it would occur. Let's assume you knew it was
the WTC even, how many flights are there daily that could have
been potential targets for the terrorists? Maybe a hundred?
So what are going to do, stop all flights every day because
you had a 70% chance of certainty? Void air travel altogether?
The FAA had 52 threats in a given time period, and they had
absolutely no probability measure to determine if the threat
was going to be real. What are you going to do, shut down
all air travel until all threats disappear?
Okay, say that you want to mandate safer cockpits or put
sky marshalls up there for every flight. That's going to take
a long time to get through congress and longer for the airlines
to implement without actually having gone through a threat.
The ultimate question is, how likely is there a risk of a
terrorist attack and how many people is it going to kill
and how much pain are people willing to suffer to prevent
such an attack? It's like the question on how to keep a
computer completely secure from hackers. There is a real
easy method, unplug it from the network. Are you willing
to do that?
\_ I was critiquing Rice's obviously BS excuse that she
gave the 9/11 Commission, not the failure itself.
\_ Why do you think Ashcroft started using a private jet to get
around the country instead of using an airline?
\_ Because the air traffic control frequencies used by commercial
airlines interfere with his 2 way radio to God? |
| 2005/2/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36129 Activity:very high |
2/10 http://www.amconmag.com/2005_02_14/article.html Heil Bush. Article by conservative writer about the birth of fascism in Germany and present-day US. \_ Does it use the word 'neocon'? (okay, I checked--what a surprise it does.) \_ I know you guys are upset because we came up with a word that pisses you off as much as us being called liberals pisses us off. Payback's a b****. \_ I don't get pissed off by "liberal". I'm liberal and proud. --scotsman \_ Except conservatives didn't come up with 'liberal'. The whole 'neocon' usage has been a too-thinly-veiled attempt to associate conservatives with neo-nazis IMO. That fact that no one can define 'neocon' doesn't help. \_ Wrong: http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html Here is another (similar) definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States What is the definition of a liberal? \_ Hehe. There is no way me and Cheney can belong to the same ideological group. We disagree on almost everything. -- ilyas \_ I don't believe you and I'm not trolling. If this is so, I would like to see it elucidated. Near as I can tell from reading your stuff here for the past couple of years, you've been a consistent apologist for Cheney and his ilk the entire time. That might not, I suppose, mean you *agree* with him. That's fine. On a great number of things I didn't agree with Kerry or Dean. -- ulysses \_ Oh, I just go by the issue quiz I took during the 2000 election, where I agreed with him the least, and with Lieberman the most (omg j00!). I don't think I am an 'apologist' for the Bush administration policies -- I don't like a number of things they did; the war in Iraq is not one of them. (I also liked how you framing me as an 'apologist' also neatly frames their entire tenure as something that needs an apology). Bush admin != Cheney. Near as I can tell the only remotely controversial thing about Cheney was the Halliburton thing, which I have no problems with for reasons unrelated to my disagreements with Cheney himself. One thing I really like about Cheney is that he's really smart. -- ilyas \_ I suspect you and Cheney can both agree that Tom is a twink. \_ Touche. -- ilyas \_ There is one obvious solution: you are not a neocon. \_ A fair number of people on soda will disagree with you. Which is sort of my point. It's a non-concept. -- ilyas \_ How about "signatories to PNAC"? \_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States \_ What pisses me off is the neo-liberals hijacking the "liberal" name. \_ Thanks for the article. I realize that Nazis are often used to criticize political opponents who are nothing of the sort, but I this is a valid comparison. I used to wonder how the Nazi party could come to power in a democracy, but after living through the first Bush administration I can now imagine it. When the leaders of a country are so convinced that they are right that they will repeatedly deceive everyone else about their policies, disaster can't be far behind. Unfortunately, I think that our country is so polarized that people can no longer have a rational discussion about this. \_ You are actually comparing Bush's first term to Nazi Germany? WTF? How tight is your tin-foil hat? \_ Did you read the article? It compares the rise of fascist tendencies in Germany pre-WW2 to a similar rise in post-9/11 America. There is no direct comparison between Bush's first term to Nazi Germany, but rather a comparison between the term and the factors existing in Germany that _preceeded_ fascism. -op \_ I think you are just needlessly confusing things by your repeated referencing of Nazi Germany. There were many many countries that have been fascist that were not racialist, the way the Nazis were. Franco or Mussolini are better examples to use because they less emotion laden. \_ point taken. edited accordingly. -op \_ Dude, you said racialist. \_ No, I have not read the article and have no intention of doing so. I'm worn out from so many stupid attempts to call Bush Hitler. It was done in that UCB study last year, and it's been done elsewhere. Here's an idea. Read the essay again and try to match anyplace else to Nazi Germany. I'm confident you'll be able to compare Clinton or anyone else as well as Bush. \_ The article doesn't call Bush Hitler. In fact, it doesn't even call Bush fascist: "I don't think there are yet real fascists in the administration ..." As mentioned in prior posts, the article is about the populace more than the leadership. -op \_ The magazine it is written is The American Conservative, not some lefty rag. For that reason at least, you should be willing to read it. \_ Meh. I've never read the mag before, why should I read it now? This paragraph grabbed my attention and made me realize it's full of crap: "But Rockwell (and Roberts and Raimondo) is correct in drawing attention to a mood among some conservatives that is at least latently fascist. Rockwell describes a populist Right website that originally rallied for the impeachment of Bill Clinton as .hate-filled ... advocating nuclear holocaust and mass bloodshed for more than a year now.. One of the biggest right-wing talk-radio hosts regularly calls for the mass destruction of Arab cities. Letters that come to this magazine from the pro-war Right leave no doubt that their writers would welcome the jailing of dissidents. And of course it.s not just us. When USA Today founder Al Neuharth wrote a column suggesting that American troops be brought home sooner rather than later, he was blown away by letters comparing him to Tokyo Rose and demanding that he be tried as a traitor. That mood, Rockwell notes, dwarfs anything that existed during the Cold War. .It celebrates the shedding of blood, and exhibits a maniacal love of the state. The new ideology of the red-state bourgeoisie seems to actually believe that the US is God marching on earth.not just godlike, but really serving as a proxy for God himself.." \_ You're missing quotation marks. The last two sentences are a quote from Rockwell, and not the author of the article. The rest of the paragraph describes facts, except for the one statement that the mood described in these facts is "latently fascist." So why was it full-of-crap? Because you don't agree that those facts are latently fascist, or because he quoted another author's wording to illustrate the other author's point? \_ The Free Republic is not hate filled! \_ And it isn't free either ... Any post that doesn't toe the party line is instantly nuked. \_ And this is different from motd and DUmmies (aka "democratic"underground) how? \_ Rockwell and Raimondo were former, and maybe current, Free Republic posters. Raimondo has been driven from/left the site too many times to count. |
| 2005/2/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:36127 Activity:nil |
2/9 This must be Clinton's fault...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1340241/posts |
| 2005/2/7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:36086 Activity:high |
2/7 I thought it was just me, but yes, the Superbowl was that boring
(ads included) that there is nothing to post on the motd. At
least last year the half-time show was exciting.
\_ So I take it Paul McCartney's pants didn't fall off?
\_ Yes, it was boring and painful to watch.
\_ You didn't see ilyas on the motorcycle in the truck commercial?
\_ Uhm, last I met ilyas he had more than 2 teeth.
\_ The only thing I know about the Superbowl is when I came into
the office this morning, and my colleague told me I've won $25
on the Superbowl pool. To think that back in the old days, I
can memorize the entire Cowboys, 49ers and Packers rosters.
\_ Got yourself a life, did you? Congrats.
\_ I don't know about that. These days I have 3
bosses - work, church and my smart, beautiful
and kind hearted girlfriend who is, unfor-
tunately, also ambitious career-wise and
rather demanding of me, so I still don't have
a life. She is currently back in Taiwan
for the holidays, so I get to have a one week
break. I already miss her though. Sigh ...
I even missed the Cal-USC game to go shopping
with her and her roommate. The things you do
for love ....
\_ Sounds like "life" to me. What you said is
pretty much what I meant.
\_ Way to sneak in the fact that you have a gf.
\_ Where's bdg when we need him?
\_ My guess: married again.
\_ I would rather be boiled in oil
with molten lead being poured
on my head than be married.
\_ Your "kind hearted" g/f forced you to go shopping
with her during the Cal-USC game??? You
are so pussy whipped dude.
\_ :( She didn't force me. I just decided
not to mention about it. My gf is very
kind. I mentioned some dish that I like,
and she made it the day before she left
for Taiwan. She's so sweet. But you
are right, I usually listen to my gf.
\_ How long have you been going out?
You just sound infatuated to me.
Which is nice, but it doesn't last
forever.
\_ 5 months. I am infatuated. She's
the love of my life:
The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field.
When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy
went and sold all he had and bought that field.
Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking
for fine pearls. When he found one of great value, he
went away and sold everything he had and bought it.
- Matthew 13:44-46
\_ Please report back in 5 years.
\_ I will keep my soda brothers
posted every now and then.
\_ You are confusing lust with religion.
That's okay though, lots of people do.
\_ I think you may be projecting
your own lust onto someone
else.
\_ Where's the right-wing "all women are whores" guy?
\_ You don't have to be a right-wing nut to think that
all women are whores. The fundamental relationship
reality is that the male is essentially an ATM card,
there to be exploited to provide material comfort and
security. The trick for the female is to suffer the
least amount of inconvenience and discomfort while
extracting the greatest gain from the male.
\_ Hey, BDG is back!
\_ The thing is my gf actually comes from a rich
family, but she is herself very thrifty. She
disapproves when her brothers spend too much
money. I also thinks she spends too much time
returning stuff to walmart, meijers, outlet, etc.
due to her finding a better price somewhere else.
I have to keep reminding her that time is money.
She gets a lot of joy from finding really good
deals ($14 boots, $4 dress pants, etc.). However,
she is very generous towards others. She is bringing
back 140lbs (2 max weight luggages) worth of gifts
for her family and relatives in Taiwan. I make fun
of her and says she looks like a refugee with the
2 huge luggages. She is also generous to friends
here in the US. She cooks food for others when
they get sick, etc. That's why I say she is my
dream girl.
\_ I found the opening ceremony disturbing because of the
facist overtones. Am I the only one?
fascist overtones. Am I the only one?
\_ Yes. Bill Clinton, the men who landed in France on D-Day, and
the Tuskegee airmen = Fascists? Oh, this is Berkeley.
\_ You don't know much about the history of fascism, do you?
The marching out of war vets, the honoring of the aged,
now retired leader, the ranks of troops lined up with
precision, the airplanes screaming overhead, the chorus
singing songs of national pride in a reverent, almost
religious fashion... these are all straight out of fascism's
playbook. I am really disappointed in your education that
you do not recognize this, but I am not surprised. You
probably never get out of a computer lab.
\_ Uhm, use a dictionary and look up: patriotism, nationalism,
and fascism. You sound like a happily indoctrinated
berkeley liberal. -!pp
\_ You sound like you are ignorant of history. Pick up
_The_Rise_And_Fall_Of_The_Third_Reich and read about
the use of mass spectacle as a means of political
indoctrination. And if you seriously don't think that
nationalism and fascism are just differences of a
degree then you are more ignorant and dangerous
than I realized.
nationalism: the doctrine that your national
culture and interests are superiour to any other
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
\_ The difference is that I can actually think
critically.
\_ Maybe you can and maybe you can't. But you
haven't demostrated that ability so far.
\_ Wow, so because I don't agree with your wack
opinion, I'm not showing 'critical thinking'?
I may or may not have used good critical
thinking, but it's absolutely clear that you
have no clue what it is. It's okay to admit
that you're wrong, dude -- it won't make you
look any sillier than you already do.
\_ Critical thinking is not demonstrated
by hurling one sentence insults at people,
which is all you had done up until this
point. At least now I know you can
construct an entire paragraph, but you
still cannot develop an argument that
consists of anything other than an
Ad hominem attack followed by a logical
fallacy. So no, you have still not
demonstrated any evidence of "critical
thinking." Here's a hint: display the
slightest willingness or inclination to
consider anything other than the spoon fed
mainstream stance you have so far will show
you have taken the first step.
PS Go back and re-read the initial
question that prompted your overemotional
reply and consider that the aforementioned
statement was actually very tentative
and personal and asked a question. Any
belief that it inferred anything else
was a comprehension error on your part.
\_ Uhm, it's the motd. What is there to get
emotional about? You're the one that's
posting novels after receiving replies
repudiating your patronizing assertions
to berkeley u/grads. If the tone of the
conversation is upsetting to you, perhaps
you should look to your own comments
first.
\_ No, it is not upsetting me. I am
just having fun with the discussion.
Hopefully, mr. critical thinking is
too.
\_ Truthfully, Mr Critical Thinking
thinks the whole conversation is
amusing and silly. -MCT
\_ Proof that a little bit of knowledge is a
dangerous thing.
\_ Proof that ignorance is bliss.
\_ Yes, remembering the Tuskegee airmen is
going to mobilize our country into a
totalitarian state. You are so wise.
\_ Is that all you saw in the warm up show?
A memorial to Tuskegee airmen?
\_ From the people who brought us 'Dick Cheney = neocon'.
Btw, I think if Americans can truly be indoctrinated
into something evil with circuses we are truly fucked
regardless. Trying to fight spectacles would be like
trying to fight a symptom, not the disease. -- ilyas
\_ I...I...think I agree with this. How can this
BEEEEEEEE! DEAR GOD, HOW?!?
\_ If your talking about the re-enactment of the
Declaration signing I would say, not facist, but definitely
corny and stupid. The actors were bad, and this is a
footbal game, not the freakin' inauguration. I like the
people today reciting it though, that was cool.
\_ Did they punt the Bill of Rights, that unruly little brother
to the Constitution? |
| 2005/1/31 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:35994 Activity:moderate |
1/31 Yeah! That's what we think of you and your PROTESTERS!
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050127.shtml
\_ This guy's like William Safire huffing gas fumes.
\_ You have been classified as: curmudgeon
\_ He is spot on, point out one thing wrong w/ what he said.
\_ Sowell is great, Visions of the Anointed is an outstanding
book.
\_ If we have more opinions for him than against him, the article
will somehow stop being crap. |
| 2005/1/26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:35918 Activity:nil |
1/26 Reading all of the SS threads there seems to be a real
misunderstanding about the SS "surplus". There is no
"surplus" - the money has been spent. So when it is
said Clinton balanced the budget that is false. So when
government officials like to pretend they have bought
Treasury bonds and are "receiving" interest this
statement is absurd. They money will have to come
from somewhere, either taxes or the printing of more
money. It is equivalent to you making a loan to
yourself and paying yourself interest.
\_ You really have drunk the Republican kool-aide haven't you?
\_ I have known this long before I was a conservative.
Really, how exactly is the SS administration going to
redeem these bonds?
\_ Uh, how does the government pay all of its bills?
And you line about Clinton is simply a bad lie.
\_ was the budget balanced without SS receipts - yes
or no?
\_ Answer my question and I will answer yours.
\_ sorry I really should say Gingrich didn't
balance the budget. Either way, its clear
by your cryptic responses you have no idea
\_ I'm not any of the above posters, but the
answer to your question is, I believe, the
gov't pays its bills by taxing and by
borrowing, but ultimately by taxing.
what you are talking about;
this is not worth my time.
\_ Yes, it is obvious that you will not convince
me by parroting republican propaganda. Inform
yourself a bit about economics before embarassing
yourself again.
\_ gosh I guess that Econ BA was worthless...
\_ So do you believe that there is no
money in the bank because it was
"all spent"? If your bank told you
that the money you deposited with them
had already been lent out to other
people and "already spent" would you
just take that as an answer? Where
did you get your Economics degree from,
Stanford? |
| 2005/1/25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35886 Activity:very high |
1/25 Budget deficit of $368b predicted for this year, plus whatever Bush
gets for Iraq. How does that compare to Reagan?
\_ Here's a graph from 1960-2002. Sadly can't find one including
the last two years. Not sure if the projected '03 and '04
numbers include projected Iraq expenses. [thanks for stomping
my change, asshat]
http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm
\_ Great resource, thanks! More specifically, how do these deficits
compare in terms of real dollar value at the time (i.e., Reagan's
deficits in 1980 dollars vs. Bush's deficits in same)?
\_ http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0
The tables are not in constant dollar, but they also give
the amounts in percentage of GDP, which is really what you
should be looking at anyway. The Reagan and the early
Clinton years were both worse for the deficit.
\_ Uh. When do you think the "Clinton years" started?
Starting in 93 (The start of the clinton years), the
deficit headed DOWN. It's Reagan and Bush I that were
"worse for the deficit".
\_ Clinton had the good fortune to enjoy the benefits
of the heavy lifting Bush I did on raising taxes.
Bush II won't repeat the same mistake of doing the
hard work so a Democrat can take the credit.
\_ Or you could say that Bush I took the brunt of
trying to keep the country solvent because of the
excesses of the 80's, and people realized that
cutting taxes while increasing spending ... doesn't
work.
\_ The 2 views are not contradictory.
\_ Have you heard of "The Pledge?" No Republican will
ever raise taxes again, ever.
\_ Why do Republicans hate America?
\_ "Read my lips" notwithstanding, Bush I might well
have won the re-election if he had another year
in his first term and the country started
enjoying the fruits of his tax increases.
\_ Maybe, but the lesson the Republicans learned
from Bush I was "Raise taxes and die."
\_ Much credit goes to Newt Gingrich, for keeping down
spending from 96 onwards. -liberal
\_ And for championing "family values" while in the
midst of a 7 year affair with one of his employees!
\_ $368 + $100B for war + ??? for SS "reform"
It could easily be over $600B.
\_ How the hell did Clinton get +523 while all the rest get negatives?
He didn't do anything that was so radical from the other
presidents. Talking about radical, Bush=radical conservative.
\_ Between 91 and 95, they fixed a number of structural budget
problems. From that, the discussion was able to move from
"how to balance the budget" to "how much do we use to pay
down the debt and how much to cut taxes". |
| 2005/1/13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:35703 Activity:high |
1/13 This is fucking hilarious. Maybe Bill Clinton can move to Australia
and run for parliament.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4170869.stm
\- re: anonymity -> shortages. this brings a new meaning
\- re: non-anonymity -> shortages. this brings a new meaning
to "reap what you sow". --psb
\_ What the fuck does this have to do with Bill Clinton you dickwad? |
| 2005/1/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:35558 Activity:very high |
1/5 Curious, does any of you have problem with Alberto Gonzales'
nomination? His memo on terrorism detainees sound a lot like
what Hitler said before Germany invaded USSR. Does average peons
like us has any means to influence the outcome?
\_ Yes. No.
\_ No, yes.
\_ Yes, Yes.
\_ No, No, are we happy now? hahahahaha
\_ I am afraid this is a zero-sum game.
\_ I have questions to ask. Will you, as attorney general,
immolate 80 people including women and children because
they happened to stockpile weapons?
\_ The idea of Janet Reno carrying a flamethrower is sexy.
Will you, as attorney general, order
a SWAT team to steal at gunpoint a child who escaped
from a Communist totalitarian state, and whose mother
died bringing him here?
\_ Wow, you really bought into Cuban exile sob story, didn't you?
\_ Zaire, Angola, Algeria, Nicaragua, Soviets and Venezuala...
\_ Zaire,Angola,Algeria,Nicaragua,Soviets,Venezuala & Cuba...
put that in your engine and search it! Yea, an actual
understanding of Cuba's geopolitics has made me a real
sucker.
Will you , as attorney general, distract the nation's
law enforcement for political gain with overwrought
statements about anti-government militias, while there
is a Islamic storm on the horizon?
\_ That's right, you want the FBI (domestic) to stop focusing
their efforts domestically and instead arrest people outside US.
\_ Ok, so you hate Janet Reno. So who was the last non-evil AG?
If you say Ashcroft, you are beneath contempt.
\_ Gonzales: As long as you allow me to approve the use of torture
on Enemy Combatants and hold them as long as I like, I promise
not to do any of the above.
\_ yea... thank god Reno did not put underwear on the Branch
Davidian's or Elian's head!!!
\_ Or imprison them indefinitely without counsel. Or attack
them with dogs. Or electrocute them. Or whatever else it
turns out has happened at Gitmo.
\_ barking dogs and having your writ of habeus corpus
denied by a federal judge... oh the humanity!
\_ And I have one question: Why do you hate America? |
| 2004/12/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35177 Activity:nil |
12/5 So we know nothing good has come out of Texas since before the
JFK shooting. What was the last good thing to come from Texas?
\_ Liberal talk radio!
http://www.radioleft.com
"...from the liberal and progressive capital of the world: Dallas,
Texas!"
\_ Troll |
| 2004/11/30-12/1 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:35131 Activity:high |
11/30 Yahoo! News - Netherlands Hospital Euthanizes Babies
http://csua.org/u/a5n
Helping people wanting to die to kill themselves is one thing, but this
is completely different and I think it's horrible. -Friendly Troll
\_ I bet you're pro-life, too, right?
\_ As President Bush looked up to see who he was greeting [Canadian
pro-life activist] Reid said, "Thank you for being pro-life."
The President responded, "You bet." The President then turned to
leave. He stopped however and turned back. Looking directly into
Reid's eyes, the President said, with obvious sincerity, "I
appreciate that."
\_ Pro-life until you are born, then the death penalty is ok.
\_ There is a difference between an innocent unborn and
a death row inmate who was judged to have commited some
heinous crime.
\_ Hey man, don't let facts get in a way of a liberal
motd zinger. Honestly, are you new here?
\_ And the death penalty is always administered
fairly, without bias, and the courts are never
wrong.
\_ And the "pro life" people here have repeatedly
stated that it's ok to kill innocent people on
death row as long as they get to kill the
"really bad guy."
\_ Reference please, especially since you
claim "repeatedly".
\_ Are you really this incompetent? One
quick search on KAIS for "death penalty"
turned up several threads.
\_ Since you made the claim, please
substantiate by posting the URLs to
the specific threads. Note threads,
since you claimed "repeatedly".
http://csua.com/?entry=13449 _/
Use your favorite motd archiver which has more data than KAIS
and grep for '"death penalty" innocent' for more.
\_ Yes, *one* entry. So much for your claim of
"several threads". Now can you substantiate
your claim of "repeatedly"? Or were you just
exagerating for effect? Again, you made the
claim, now prove it.
\_ what a stupid red herring. The issue is that
the death penalty is known to execute
innocents; why do you support it, knowing
that is the case? -tom
\_ Don't they execute the mentally retarded in Texas now?
\_ Obviously not, Bush became governor of that state.
\_ Actually, Clinton did that in Arkansas.
\_ If you're going to level a serious charge, post URL.
\_ From http://amnesty.org.uk, http://csua.org/u/a62
under the title "Mental Retardation And The
Death Penalty",
"The second case is that of Rickey Ray Rector,
a black man executed in Arkansas during the 1992
presidential campaign of then Governor Bill
Clinton. Rector had shot himself at the time of
his arrest and had sustained organic brain damage
that reduced his intellectual capacity
dramatically." Not only was Rector executed
during Clinton's term as governer, Clinton
personally "flew home to oversee the 1992
execution". http://Time.com, http://csua.org/u/a63 .
\_ Maybe I'm not seeing the whole picture, but
sounds like the guy commited the criminal acts
while still capable of making an informed
decsision. I don't understand clearly how
this would affect the case. Any motd armchair
criminal lawyer people care comment?
\_ No where in the article is there anything about parental consent.
If doctors start euthenizing horribly ill babies without parental
consent, I'd be more worried.
\_ the state is your parent
\_ The 7th paragraph: "The guideline says euthanasia is acceptable
when ......, and when parents think it's best."
\_ http://tinyurl.com/47ub2
\_ How is this "High Stress Levels Linked to Cellular Aging" article
relevant to this thread? |
| 2004/11/16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34913 Activity:very high |
11/15 I've read the Republicans in Congress will repeal the 22nd
Amendment so Bush can run again in 2008. What do you guys think?
\_ I think, "troll".
\_ I think 55 < 66.
\_ Bill Clinton vs Bush. Gee, who do you think would win?
\_ Well let's see. In 1992 Clinton got about 43% of the popular
vote. In 1996 he got 49%... |
| 2004/11/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34705 Activity:very high |
11/5 Why do we care about politics so much? Why can't we go
back to being apathetic?
\_ Because we're educated people and this is a very interesting
topic to discuss. -John
\_ because those pesky politicians have this nasty annoying habit of
creating laws that interfere with our lives, and making taxes
that take away our money!
\_ Cause Dubya is a polarizing figure, duh.
In the same way Clinton made waves by having an intern on his cock,
Dubya is leading this country as the most inarticulate President
of the 20th century.
of the last 100 years. |
| 2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34632 Activity:moderate |
11/3 Hello, fellow liberals. We have been defeated. I guess we
might as well as embrace all the things that our conquerers
would like us embrace. What's the best way to go about learning
Christianity, country dancing, guns, Southern food, dating
hot Southern belles, and other good stuff? -ok thx
\_ I know you're trying to be funny but there are quite a bit
of Democrats who are Christian, do country dancing, have a
hobby in guns, etc... Not all of those things are Republican-
only things.
\_ yes and there are good Muslims and bad Christians,
that stereotype sucks, blah blah blah. Who cares. The
exit poll numbers speak for themselves. If 91% of the
Bush supporters value Bush's religion and faith while
only 9% of the Kerry supporters value the same thing,
then the majority has spoken to us what they really
are.
\_ Learn proper anal intercourse technique. Southern Belles seem to
love that shit.
\_ Hello German John. No Hail for you.
\_ I would have (a) signed it, and (b) provided an ass link
for your convenience. Bad. Down. -John
\- south western belle ass link: link:csua.org/u/9rg
\_ I, for one, welcome our old Republican overlords.
\_ All us liberals really want now is another Bill Clinton, less
the hobby of getting blow jobs from interns.
the predisposition of getting blow jobs from interns. |
| 2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:34626 Activity:nil |
11/3 BTW, fellow liberal hosers:
The number one problem we have is the image of the "liberal elite":
Unpatriotic, not proud to be an American, rich, not hard-working
and lounging at sushi bars (thanks psb for that latter idea),
saying and believing anything to win the election (gay marriage?),
valuing spotted owls above jobs, being critical instead of optimistic,
and not supporting our soldiers.
(I'm stressing "image" of the liberal elite. I am not saying this
is how it actually is ... if you don't know what I'm talking about,
do two things. (1) Watch Team America: World Police. (2) Read this
thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1269267/posts
\_ I did a study 1998-ish where I tried to talk to the occupant of
any house that sported an American flag. Most of them are
initially surprised by my knocking on their door, but they became
quite talkative once I explained myself. Out of 23 houses that
I visited in Northern California (mainly around the Peninsula)
and in suburban Boston (around Wilmington and Norwood), 21 self-
identified as Republican. The other 2 households were around
Boston and were Pats fans. This has no scientific value, but I
thought the result was interesting nevertheless.
\_ I disagree. It's a combination of uncharismatic leaders, the
image of giving free stuff to poor "welfare queens" etc. and
the abortion/gays/guns/god stuff. Culturally, John and Teresa
are out of step with regular people, just the way they talk.
A guy like Clinton had much better rapport with people.
\_ Yeah, I also wanted to add "out of touch with the average
American" to the list. Remember, it's the perception of
what a liberal is. All those freeper posts about how happy
the libs lost -- they are talking about this image. -op
\_ bullshit. the liberals tend to lose because of pussies like
you. do you think that if bush lost, they'd all be sighing
on the freeper boards about how their extremist rightwing
religious agenda is out of the mainstream? of course not.
they'd be shaking their fists over it, and demanding blood
in 2008.
\_ Whatever you say man. -op |
| 2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:34617 Activity:moderate |
11/3 Now that I think about it, Kerry lost partly because of Clinton.
The Clinton Lewinski scandal scarred the Democrat party's image.
Most of the Christians were so horrified that he got away with
such a crime that they vowed to never vote for the pagan party,
the Democrats. Thanks a lot, Bill Clinton.
\_ Uh, no.
\_ Pinning the blame on any one person is deluded. The fundamentalists
have spent 40 years steadily seizing power. The fact that liberals
just dismiss these people as ignorant bigots, and can't see what
is really happening in their own country, is why they keep losing.
\_ I think the Democrat party lost because of Kerry. If it were
someone less flip-floppy who was running against Dubya yesterday,
I'd have favored the Dems.
\_ No, whoever attributed yesterday's blow out to the religious
right's systematic merging of political & religious
practices is spot on. Meticulous and long-building, Rove's
organization of alliances between conservative institutions
got validated -- nevermind that upon closer inspection there
is nothing compassionate or conservative in this
administration's policy-making. The content of the different
political parties' beliefs and their framing were beside the
point. Jesus Christ, Son of God, could've been the Demo
nominee, and Rove still would've kicked his ass. --elizp
\_ It goes way beyond Rove. The conservative religious political
movement has roots going back decades, and its true father is
really Billy Graham.
\_ And let's not forget Goldwater. --elizp
\_ Always thought of Goldwater as more of a hardcore anti
communist than a Billy Graham, evangelical type, but
perhaps you're right.
\_ elizp: Jesus would never ever get nominated by the Democrats.
\_ Very off the mark. As a friend of mine put it, the question most
people on Bush's side seemed to be asking themselves was, are we at
war or not, while the real question was, has this President executed
the war well or not. Bush voters mostly thought that Kerry was a
peacenik, despite all of his speeches to the contrary. That's the
power of propaganda. |
| 2004/10/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34417 Activity:very high |
10/28 Mostly serious inquiry for BUSHCO supporters: If Bush were revealed to
have a catamite back at the Crawford Ranch, would you still vote for
him? If you are supporting him so that your dividends arent taxed,
is it still about the money? On the flip side, would you Clintonistas
have had a "problem" if Monica were say 15 ... I have to think the
people who defended the Mark Rich pardon would stick with him through
thick [monica] and thin. --psb
\_ This is why I think there should be a mechanism in place to
rescind the nomination and renominate on a dime. Or have a
succession plan, like the VP-hopeful becomes P-hopeful. It seems
silly to suddenly become a liberal for an election because a
conservative ended up being unusually slimy this election season.
-- ilyas
\_ Pardons cannot be defended, as there is no offense. The power
of pardon, as abused as it might be is at the discretion of the
President. Some people are more discrete than others. Personally,
I'm a good deal more bothered by Bush I's pardons than Clinton's.
\- is it not obvious i am not accusing him of doing something
illegal but hypocritical, sleazy etc w.r.t. to the marc rich
pardon. yes, this is not a great issue of state like the
nixon pardon, but i think it significant for its egregiousness
not its significance, if you see what i mean. --psb
\_ Well, I'm male, so I'm not a Clitonista, though I was a stolid
\- You know, not all the Sandinistas were women.
supporter of Clinton. But to answer your question, if he'd been
caught with a 15 year old, I'd have very sadly, and with much
grief in my heart howled for his blood.
\_ I don't think I count as a Clintonista, since I voted for Nader,
but I supported him through the impeachment hearings. But if
Monica had been 15, yes, I would have called for his hide.
\_ What is catamite and why should I care? I vote republican
not b/c of Bush. I vote for GOP candidates b/c I think
that in the long run only republicans can return us
to a "wise and frugal government" that restrains men
from injurying one another, but otherwise leaves them
free to regulate their own affairs.
\_ example: invasion of Iraq :p
I also feel that the major problems stem from stupid
socialist policies brought about by democrats (New Deal,
Great Society, &c.). Also Democrats will likely bring
about crappy social policy like abortion on demand,
legal pot, condoms for jr kids and garraige. I'm also
appalled at the prospect of a more liberal judiciary
that doesn't understand the fundamentals of federalism
and willy nilly makes law.
The last democrat I would have considered voting for is
Truman (the only bad thing I can say about Truman is
that he didn't let MacArthur win in Korea).
\_ MacArthur wanted to use *WMD* on China. Then again,
if MacArthur can open fire upon USA's own WWI veterans,
nuking civilians shouldn't be much of a moral challenge
for him.
\_ There's nothing frugal about Bush's government. The problem
with your thinking is that you're voting based on a predetermined
partisan mindset regardless of the actual candidate. You are also
falling prey to GOP scare tactics on the garriage thing which is
\_ MacArthur wanted to use *WMD* on China. Then
again, if MacArthur can open fire upon USA's own WWI
veterans, nuking civilians shouldn't be much of a
moral challenge for him.
\_ MacArthur would have solved the China problem.
The Bonus March was probably not the smartest
thing to do, but I agree w/ MacArthur's view
that "we fought for our country, not for money".
\_ There's nothing frugal about Bush's government. The
problem with your thinking is that you're voting based
on a predetermined partisan mindset regardless of the
actual candidate. You are also falling prey to GOP
scare tactics on the garriage thing which is
\_ BUSH = DRAFT!!!!!```11one~uno!!!
ridiculous.
\_ Can you seriously tell me that any Democrat
will roll back the progressive income tax?
Can you honestly tell me that any Democrat
will reduce social programs? Which Democrat
will tell kids to stop taking drugs and
having sex and stay in school and study?
How many Democrats really advocate personal
responsibility? Also which Democrats truly
will put America first and go against world
stupidity (need I remind you that Democrats
were opposed to Zero Option and were pro
detente)? |
| 2004/10/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:34307 Activity:very high |
10/23 http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/21/1440244 Interview with Robert Scheer, LA Times reporter, on a CIA report that was completed in May/June this year. "... what I reported was people who have knowledge of this saying they're stalling the report until after the election, so, it won't adversely affect Bush's chances ... And Porter Goss ... is the one who is currently stalling it. So, here is a study on what happened at 9/11 demanded in December of 2002 -- 2001 by Congress -- 2001 by Congress. An eleven-man committee at the C.I.A worked on that question for almost two years; and it hasn't been turned over. ... My understanding is that this report is explosive because it says the Bush administration was asleep at the wheel before 9/11 and it fixes responsibility on individuals quite high up, and that it says the administration covered up after 9/11 by not holding these people accountable. So there it is." \_ Yeah, yeah, yeah... and cruise missile diplomacy used by Clinton really worked. \_ It went something like: "Hey Dubya, I pissed off Osama by blowing up his base and almost getting him - you better watch out, he wants revenge. Dubya: Wut??!" \_ Translation, "That chick with the cum stained blue dress was out there trying to ruin my legacy, so I wagged the dog, destroyed an aspirin factory, killed a few camels, and whipped up a hornets nest. I never did jack about bin laden, never made a major effort to do anything about terrorism, never really did anything but try to create my legacy by forcing Israel into dealing with terrorists and we know how that worked out. The first WTC bombing, the Cole, the 2 African embassies, and the rest... it's a criminal issue for the FBI to arrest and prosecute individuals." \_ This is all true, which is why Clinton did NOT tell Bush "Terrorism will be your most important issue and watch Bin Laden" during the transition, which Bush promptly ignored since his neocons were busy planning an Iraq invasion. Isn't it funny how the same people who criticize Clinton for launching missiles at enemy terrorists who attacked our embassies and ships as "Wag the Dog" praise Bush for invading a country that did not attack us, totally wrecking our standing and reputation all over the world? \_ This post is odd. You're confused because people who criticize Clinton for not doing enough praise Bush for doing a lot? That's not confusing to me. \_ No, people criticize Clinton for doing something (Wag the Dog) and praise Bush for royally fucking everything up. \_ An apirin factory and a dead camel is doing something but wiping out thousands of terrorists is royally fucking everything up. I'm guessing you describe their actions and results in the opposite terms I do because you pray east a few times a day. I can't think of another reason why thousands of dead terrorists is bad and doing nothing is good. \_ Clinton could have wiped out Bin Laden & the entire royal family of UAE in one shot ... He chose not to create a diplomatic disaster, plus his hands were tied. Bush, thanks to 9/11, has way more options open to him than Clinton, but he ends up invading a country which has little to do with 9/11, islamic fundamentalism, funding/harboring Al Queda, etc. That's what royally fucking up means. Plus, anti-Americanism is at an alltime high in Islamic countries, you can be sure that whatever number of terrorists Bush has killed, 3X replacements have been recruited since Bush is Bin Laden's poster boy for new terrorists. It probably doesn't bother you that thousands of innocent lives have been lost in the Iraq war either, since all brown people are terrorists anyhow. \_ Clinton: Tried to get bin Laden after he killed hundreds in two embassies, almost got him, even with Monica on his cock. \_That's nice you forgot to write Sudan offered him and Clinton turned it down. \_ Wrong. Sudan was begging the Clinton admin to take him and did so at least three times that we know of publicly but Clinton didn't because they decided they didn't have the legal authority to do so. They should have asked Al Gore who would have told them there is no over riding legal authority on such matters. \_ How is that essentially wrong? Clinton didnt see what we did to Noreiga? U.S. can damn well arrest anyone we please! \_ They hate us because of our freedom! \_ This is just a bald faced lie. http://prisonplanet.com/sudan_offered_to_arrest_bin_laden.html Stop getting your "information" from Right Wing propaganda sites. Dubya: Ignored fact that bin Laden wanted revenge after we blew up his base and almost killed him. Let bin Laden get away, attacked Iraq instead. \_ That's nice you forgot to include the part about why the base was blown up. \_ The base was blown up because bin Laden was responsible for attacking two U.S. embassies, killing hundreds, and because Bill had information that bin Laden was at one of the target sites at that very moment \_ Almost killed him? Bullshit. Let him get away? Is this the Tora Bora lie? \_ We were moving troops out of Afghanistan and into Iraq. Tommy Franks expressed displeasure with this, but made do with what he had, and bin Laden got away. "Almost killed him": http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/rca/rca_200111_88_2_eng.txt (this was pretty well known back then, but I guess you've been drinking the Konservative Kool-Aid a bit too much) |
| 2004/10/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:33991 Activity:moderate |
10/8 A while back someone posted 20 points talking about things Bush
has been criticized for that Clinton also did. Where can I get
that? I'd like to reread it.
\_ /tmp/motd.troll . i am unaware of why this is very
interesting. - danh
\_ The Halliburton part is interesting, if true. Cheney has
taken a lot of criticism for that.
\_ Was Clinton a shareholder and previous CEO of Halliburton?
No, hence no appearance of impropriety. I seem to remember
the Clinton haters going on and on about Whitewater
back in the day.
\_ The point here is that the US awarded such contracts
before regardless of who was President/Vice-President.
\_ The point of the Cheney/Halliburton connection is
more an indictment of politicos who go on to become
lobbyists for corporations after leaving office. Cheney
was very well-connected with the Pentagon when Bush
lost in '92; Halliburton immediately offered him the
CEO position, counting on his personal relationships
to win them contracts with the military. It worked.
Coincidentally, he then became VP, which made his
activities and those of his former company much more
public. The last thing you need when you're running
back room deals is the publicity of public office, but
it was really too good an opportunity to pass up.
\_ motd archives.
\_ http://csua.com/?entry=33877
And it's 12 lame points. Go Kerry!!!!!
\_ Yes, anything that you can't answer that shows your hypocrtical
nature is lame. |
| 2004/10/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:33876 Activity:high |
10/1 Why does everyone harp of North Korea as a failure of the Bush
administration? It was Clinton/Carter who gave them the technology
and time to make it. Kerry rails against unilateralism, but seems
to be for going into NK alone w/o the Chinese or Japanese. The point
no one seems to understand that even w/o WMD, Pyongyang has over 1K
artillery pieces aimed at Seoul and will level it in two hours. Arty
is and has been the real killer in any conventional war until OIF.
\_ No, it is not Clinton's fault. He sent his coke head brother
over there on a magical musical tour. Madeleine toasted them
with champagne. It's obviously all Bush's fault.
\_ What's OIF?
\_ "operation iraqi freedom" woud be my guess. -- ulysses
\_ Why haven't mortar attacks caused more casualties than they
have? It seems lots of our losses have been IEDs and gun
fights. I'd expect shelling the 'green zone' would be a lot
easier.
\_ Mortars are short-range weapons and not that damaging.
There are 'mortar shelters' constructed all over the
place as well. IEDs are effective since there is no
way to guard against them except vigilance. RPGs are
a bane of the soldier's existence as well.
\_ Mortars are damaging, but not accurate. An infantryman
is terrified by mortars shells precisely because they
hit somewhat randomly, and there's the nice sound as they
are coming in, of course. The insurgents use mortars
because this weapon is ideally suited for a hit-and-run
attack. You drop the shell in the tube, and run as it
becomes airborne. By the time any sort of sound of
the incoming shell is detected, the mortar team is
long gone. -- ilyas
\_ Because Republican: stupid/evil, Democrat: smart/good. |
| 2004/9/30-10/1 [Health, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:33844 Activity:moderate |
9/30 How did Dr. Atkins die? Did he die of his own diet? And was
Bill Clinton on the Atkins diet before the heart incident?
\_ A young Jedi named Darth Vader - who was a pupil of mine
until he turned to evil - helped the Empire hunt down the
Jedi Knights. He betrayed and murdered Atkins.
\_ dr atkins was just really goddamn old when he died
\_ Clinton was on the South Beach diet, but how well he had been
following it or exercising, I'm not sure. Atkins slipped on an icy
sidewalk, hit his head, went into a coma and died. Some people say
his diet hampered any chance for recovery, but it's hard to say.
\_ Some news article also said he's obese at the time of the
accident, but his wife disputed.
\_ Rib-eyes are on sale at Safeway this week, yay!
\_ Uh, he fell on his head while walking on an icy sidewalk.
\_ Why didn't they sue the State for $millions for negligence?
\_ There's assumed risk when you walk down an icy sidewalk. The
city is not negligent when the sidewalks are icy in winter.
\_ Yeah, right. I actually believe and agree with you,
but a lot of disgruntled and pathetic people don't.
Cities have been sued over lame things like that,
for example by a man who broke his shin while
sliding into home plate during a softball game
sponsored by some city league.
\_ Damn those ambulance chasing laywers. |
| 2004/9/24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:33739 Activity:very high |
9/24 Burkett: Lockhart Asked Me for Rathergate Documents
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/23/233909.shtml
Gotta loves the Clinton's, their stench just never goes
\_ No apostrophe necessary. The apostrophe
doesn't mean: "Warning: 's' follows."
away. And remember, according to Dan Rather, Burket is
an "unimpeachable source".
\_ This is just the Clintons torpedoing Kerry's campaign so
Hillary can run in 08. Duh.
\_ Please. Gary Trudeau offered $10k for evidence of Bush's service.
If someone sent him allegedly forged documents, would he be at
fault for asking for such evidence?
http://doonesbury.msn.com/strip/faqs/index.html
\_ You know, I never heard about this before the motd. And I
stopped reading Doonesbury a long while ago when Trudeau went
completely loopy IMO. It's quite possible that there aren't any
GWB supporters that could verify the claim reading the strip.
\_ newsmax article quoting forth worth star telegram, which had
subsequently retracted the lockhart claim. there are enough
lies flying back and forth on both sides already. let's not
add to it. link:www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/9748929.htm?1c
\_ What's the csuamotd login/pwd for http://dfw.com? |
| 2004/9/23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:33736 Activity:nil |
9/23 Burkett says Lockhart requested fraudulent documents.
This is getting ugly. -Drudge
The beauty of this is everytime Clinton's people reappear
the same of scummy behavior resurfaces.
\_ It would have been a shitstorm had the Democrats been given the
documents and they didn't quickly identify them as fakes. |
| 2004/9/21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33652 Activity:insanely high |
9/21 What would we do without the true believers at dailykos? These guys
are just as wacky as the freepers! http://csua.org/u/94w
\_ I agree. "Hunter" sounds like a freeper, but he's a liberal.
The characteristic in common is that the typical freeper and
Hunter here just won't acknowledge central weaknesses in their
position. E.g., for this dailykos guy, it's
http://csua.org/u/94h (the Post comparison of memos), and the Post's
reporting that all existing Texas Air National Guard memos have
reporting that all 100+ existing Texas Air National Guard memos have
been in fixed-width font, except these four from Burkett.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18982-2004Sep13.html
-liberal
\_ Not to mention that the signatures on the comparison memos
aren't even remotely similar.
\_ This is really embarassing, and it just goes on and on!
\_ They are just as whacky as Freepers because they point out
that Freepers are liars and extremists? Whatever.
\_ You don't think that "The right-wing are liars. They have
been liars. They will continue to be liars. It is part and
parcel of modern "movement" conservatism." sounds just like
a freeper, but with right-wing instead of left wing? Not to
mention such great explanations as: "Does it remain possible
that Killian re-typed them at a later date, and that his
inexpertise as a typist is responsible for the differences
between those docs and official TANG docs? Certainly." It's
POSSIBLE, but it's pretty freakin' unlikely, don't cha
think? You know, on the same level of possibilty as the
plot of "The Day After Tomorrow."
\_ The modern right wing movement is based on extremist and
easily disproven religious BS like creationism and the
Virgin Birth. It is extremism to point out this obvious
fact? The guy could be more tactful, but the truth is
the Religious Right's entire worldview is based on
fantasy.
\_ "Easily Disproven?" Go ahead. Prove to me that
virgin birth is impossible, and creationism isn't
true. Or heck, why not just go straight for it and
prove there is no God?
\_ If you continue to believe that the world was
created in seven days in the face of all the
evidence from the fields of biology, geology,
physics and astronomy, then there is no hope
for you and I will not waste my time. Take
a science class sometime. The existence or
non-existence of God is tangential to what
any particular sect or cult believes in. Oh,
I agree with you on the memos, btw.
\_ it was reformed in 7 days, not created
\_ You need to study up on your Christianity. In
the Hebrew in the bible it doesn't say "7 days"
it says "7 periods of time" which could mean
ANYTHING. People who literally believe 7 days
are probably idiots. Although, if you can't
prove the non-existence of God, ANYTHING
becomes possible, and 7 day creation is just as
logical as anything else. Anyway, the point
was that the people you're calling wackos are
using the same argument as the people you're
defending. You mock the belifs of one and not
the other, although they use the same argument
style to back up their conclusions. "You can't
prove it's NOT true!"
\_ that's ridiculous. There is physical evidence
which supports the Big Bang and evolution.
There is no evidence to support the creationist
view except some book that some wack jobs wrote,
and there are portions, like the Great Flood,
which are directly contradicted by all the
physical evidence as well as simple logic.
Shit, I've been trolled. -tom
\_ Why are they idiots? I say you're an idiot for
believing in your version. The early bible
stories are all ripoffs of old Babylonian etc.
mythology anyway. So you really believe the
Bible is some kind of elaborate metaphorical
construct that could mean ANYTHING? Or do you
simply apply that to things science disagrees
with?
\_ ripoff? nah, I would say they have the
same origin. afterall, abraham was a
babylonian, being from ur. different
books of the bible are written in very
different manner, so yes, parts of it
could be metaphorical and other parts
not.
could be allegorical and other parts
not. Jesus used parables all the time.
(ref. "dict ur")
\_ "7 day creation is just as logical as anything
else." No. It is not logical to believe something
in the face of overwhelming evidence to the
contrary. It might be conceivable, but it is
not logical.
\_ You've convinced *me* there's no God. Would you
please sign your name so I'll know who to thank
for completely changing my world-view? |
| 2004/9/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:33450 Activity:moderate |
9/10 National Debt severely underreported:
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200409080940.asp
\_ Oh, the irony.
\_ How so?
\_ Will everyone who thought they were getting SS in the future
please raise their hand.
\_ yes: ..
no: ....
\_ Back in high school when I researched it for a class I had an
'uh-oh' moment.
\_ Well, duh. We never had a surplus during the Clinton years if
you take into account SS/Medicare liabilities. But like the article
says, if you are in charge of the dollar it becomes really tempting
to abuse the dollar, especially since spending money gets you
reelected and saving it doesn't. |
| 2004/9/7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:33389 Activity:high |
9/7 After the Democratic convention and the last couple months, is it too
late to recast Kerry as anything other than the Vietnam guy?
\_ Certainly not. If he picks two or three main points and gets the
talking heads to parrot his talking points, he could easily enter
October as the "We can do better" guy.
\_ IMO, Kerry can spend a little time on Vietnam (basically be morally
outraged and say it was all done in '96), but focus on for George
W. Bush: W. stands for "Wrong".
\_ Play populist. Show how GWBs policies have favored the rich and
screwed the middle class (no-one likes to consider themselves poor).
Ask "Where's Osama?" and point out half-assed security measures.
\_ Do people have a memory that extends further back than 2 months?
\_ It's easily modified. E.g., even though there were no WMDs in
Iraq, nukular weapons are the real threat. Our use of force
in Iraq caused Libya to give up its nukular program! Anyway,
the whold world thought we'd find WMDs in Iraq!
\_ Bush had more than 2 months to change perception.
\_ Is this your first presidential campaign? The campaign season
just officially began.
\_ Gallop poll, since 1980, at the start of September (polling
number eyeballed from graph) and actual result:
1980 Reagan tied, Reagan won at 50.8%
1984 Reagan ahead at 57%, Reagan won at 59%
1988 Bush ahead at 48%, Bush won at 53.9%
1992 Clinton ahead at 50%, Clinton won at 43.2%
1996 Clinton ahead at 53%, Clinton won at 49.9%
2000 Tied, Bush won by winning the tie breaker
If you bothered to do some research, you might actually learn
something. Is this your first election?
\_ No, I have followed many campaigns. That is why I know
any question asked at the start of the campaign season
asking "is it too late" is really really stupid.
\_ I see. And it's just coincidence that the candidate
leading the race in the start of September has won
every presidential since the 1980 (that I've bothered
to look)? In fact, since the 1930's (when Gallop starting
tracking elections), only in 1960 did the leading candidate
in the start of September lose an election. In 9/1960,
Kenneday was behind 46% vs 47%, and he won the election
with 50.1% of the vote. Nah, just a coincidence.
\_ No, it just shows that elections are decided by
something other than personalities. The economy
in September determines the winner in November,
except during exceptional years.
\_ Now, how does this claim jive with your previous
claim that "*any* question asked at the start of
the campaign season asking 'is it too late' is
really really stupid."? (Emphasis added.)
\_ I believe he's claiming that this is an
exceptional year. I would tend to agree.
!the above guy
\_ Note that he didn't say "in an exceptional
year". He stated it as a general principle.
Note also that he repeatedly asked "is this
your first election?". The only reason to
ask that would be to use the history of
previous elections as a guide to what will
happen this time. This is clearly contrary
to a claim that history doesn't apply because
this is an exceptional election. |
| 2004/9/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:33283 Activity:high |
9/1 Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans:
On the Clinton recession and the early stages of Bush prosperity --
"This president inherited a Clinton recession and turned it into the
early stages of Bush prosperity ... When you look at all of the
economic data collectively, you can't do anything but conclude that
this is a very strong economy, it continues to get stronger, it's a
resilient recovery we have under way, we're in the early stages of
Bush prosperity. But, yes, there's always more work to do, because
you want to make sure that everybody in America that wants a job has
a job. The president will talk about more work to do. He will talk
about making the tax cuts permanent. He will talk about an ownership
society."
\_ We've turned the corner! Re-elect Hoover in '32! Four more years!
\_ Please don't troll the csua socialists. A frothing socialist is
not pretty. They do that enough on their own without you baiting
them with how well the economy is recovering from the excess of
the Clinton years.
\_ Hey, bub, didn't you get the message? The motd is
republican-landia, there are no socialists here.
\_ Yep, everything's fine:
http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2004/mft04090118.htm |
| 2004/9/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33273 Activity:insanely high |
9/1 Anyone else catch Arnie praising Nixon? High-larious!
\_ yeah so you were all alive back in 1968 and wanted Humphrey
don't you know anything about history, I'm talking the complete
story not just Watergate.
\_ In the draft of the speech, it was Hitler, but they softened it
a bit in the rewrite.
\_ I guess you are part of the 30% who disapprove of Arnold
in this state.
\_ Of course. He didn't slip it in secretly. And the talking heads
commented on it afterwards. What about it? What Nixon did would
not even get mention today. What happens commonly today and is
dismissed by the media and public would yield prison terms during
Nixon's era.
\_ You mean it wouldn't matter if a Republican did it. Or have you
forgotten that a blowjob in the Oval Office seems to be more
impeachable than leaking the identity of a CIA agent?
\_ Um, no. Perjury and suborning perjury. Not a blowjob.
\_ Yeah wow, lets have THIS argument again. Woohoo. You've
heard of the Nixon tape where he tells Chuck Colson to
BLOW PEOPLE UP, right?
\_ I'm not the above poster, but what does blowing
people up have to do with blowing people in the
oval office?
\_ Lying about getting a blowjob ... How many politicians
tell the truth about affairs unless confronted directly
with incontravertable evidence?
\_ Sheesh. This is such a lame attempt at
justification. He was under oath in front of a
grand jury. Lying to a grand jury is not ok no
matter who you are.
\_ Note that it appears to be ok to lie to Congress
(Reagan, Bush Sr), the SEC (Bush Jr), and to fuck
your employees even if you're married (Gingrich).
Don't be a democrat.
\_ And the earth is round and the sky is blue. All
true, but not the issue. The man should not have
been questioned about an infidelity in front of a
Grand Jury to begin with.
\_ The case was a SEXUAL HARRASSMENT CASE.
\_ which was THROWN OUT for being MERITLESS
\_ Nope. Sorry. It was in the context of the
Whitewater probe, remember?
\_ And you remember this?
"Having an affair with an intern is not a
federal crime, but lying about it, or asking
others to do so, is. And that's why
Whitewater special prosecutor Kenneth
Starr's inquiry has expanded to include it.
Allegations so far involve possible perjury,
suborning perjury and obstruction of
justice."
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/multimedia/timeline/9809/starr.report/cnn.content/starr.legal
\_ and then there's lying in front of grand jury
compared to lying about WMD's infrot of everyone.WTG!
\_ Nixon was an effective president, a crook, but a pretty good
president. -liberal
\_ So its okay to be a criminal, as long as you are an effective
criminal?
\_ Isn't that what all the Clinton lovers taught us?
\_ If lying under oath about your infidelity is wrong, I don't
want to be right!
\_ So you think infidelity is ok? Does your wife/gf know
you think that way?
\_ Nixon started out with great intentions and fell into paranoia
and dirty tricks. By the end, he was up to his neck in ethical
and legal violations, and the only thing he could think about
was trying to save his own ass.
\_ if Nixon rose from the dead, I'd vote for him
instead of gwbush.
\_ Oh no! Zombie Nixon!
http://www.filibustercartoons.com/store_tshirts.php
\_ yeah so you were all alive back in 1968 and wanted Humphrey
don't you know anything about history, I'm talking the complete
story not just Watergate.
\_ Put your drivel at the bottom like everybody else. Ok tnx.
\_ In the draft of the speech, it was Hitler, but they softened it
a bit in the rewrite.
\_ I guess you are part of the 30% who disapprove of Arnold
in this state.
\_ I haven't taken part in this thread at all yet, but while
I had once approved of Ah-nold prior to his speech, I now
disapprove and this probably won't change. "If you still
support George W. Bush, you're still stupid."
\_ Sheesh, just trying to inject a bit of humor into this
landmine filled motd "debate"
\_ Put your drivel at the bottom like everybody else. Ok tnx.
\_ Yeah because you can win any debate by just comparing the other
guy to Hitler. This is brilliant! Now I have the key to
winning any debate on any topic! Thank you motd!
\_ What did Ah-nold actually say?
\_ "I finally arrived here in 1968. I had empty pockets, but I was
full of dreams. The presidential campaign was in full swing. I
remember watching the Nixon and Humphrey presidential race on
TV. A friend who spoke German and English, translated for me. I
heard Humphrey saying things that sounded like socialism which
is what I had just left. But then I heard Nixon speak. He was
talking about free enterprise, getting government off your back,
lowering taxes, and strengthening the military. Listening to
Nixon speak sounded more like a breath of fresh air."
\_ What's really great is that Nixon NEVER DEBATED Humphrey...
\_ Ah-nold never said he watched them debate.
\_ He has in the past, and it's what he implied. Listen
to the speech rather than just reading the transcript.
http://www.walrusmagazine.com/article.pl?sid=03/10/08/1951245&mode=nested&tid=1
\_ See, I don't see what's so bad about this. I probably
wouldn't have said it, but saying he liked what Nixon
said about economics in his campaign speech is hardly a
big deal to me.
\- also see:
home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/Articles/Politics/NixonObit-HST.txt
\_ so, how is Nixon different from Dubya and friends, other
than getting caught? -lame troll #69 |
| 2004/8/21-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33061 Activity:very high |
8/21 I asked earlier about John McCain's face, and I meant no disrespect.
Was he wounded in the jaw or neck area?
\_ I think I heard that he was wounded in Vietnam when he
either went down in his plane or when he was at the POW
camp. I believe the damage was to his vertebrea resulting
in neurological damage of the spine. The direct result is
that he doesn't have full movement of his arms and probably
other areas of his body. I believe that it was similar to
Bob Dole's damage from WWII.
\_ Bob Dole: war hero, injured in combat for his country in a just
war.
Bill Clinton: self proclaimed draft dodger.
Election winner: Bill Clinton.
Given that history shows the voters don't care about war heroes,
why is Kerry spending so much time talking about his war hero
status? It didn't help Dole at all.
\_ Eh, Dole had several things going against him: he had even
less charisma than kerry, clinton had enormous charisma,
and was a VERY popular incumbent. Also keep in mind that
we're a nation at war, and the merit badge of heroic military
service at this time is seen as a necessary trait. I don't
think this was true of the clinton era.
\_ What country are we at war with? --aaron
\_ Uh, Evildoer... uh... onia.
\_ None. It is peace time. In times of peace we don't
need war heroes. So vote for Bush with us Aaron and
let's focus on the economy and other peace time issues
instead of 30+ year old war records.
\_ I think the soliders dying overseas would disagree
with your flip, off-the-cuff analysis. The idea that
we're a nation at peace with soldiers enagaged in
daily battles with opponents shooting rpg's at them
is pretty stupid, actually.
\_ You may not remember Bob Dole's "war on drugs?" how about
his 17% tax cut across the board? Not that he had any chance
but he, among other things, choose wrong platforms. and
honestly, I would choose a 90 yr old Dole over current Bush
any day simply because Dole's character. -liberal
\_ Are you equating the war on drugs with a military conflict?
I don't understand why you mention it. And what's wrong
with a tax cut for everyone that pays taxes?
\_ Who's going to pay for it if you give everyone a tax
cut? Cut spending? Hahahahaha.
\_ Shortly before it came out that his nurse wife was abusing
prescription skills at work, McCain had surgery for cancer in
in his face. I think that is what you're wondering about.
And I am talking about in the 1996 race. -maxmcc |
| 2004/8/13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32889 Activity:very high |
8/13 Just curious. I don't think this has ever been asked on the motd
before. Who have you voted for in the past and why? I'll start:
\_ It's kind of interesting to note who people voted for and
who's in power an election cycle afterwards. If America had
voted for Dukakis, we wouldn't have had Clinton. If we voted
for Bush Sr. or Dole instead of Clinton, we probably wouldn't
have had GWB.
\_ 1992: Perot, realized mistake later. Not voted since due to
overall disgust with available candidates, don't believe in the
lesser of two evils. I'd vote for Kerry's wife, though. -John
1988: random never heard of third party. Bush Sr, ex-cia chief or
Dukakis? Hardly.
1992: random never heard of third party. was going to vote Perot
until he claimed the cia was out to ruin his daughter's wedding.
1996: random never heard of third party. More Clinton or Dole, Mr.
"it's my turn!". Don't think so.
2000: Nutty Gore (who turned out to be even nuttier after) or the
coke head party boy? Nader.
\_ I know a guy who voted for the guy who lost all the way
back to the mid '60s. That's how I knew the 2000 election
was a fraud. He actually voted for W.
\_ Whoa. He voted Carter/Mondale/Dukakis/Bush/Dole?!
Now who's the nut?!!!!
\_ well, he voted for perot in '92 and at some point
he voted for Jesse Jackson, but you've got the rest
right.
\_ Just out of curiosity, what is it that makes Gore so nutty?
It sounds like you're just talking out your ass.
\_ What's the "never heard of" third party of which you speak?
\_ Nader is far nuttier than Gore. -tom
\_ I humbly suggest that is not saying much.
\_ Being nuttier than Gore is not saying much? You mean
Gore isn't nutty at all? Well, I basically agree with
that. -tom
\_ heh, I meant that Gore is pretty nutty, and saying
Nader is far nuttier isn't saying much because
they're all nuts at that point. Gore may be right,
but he sure is pretty nutty. I say he is nutty
based on two things: Gore is a robot; and when
he crashes, he crashes hard.
\_ Uhm, that's a really stupid basis to draw that
conclusion from. Maybe you should wait until
puberty before posting to motd or (god forbid)
voting.
\_ I don't think you understand the lack of
seriousness implied when comparing levels of
nuttiness. I'd still vote Gore in over Bush,
and I did, and I still think Gore is better
Presidential material.
\_ No, I understand it. I just think you're
nitwit.
\_ Wow! You still remember the names of failed candidates in the past?
\_ Don't worry, brother. Enemies of the party and other unpersons
will soon be forgotten. |
| 2004/8/13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:32887 Activity:nil |
8/13 Just curious. I don't think this has ever been asked on the motd
before. Who have you voted for in the past and why? I'll start:
1988: random never heard of third party. Bush Sr, ex-cia chief or
Dukakis? Hardly.
1992: random never heard of third party. was going to vote Perot
until he claimed the cia was out to ruin his daughter's wedding.
1996: random never heard of third party. More Clinton or Dole, Mr.
"it's my turn!". Don't think so.
2000: Nutty Gore (who turned out to be even nuttier after) or the
coke head party boy? Nader.
\_ Just out of curiosity, what is it that makes Gore so nutty?
It sounds like you're just talking out your ass.
\_ What's the "never heard of" third party of which you speak?
\_ Nader is far nuttier than Gore. -tom
\_ I humbly suggest that is not saying much.
\_ Being nuttier than Gore is not saying much? You mean
Gore isn't nutty at all? Well, I basically agree with
that. -tom
\_ heh, I meant that Gore is pretty nutty, and saying
Nader is far nuttier isn't saying much because
they're all nuts at that point. Gore may be right,
but he sure is pretty nutty. I say he is nutty
based on two things: Gore is a robot; and when
he crashes, he crashes hard.
\_ Wow! You still remember the names of failed candidates in the past? |
| 2004/8/11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32834 Activity:very high |
8/11 Wouldn't even Republicans agree that any administration that purposely
leaks classified info (in the latest case, the identity of a Al Queda
operative working for us) for political gain, endangering this
country's security in the process, should be removed? Isn't this on the
level of Nixon's crimes, if not greater?
\_ Wouldn't even Democrats agree that any administration that
purposely sold nuclear secrets to China in exchange for campaign
money, endangering this country's security in the process, should
be removed? Isn't this far above the level of Nixon's crimes, if
not far far greater?
\_ Yeah, if such a thing actually happened, it would be. But since
it is only a fiction of some paranoid loons imagination, I
not going to worry about it too much. Forget your tinfoil hat?
\_ Which Clinton administration official admitted that this
happened? Condi Rice actually ADMITTED the name was leaked by
the Bush admin
\_ It's minor compared to what Nixon and Reagan administrations did.
Nixon used the CIA to counter the FBI investigating his reelection
committee's illegal activities. Reagan sold arms to an enemy state
to fund an illegal war. This said, what Bush's admin did was just
really stupid, not illegal. The Valerie Plame thing was illegal.
\_ Nixon/Reagan stuff was clearly wrong ... but did it give aid
and comfort to a foreign enemy we are at war with? Scale vs.
direct effect.
\_ Why no recrimination for Clinton buying arms from Iran to give
to the KLA? So having another Soviet satellite state in
our hemisphere would have been a good thing?
\_ 1) Because after nearly 20 years, attempts of normalization
of relations with (supposively moderate) Iran through
economic mean is not a totally bad idea.
\_ The arms tranfers were illicit, just like those in
Iran-Contra.
\_ Sigh. Context has no meaning to you. -EOT-
2) The US Congress had outlawed the sales. Both El Salvador
and Nicaragua were economically, politically, and militarily
incapable of threatening the US.
\_ So a Soviet controlled Central America would have
been no problem during the 1980's?
\_ The US told these nations "our way or the highway."
They took the highway and Cold Warriors struck back.
If the US had tried to fix the oppressive (pro-US)
regimes, socialism wouldn't have taken root.
\_ I had never even heard of this charge before. Are you sure
it is not one of those "who killed Vince Foster" type
Clinton-hater legend?
\_ SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! - Bill O'Reilly
\_ He only says that to people repeating liberal nonsense after
they've had their turn.
\_ Only 40% of Americans believe the Bush administration would be
\_ And when encouraging people not to speak out about the war.
And when the son of a man killed on 9/11 tries to point out
that the terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.
\_ Only 38% of Americans believe the Bush administration would be
capable of that.
http://i.timeinc.net/time/covers/1101040816/poll/images/poll_2.gif
\_ No, it's only incompetence that led to the al Qaeda operative's name
being leaked to the press at an inappropriate time. Who exactly
leaked it? Tom Ridge says he doesn't know. Rice implies the name
was purposely released by the administration to press.
http://csua.org/u/8jx
\_ It's worse than that. The guy had flipped and was giving the
Pakistanis viable intelligence, plus feeding Al-Quada trash.
Knowing that someone had been found drove Al-Quada back
underground instead of into the hands of authorities.
\_ I'm just talking about the motive, not the results (which
are as severe as you say). I say incompetence, not politics. |
| 2004/8/11 [Politics/Foreign, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:32821 Activity:nil |
8/11 Old News: "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we.
They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our
people, and neither do we."
\_ Sounds like Quayle.
\_ A new 'Bushism': We're gonna get us
\_ That answers the question "Why do you hate America?" |
| 2004/8/9 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:32790 Activity:very high |
8/9 Wow, the FBI really does need reforming. If this is all true,
they should just tear the whole thing down and start over
from scratch:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/25/60minutes/main526954.shtml
\_Reminds me of the story where Israeli translators fluent in
Arabic were shunned because they were Jewish, and it
wouldn't look right.
\_ Must be Clinton-appointed people, or at least inspired by him.
\_ YES! THE CLENIS! THE CLENIS MUST HAVE BEEN INVOLVED! OH HOW
I HATE THAT MANLY THROBBING CLENIS. --Typical Freeper
\_ Well, the FBI said she was fired because of her disruptive behavior.
While I have no way to know who is lying (maybe both?), there are
those paranoid people who run around doing no work but making
accusations until they are fired and then make an even bigger fuss. |
| 2004/7/30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32598 Activity:high |
7/30 Washington Post book review on the 9/11 commision report
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26729-2004Jul30.html
Clinton did something before 9/11; Bush didn't.
\_ You don't call taking a month-long vacation doing something?
\_ They were, they were trying to figure out how to pick a
fight with China so they can spend all the tax payer's money
to make themselves rich, until Bin Ladin shitted on their
face. It's amazing people have such short memory. |
| 2004/7/29 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Finance/Investment] UID:32565 Activity:very high |
7/29 Jobless claims up, consumer spending down. Wages drop 9.2% from
2000 to 2002. First time since 1953 that wages have dropped.
\_ What does "wages" mean? Average? Cumulative?
\_ Sorry, wrong word. overall income:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/29/business/29tax.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1091124617-0REdJYzdft5vWcq6Zdx2PQ
\_ It appears income rose for all people making under $200k and fell
\_ Where do you get this?
\_ Click on the chart to the right on that page
(and my bad, $1-$25k went down 1.4%); actually
the right column there is a better metric, which
says income per taxpayer went down for $100K and
up but not for $0-100K.
for people with larger incomes, which makes total sense given the
large stock gains in 2000.
\_ No, actually the opposite has happened, at least with take
home pay.
\_ The bubble created in the Clinton era had bursted before he left
office in 2001.
\_ don't forget the Twin Towers also bursted.
\_ and we know that's dubya's fault because he sent the jews
there to blow them up so he could invade iraq to get the
free oil for halliburton.
\_ You make Michael Moore look like an intellectual.
\_ That's what they want you to think. The whole "attack"
took place in a soundstage in Japan, where they used to
make the Godzilla films.
\_ It's 2004 now, son.
\_ but perhaps they only have data up to tax year 2002, daddy?
\_ probably but so what? why are old numbers from the worst
part of the recession being hashed around now in the middle
of an election? suspicious.
\_ It must be the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy.
\_ It's true, the IRS is run by liberals who hate America. |
| 2004/7/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:32549 Activity:high |
7/28 Serious question: Politically speaking, what's the diff between
Al Gore, Clinton, Edwards, Kerry, Ted Kennedy?
\_ This would be a long post, sure you want to see it?
\_ what about a short summary or URL?
Clinton: The Natural, The Horny Bastard
Gore: The Boy Scout
Kerry: The Troubled Vietnam Officer
Edwards: The Trial Lawyer For The People, The Young Guy
\_ Edwards is 51. Bush was 54 in 2000. Clinton was born '46, so
was 46 when he became president. But they'll probably keep
calling Edwards young even when he's 60.
Ted Kennedy: The Old Bostonian Democrat |
| 2004/7/28 [Health/Men, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:32523 Activity:insanely high |
7/29 Democrats... did you guys listen to Bill Clinton's speech at the
convention? it seems that he is still by far the best public speaker
out of all the big boys in that hall.
\_ Where can I get a transcript of what he said?
\_ Barack Obama was awesome too, but I guess he's a "new kid," not
a "big boy."
\_ Doesn't it bother you that you refer to a former President as
the 'big dog'. Exactly what is this supposed to mean? He
is not spaid and has free roam of the neighborhood?
As for Obama, oh yea let's make this the land opportunity
by giving people things for free that other people paid for.
\_ That damn Clinton mutt, always sneaking around while my bitches
are in heat!
\_ Damn right! Kids didn't pay for the schools, so let's get
rid of that commie public education. Also, kids don't have
any money to pay doctors, so let's stop this nonsense about
public health care. Once we get rid of all this free stuff
that other people paid for, then America will be the true
land of opportunity.
\_ Would you be willing to lower your GPA by a full point to
give 5 others with 1.8 GPAs a 0.2 boost so they don't get
kicked out of school?
\_ Ahh.. the old "the points versus the playing field"
argument
\_ Answer it, don't duck.
\_ So you wouldn't mind paying my taxes?
\_ Ah yes, the red herring. I'm sure you incapable of seeing
how something like free schooling for everyone is a benefit
for everyone because it's free schooling for *everyone* which
everyone uses to the same extent. Whereas free health care
for everyone is a resource that is disproportionately used by
some at the expense of others. But don't let logic or clear
thought get in the way of your rant.
\_ Ever heard of private schools? And free health care would
not mean the end of all private health care. So your
logical exceptions aren't any different than other social
programs. In fact all of these can be said to have a
benefit for everyone since it impacts the society. An
educated and healthy society has all sorts of benefits.
I'm not arguing one way or the other, just pointing it out.
\_ Actually, under the last seriously proposed universal
health care system, Hillary's, private medical care
would no longer be an option. So, yes, it would mean
the end of private care. I agree that an educated and
healthy society has benefits for all. However, the
benefit to individuals in education is the same. The
cost is also the same per student. Health care costs
vary dramatically. No, I'm not willing to pay for
some old guy's viagra, some fat person to go on a diet,
the umpteenth heart surgery for someone who won't take
care of themselves or anyone's plastic surgery.
\_ If all schools were private, many people would not
be able to send their kids to school, at least 25%,
since that is the percent of kids in poverty. Just
pointing that out.
\_ With private healthcare many don't get healthcare?
\_ then, there is the non-sense of minimum wages. We should
get rid of minimum wage let the iron law of wages dictates
the market value of hourly pay.
\_ minimum wages are entirely artificial and don't help
anyone. all it means is that all prices go up that much
more to pay the legally mandated minimum. If the iron
law of wages was allowed to dictate the market value of
hourly pay, prices and wages would be forced into
alignment instead of giving us government sponsored
inflation. once again, don't let logic or reality get
in the way of your little rant, either.
\_ No economist believes these things. Show me some
evidence that "prices go up" in lockstep with
increases in the minimum wage. Don't let logic
or reality get in the way of your little rant, though.
\_ Let's take this to it's logical extreme. Raise the
minimum wage to $25/hour. Roughly $50k year. That's
a living wage in the SFBA, right? What is going to
happen to prices? Homework on this topic is due on
Thursday, the quiz is next Monday in section.
\_ Awww, if only he'd actually said that, my poor widdle twoll.
\_ I watched his speech. After reciting his personal
history that is exactly the consequence of what he said.
Just be honest about your intentions - is that too much
to ask??? |
| 2004/7/27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:32499 Activity:nil |
7/27 It's amazing to see that people continue to bring up Clinton's
sex scandal while ignoring the facts that BushCo has murdered
thousands of people, invaded a foreign country for no reason
other than to make themselves rich, fucked California out of
billions of dollars in utility bill, lost millions of American
jobs, drive up the deficit to record levels while pocketing
millions themselves (heck, we have to pay it back, not
BushCo). And all you can say to this is "I did not have sex
with that woman"? We all make mistakes, what Clinton has done
probably deserves a few slaps on the face by Hilary, what
BushCo has done, the only justifiable punishment is a bullet
in their head.
\_ ye trolle, hello!
\_ How is this a troll? you fuck head! -op
\_ Use this in a sentence that's not a troll:
"... a few slaps on the face by Hilary ..."
\_ What utility bill? The one stalled in congress? |
| 2004/7/25 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:32471 Activity:nil |
7/25 Is it any surprise that Sandy Berger attempted to dowplay the Cox
report on Chinese espionage?
'Sandy Berger must go' from 1999
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1178015/posts |
| 2004/7/23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32441 Activity:insanely high |
7/23 Washington Post editorial on the Sandy Berger affair
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7523-2004Jul22.html
"Whether it was a mistake or not, Mr. Berger's conduct, the subject of
a criminal investigation by the FBI, was reprehensible, and he was
right to resign as a Kerry adviser."
\_ "IT'S STILL NOT clear why former national security adviser
Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger improperly removed secret documents
from the National Archives last year." How 'bout waiting for
the investigation, that's been ongoing for ALMOST A YEAR, to
finish, instead of making allegations purely based on leaks
from the white house.
And if there is any doubt this is being pushed into the press:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_07_18.php#003195
Mmmm... Tucker "Pull it straight from my ass" Carlson... -scotsman
\_ The aren't leaks. He and his attorney admitted it.
\_ How can it be a mistake? He repeated the behavior six times.
\_ uh, how about "As happened so often during the Clinton
administration, [Republicans] are treating a real but
apparently limited case of misconduct as an opportunity to
misuse congressional oversight powers to wage partisan
warfare."
\_ WTF Limited case of misconduct!!??? He stole documents with the
highest security classification.
\_ He stole documents six times - how could this possibly be
a mistake?
\_ If he didn't know he couldn't take documents out of the room,
there's no reason not to do it six times. If he knew he was
breaking the law, might he be slick about it and only risk
getting caught once?
\_ There's no way he didn't know. Do you know how
hard it is to get clearance to see that stuff? It's WAY
higher clearance than nuclear weapons data.
\_ "As happened so often during the Clinton administration, they
are treating a real but apparently limited case of misconduct
as an opportunity to misuse congressional oversight powers to
wage partisan warfare."
Whaaa...? Since when is stealing classified documents from
the national archives and destroying evidence needed in
reviews of National Security limited misconduct? You people
realize this is worse than Watergate, right? You know, what
Nixon got impeached for? He was just stealing the other
party, this guy was doing the same with the FREAKING NATIONAL
ARCHIVES! No liberal Bias in the media my %$@.
\_ I don't know, I think spying on your political opponents and
organizing burglaries and covering it up is a bit more serious
than what basically amounts to misshandling library materials.
\_ Wow, you have no idea what you're talking about. If I
work at a national labratory, and I take out nuclear
weapons data and give to to Al-Queada, am I
"misshandling library materials?" Please. This is
stealing from a highly secure government site, not
accidentally dropping a library book in the toilet.
\_ That's stretching a bit don't you think? Was any harm
actually caused by taking the materials out of the
archives?
\_ How would we know? Some documents just seem to
have dissappeared. Do you know what they said or
where they went? The point is, once they're out,
you don't know. I doubt they were really
dangerous, but you can't rate the crime on how
dangeous the documents are once they're gone.
That's something you do before they're gone and
assign them a classification.
\_ It's a BushCo frame job. I know because when I heard the story
on KCBS, the reporter just mentioned in passing the Republicans
think it's a big deal, then the Democrats rated a 5 sentence
quote on why it's all just a dirty political trick. |
| 2004/7/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:32393 Activity:very high |
7/20 Berger investigated for taking classified reports
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040719-112728-6891r.htm
"...he had taken from classified anti-terror documents he
reviewed at the National Archives by sticking them
in his jacket and pants."
This guy was Clinton's and Kerry's NSA (equivalent to Rice)
\_ Again, even though you erased it, what's really interesting about
all of this is why this is suddenly "news" when the investigation
has been going on since last December.
\_ how is the timing relevant in any way? This guy stole and
lost documents from the National Archives and you are
worried about the timing. Congress had known about Abu
Ghraib for half a year before it came out, and???
\_ And you screamed bloody murder about it all being leaked
out in time to be an election-year issue. If that was
politicking, then so the hell is this.
\_ I don't know who 'you' refers to. I though the whole
thing was overblown, nothing more than hazing of
terrorists. Again, when is a good time to release
a former NSA stole and lost documents while the
9/11 commission was ongoing? I don't think you have
an answer. I can't believe you have the
audacity to worry about the 'timing'.
\_ Pshaw all around. The NSA scandal and the Abu Graib
scandal should have been revealed at the same time:
as soon as they were discovered. How do you like my
answer now?
\_ Abu Graib was revealed when it was discovered. I
remember seeing it mentioned months before the
pictures came out. It was only the pictures that
suddenly put it on the front page.
\_ You simply reinforce my opinion that to you
what matters is style over substance. You could
care less that someone violated the law and
effectively interfered with a Congressional
investigation. In summary, you are unethical and
choose to do defend like individuals.
\_ Is that the impression you got? Let me disabuse
you of it: If he violated the law and interefered
with said investigation beyond a reasonable doubt,
I not only care, I will be happy to see him
punished. Now pay attention here, because this is
where it gets tricky: at the same time that I
agree he should be punished, I _also_ understand
that the timing of this release of information is
of particular use to the Repubs in their efforts
to discredit the Kerry campaign. See that? Two
beliefs, one pro-punishment and the other
rather cynical, held at exactly the same time in
my brain. You should try it some time. It's a
kick. |
| 2004/7/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:32307 Activity:high |
7/15 Michael Moore is even more of a scumbag than I thought:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/johnmccaslin/jm20040713.shtml
\_ Best. Nutty ring wing rant. Evah!
\_ Rant? It isn't a rant. It says the family is pissed off
because Moore used their son's death for his propaganda and
didn't even tell them much less give them the humanly decent
option to say "no, thanks".
\_ When you have a public event in a public place, you
open yourself up to reporting of that event. That is
called freedom of the press in America. I hope
the family does sue. They will lose.
\_ Who said it was public? Was it public? Who filmed it?
Why does he lack the common human decency to at least
inform the family it will be there. How sickening to
show up at a movie and see yourself at your son's
funeral. If you think this is a-ok, you're just a sick
bastard and not a human being.
\_ Arlington Cemetary == public space. Perhaps you
really didn't know that. I think the First Amendment
is a-ok and that it is really sad that you are
against it.
\_ Guess you missed this. From the article: "The family
does not know how Moore obtained the video..."
I assume, therefore, it was not a public event.
\_ Do you assume that Yosemite Park is not a public
space as well? There is no presumption to privacy
in a public space. So if you are walking down the
trail in Yosemite and I take your picture, I can
publish it. That is the foundation of our free
press, that people are allowed to report on events
that occur in public.
\_ Ohhh... that's why he's such a fat turd. I hear human flesh is
quite fattening. |
| 2004/7/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:32278 Activity:high |
7/14 Don't ever try to pass off Fox News as "Fair And Balanced"
http://csua.org/u/86m (wonkette, a political blogger)
\_ You're using a blogger site to prove something on the motd? This
is beyond ridiculous. Just quote something off the
http://democraticunderground.com message boards and get it over with.
\_ That John Moody has a good vocabulary: "obstreperous" was new to me.
\_ Doesn't matter, the wingnut crowd will just stick their fingers
in their ears, shut their eyes and go "waaah waaah waaah liberal
media waaah waaah waaah." The scary part is that given Fox's
success, all of the other 24 hour news networks are now
emulating them. The worst part isn't their bias so much as
how they package it as good wholesome entertainment. At least
in soviet russia, people knew Pravda for what it was.
\_ Ummm... The rest of the media IS biased. That's no excuse
for Fox, but I really wish people would stop pretending Fox
News invented the biased news program. It just pisses off
all the liberals who are used to the news being slanted
their way, which is the same reason so many middle american
conservitives like it. "Sure it's biased, but at least
it's biased toward ME now." -jrleek
\_ The liberal media canard has been thoroughly debunked. Its
mostly just a stick with which to beat the mainstream media
to keep them in line. There is absolutely no equivalent to
Fox on the left.
\_ Debunked in your little leftist echo chamber. The rest
of us know the score. Try being intellectually honest
for once. You can't even see it because you're so
partisan. The Fox equiv. is NBC/CNN/CBS/NYT/LAT at the
core and many others with smaller audiences.
\_ Well... maybe KPFA, but they don't reach *nearly* as many
people.
\_ I don't really see the equivalence with KPFA. KPFA
presents itself more as "the Voice of the Activists"
and an organizational rallying point than as a news
source. Fox is more like Inside Edition meets the
World.
\_ They both present themselves as a news source and
provide biased news. Fox is the only one that keeps
claiming to be "Fair and Balanced"
\_ Are you confusing their opinion shows with their
news shows? Yes. I think you are.
\_ Link? That is, a link that doesn't come from farther
left than CNN? -jrleek
\_ I don't buy this "thoroughly debunked" argument. An
older survey (American Society of Newspaper Editors, 1997):
http://tinyurl.com/4c295
Total:
36% democrat/liberal
25% lean democrat/liberal
7% lean republican/conservative
8% republican/conservative
24% independent
A more recent survey (Pew Research Center for the
People and the Press):
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=214
"More striking is the relatively small minority of
journalists who think of themselves as politically
conservative (7% national, 12% local). As was the
case a decade ago, the journalists as a group are
much less conservative than the general public
(33% conservative)."
\_ Talk to people who actually work in journalism.
Individual journalists have almost no say about what
ultimately appears. This is almost always up to a
publisher or producer or whomever the authority
depending on the medium.
\_ So far I have 2 links showing media bias. I'm
still waiting for the one that "throughly
debunks" media bias. -jrleek
\_ those surveys are about how journalists
self-identify, not about how they report. And
the Pew report you give is very specifically
about how bottom-line pressure is "seriously
hurting" the quality of news coverage. And of
course you've seen the FAIR report, which you're
going to claim "comes from too far left". -tom
\_ You're saying that the political leaning
of the people who report the news
doesn't effect how they report it? I
admire your faith tom. And yes, when a
communist tells me Clinton was a
right-winger, I tend to think his
opinion is too far left. (BTW, that's
hyperbole) -jrleek
\_ First of all, I don't think people are
very good at reporting their political
leaning; the FAIR report asks their
position on specific issues and then
compares that to the national average.
Second, it should be obvious that
the ownership of the news outlet has
more control than the people who report
it. -tom
\_ It's all relative. How else to
determine one's place on the political
spectrum without comparing to other
people? It isn't something that can
be measured like the frequency of
sound.
\_ I respectfully submit that you don't
know much about how publishing or
the news media functions, jrleek. I know
a couple of people that work in print
journalism, which admittedly may differ
from television media in many ways but
not, I doubt, in this respect. Editors
vet everything that goes into print, and
editors in turn are under enormous pressure
to follow general directives about content
and editorial direction from publishers.
People lose their jobs in the industry
all the time over this.
\_ I admit, I don't have much
personal contact with
journalists. My opinions are
pretty much all circumstantial in
reguard to the media. That is,
all the news sources I see, SF
Cron, NYT, CNN, etc. are left
leaning. I've seen right leaning
local newspapers before, but no
national ones. -jrleek
\_ The fact that you consider the NYT
left-leaning speaks volumes about
your bias, and little about theirs.
\_ I like the NYT, mostly, but if
you think it isn't left
leaning you're either waaaaaay
out in left field or just
trolling.
\_ Not to mention the William
Randolph Hearst SF Chron. -tom
\_ Ummm... ok. I guess I
should point out that I'm refering to
left-leaning against the national average,
not the Berkeley average. -jrleek
\_ Do you know anything about William Randolph
Hearst? -tom
\_ I know he's dead.
\_ Tell us how dead guys control the
media Tom!
\_ That's Dead Rich White Males to you!
\_ So I guessed you missed that whole thing where
the Howell Raines-led NYT was basically out
to get Bill Clinton in the '90s with their
Whitewater coverage?
\_ Sorry, yes. I wasn't reading the NYT
regularly in High School. -jrleek
\_ "Out to get" or simply reporting the
biggest news story of the day? Should they
have ignored the Clinton's criminal
activity?
\_ Whitewater criminal? What criminal
behavior was Clinton convicted of
in connection to Whitewater?
\_ Are you suggesting that publishers personally
edit each and every article that goes into, say,
the New York Times every morning, injecting spin
of their own particular flavor? Interesting. I'd
always thought that the articles that go into, say,
a daily newspaper were largely the work of their
authors, with a little editing. The headline is
written by someone else, but not the article.
\_ The owners and editors lean conservative.
And you bet that biases their newspapers.
Are you trying to claim that GE, Westinghouse
and MSNBC are "liberal"? I personally think
that the Big Business owner bias and liberal
reporter bias more or less cancel out.
\_ Cancel out? The person writing the story
is the most important part of it. There are
tens of thousands of words printed in each
paper everyday and you think some editors
are rewriting everything to have a right
slant? That's just nutty.
\_ http://www.fair.org/extra/0405/npr-study.html
Republicans outnumber Democrats 2:1 on NPR.
\_ Conservative think tanks quoted more than liberal:
http://www.fair.org/extra/0405/think-tank.html
\_ I dunno, A lot of the think tank references
I see are written poorly. That's a whole
article on how we're all going to die from
Global Warming, then a little blub at the
end that says "Hertiage Foundation dude
says that he doesn't think this is the
case."
\_ The Myth of The Liberal Media:
http://csua.org/u/86s (Amazon)
How corporations have taken over what used to
once be a free and independent press corp.
\_ The press has always been a business. This is
just plain silly. When exactly was the media
ever "independent"?
\_ On the http://fair.org links: My concern about media
bias is not so much the biases that I DO know -
if they quote the Heritage Foundation or bring on
a liberal commentator, I know what to expect. My
concern is biases I can't see. What is the bias
of the person who writes the news, and what is
the bias of the person who edits it and decides
what gets on the air? Consequently I find the
third link (and also the Eric Alterman book) more
compelling than the first two.
\_ http://fair.org is a raving left-wing group. Just
tiptoe through their archives and count the
number of stories of media being too liberal.
Good luck!
\_ Barry Diller is one of Hillary's closest allies and biggest
contributor. President of ABC advising Kerry on VP selection.
The notion that coorporate leadership can't lean democrat is
nonsense, look at campaign contributions. The media is based
in New York and Hollywood, very left wing areas. Based on
this it would be natural to expect to some bias. Couple that
with the rich Jews it becomes even more obvious.
As for Alterman, I've repeatedly heard him admit on CSPAN
yes the media is biased, but, he then contrives some
bizarre explanation why it doesn't matter. As for Fox, their
prime time viewership is 2 million, compared to 30 million for
the broadcast networks.
\_ Corporate contributions can influence politicians of any party.
The current administration seems to exhibit quite a lot of
quid-pro-quo.
\_ No one said it can't. It just that it doesn't.
\_ Use motdedit, you quished 2 reponses.
\_ Corporations contribute to *both* parties so that they can
receive favors no matter who wins. Even Enron gave money
to the Dems. Your analysis is spot on. The media is
controlled mostly by rich, left-wing Jews who are fiscally
conservative and socially liberal. Liberals go to journalism
school. Conservatives go to business or law school. In
addition to Diller there are Eisner and Geffen among others.
\_ So you're saying David Geffen controls the news media?
You are a funny man.
\_ I didn't write this comment but I think its pretty
obvious Jews control the media, and they are
overwhelmingly leftists.
\_ Media is not the only thing we control, peon. -- ilyas
\_ Music and movies are definitely media that influence
lots of people. Further, I named Geffen because he
is an example of a big, rich, media owner who is also
decidedly liberal. I have no idea why the left equates
"corporations" with "conservative".
\_ I don't equate the two; I think the media is corporate
rather than conservative. -tom
\_ What is the corporate position on social issues?
\_ there is not a single corporate position, but
generally, corporations will not take risky
positions. -tom
\_ In other words they won't lean too far
left or too far right. That sounds right.
So what's the beef?
\_ Racist! Hate Israel, Love Jews!
\_ Oh I get it! Jew bashing is cool as long as you're only bashing
left wing Jews!
\_ Most Jews are left wing, but I didn't see any bashing.
\_ It is just a list of memos from the director of Fox News.
Are you trying to claim that she made them up? |
| 2004/7/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:32277 Activity:high |
7/14 So I am curious how Conservatives feel about The House repeatedly
"bending the rules" to get things passed at the last minute:
http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/005080.html
\_ Sounds shady to me (the actions of the house leaders, not the
reportage). Got any better references than Joe Q. Blogger? How do
Liberals feel about the mutation in the Senate of everything
requiring cloture?
\_ This was widely reported. You can do a search anywhere for it.
On the Medicare bill last year, they held the vote open for
almost 3 hours while they tried to convince people to change
their votes. This time it was only 20 minutes. As far as I've
read, this was unheard of before last year.
\_ Weren't the new cloture rules proposed by Frist and Z.Miller?
Why do you suggest this is a Liberal mutation?
\_ I'm not referring to rules, but rather the practice of the
dems to filibuster anything they don't like, which basically
means that to get anything done you need cloture rather than
simple majority.
\_ That's the senate, son.
\_ As opposed to the filibuster free repubs in the senate
under Clinton? Come on... That's what the senate is for.
\_ As opposed to the filibuster free repub senate under
Clinton? Come on... That's what the senate is for.
It's a necessary check on the majority. Democracy at
work.
\_ We could compare the numbers between the previous and
current admins for filibusters. The answer won't
come out in your favor. You're also twisting the
issue. It isn't a case of "filibuster free". It is
a case of now requiring 60 votes instead of the
Constitutionally mandated 50 because the Dems won't
let *anything* pass at 50 now. It's an abuse.
\_ okay, i'm curious. care to cite sources for numbers
and post the math and results somwhere?
\_ I think it is a shitty way to run a democracy. -op
\_ So I guess when the Republicans logjammed the congress in the
'90s, that was really bad too? Oh wait, Democrats BAD,
Republicans GOOD.
\_ Compare the numbers like I said above. There's a difference
between stalling a few bills here and there and doing it
for nearly everything.
\_ And the dems don't do it for nearly everything. Man have
you drunk the koolaid. They have done it for a few high
profile cases, jsut like the repubs did. |
| 2004/7/7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:31211 Activity:insanely high |
7/7 Kerry's Chinagate - Loral Money Going to DNC
http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/7/7/150106.shtml
1996 campaign finance scandals all over again?
\_ OOOOOhhhh, a NewsMax link! Why don't you post a Drudge link,
a worldnetdaily, and a FreeRepublic while you're at it?
\_ Translation: "Any news source that is not biased to my
political thinking is completely invalid. Do not speak of
them to me!"
\_ Sigh... it is either true or it is not. Attack the truthfulness of
the material, not the source. Attacking the source is weak
and demonstates you have nothing else to say against the
truthfulness of the material and lends it credence. This is
basic Rhetoric 1A stuff any freshman should know.
\_ Nah, they might teach it in Freshman 101, but anyone
with common sense knows you don't argue with a homeless
insane drunk.
\_ As long as he doesn't out any CIA operatives for political
gain. Whoops! Motherfucking wingnuts. --aaron
\_ Anything a democrat does, evil. Anything a republican does,
good. Any questions?
\_ Evil? Or Eeeeevvvviiilllll!!!!! ?
\_ Remember when it was "Motorola, Qualcomm and Loral" in all
the Republican smear pieces? Notice how Motorola is not
mentioned anymore? I wonder why that is.....
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.asp?Ind=B09
\_ Tinfoil. Hats. Safety from Martian radio waves.
\_ Follow the money.
\_ I really like the sector plots under Labor, Lawyers, and
Media.
\_ Kerry returned the money from Chung and other foreigners.
But last I checked, Republicans took lots of money donated
from corporate CEOs. Are you guys renouncing that as a
source of fundraising, now? No more Kenny Boys?
\_ Do you honestly see no difference between an american corporation
and a foreign interest?
\_ Schwartz is an American CEO. Loral is an American company.
What is your beef? Are you upset because he is Jewish?
\_ Only conservatives are allowed to be upset about anti
semitism.
\_ No, that's why it was ok for Clinton to take Chinese money
quid pro quo for the most advanced US weapons research.
\_ The Clinton haters have claimed this for years, but
never offered up any real evidence. Do you believe
that Hillary killed Vince Foster to cover up the
evidence of their love crime, too?
\- "I killed Vince Foster, just to watch him die."
\_ The DNC returned hundreds of thousands of
campaign contributions and paid hundreds of
thousands in fines for taking money from the PLA and
Riady. The PLA now has all of our nuclear weapon
designs, when / where do you think they got them?
What do you think 'no controlling legal authority'
was about? Read the Cox report. The evidence
is abundant if you would bother to look.
\_ Correlation is not causation. Any idiot knows
that.
\_ I would classify your behavior and denial as
a neurosis. Poor WJC.. disbarred by USSC
and in his home state, impeached, a traitor,
and hero to anyone except the VRWC. |
| 2004/7/7 [Recreation/Computer/Games, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:31197 Activity:nil |
7/7 Yikes! Scotty has alzheimers! http://tinyurl.com/3ckj9 \_ Dude! Scotty has a 4 year-old daughter! Wow! |
| 2004/7/6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:31186 Activity:high |
7/6 Remember when Limbaugh called her "The White House dog"?
http://www.wonkette.com/images/frizz_ease.jpg
\_ Hmm, she's pretty, but I call photoshop on that particular
photo. Not to mention heavy makeup.
\_ Now see here. I was ready for some serious g-on-g photos with
Wonkette and somebody and all you have is some Chelsea headshot?
That's what I get for not following Rush, I s'pose.
\_ Wow, it's kinda like one of those 80's teen movies. Is she the
most popular girl in school now? |
| 2004/7/6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:31184 Activity:high |
7/6 Poll: Chelsea or Jenna?
\_ Sorry, not into plumper.
\_ Depends on your objectve, no? One of the two is clearly a better
choice for liquoring up.
\_ if the goal is sex, then definitely the latter
\_ Chelsea looks like Bill *shudder*
\_ OMG NEWS FLASH! CHILDREN RESEMBLE THEIR PARENTS1!!1! CALL
WATSON AND CRICK NOW!!!!1!!!!
\_ On a purely aesthetic basis, Jenna got better genes.
\_ It's jeans, not genes, stupid. -dubya
\_ What, you like dating simians?
\_ w00t!
\_ Can someone post a link of pics of Jenna, I have no idea who she is.
\_ A three way with both of them at the same time!
\_ Chelsea on the left, Jenna on the right... |
| 2004/7/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:31114 Activity:very high |
7/1 Saddam uses same hand gestures as Clinton, (ie: thumb) scary...
\_ that is a very common gesture among politicians, McCain
uses it quite frequently as well
\_ It's called "gesticulating," don't they teach you people
anything in school anymore? I mean, c'mon, there are
words for these things...
\_ Lamentably no. My gastronomic rapacity knows no satieties.
\_ Don't disturb his wingnut fantasy with your facts. |
| 2004/7/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:31104 Activity:very high |
6/30 So the link:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124079,00.html
Regarding Moore's veracity has some troubles itself.
The number they give about vacations, excluding camp david trips,
assumes that every weekend was spent at camp david. This doesn't
jive with the month long vacations to Crawford. And excluding the
Camp David trips doesn't go all that far in negating Moore's point.
\_ So you agree that Moore is lying, you just disagree with the
specific numbers?
\_ Um, no. I'm saying Fox, even with an invalid qualifier,
got their numbers wrong. --scotsman
\_ But the point is still valid that Moore puts weekends at Camp
David as part of his "vacation" time. Is Moore's 42% number
exaggerated or not?
\_ Interesting. According to <DEAD>csua.org/u/80m<DEAD>
The first President Bush had a ratio of 37% per year if you include
weekends at Camp David. Was he slacking off?
\_ Moore's source for the 42% is almost certainly this article:
<DEAD>www.dke.org/haginranch.html<DEAD>
Interestingly, that was published in 8/2001 and said:
By the time President Bush returns to Washington on Labor Day
after the longest presidential vacation in 32 years, he will have
spent all or part of 54 days since the inauguration at his
parched but beloved ranch. That's almost a quarter of his
presidency.
Throw in four days last month at his parents' seaside estate in
Kennebunkport, Maine, and 38 full or partial days at the
presidential retreat at Camp David, and Bush will have spent 42
percent of his presidency at vacation spots or en route.
So the percentage is based on the first year up to the end of the
big vacation, including weekends at Camp David--which of course is
going to be much higher than the total percent for the first year,
and has been the highest percentage of the entire presidency.
It's a pretty disingenuous statistic unless all the qualifiers are
included.
\_ So FNC could be correct if they're talking about the entire
presidency while this article is talking about the most
vacation-filled part of Bush's presidency.
They counter the 7 minutes with a politic quote from L Hamilton.
Fallacy of Appeal to Authority (not to mention an authority that
the right screamed about for months as being a non-starter
witchhunt).
\_ Of course, I credible is FNC these days? If you've ever taken
\_ Of course, how credible is FNC these days? If you've ever taken
a look at "Lying Liars and the Liars the tell Them" there are
documented cases of people on FNC just flat out lying. And
unlike FNC, Franken actually presents evidence to back things
up when he accuses others of lying.
\_ So we disagree about the significance of the 7 mins. No biggie.
Moore turns it into something it isn't.
The news of Clarke having approved the saudi flights
didn't come out until June 1st, well after the Palme D'or was
handed down.
\_ So here Moore was just incompetent? No only did Clarke approve the
flights, but they didn't happen when US airspace was closed (which
is part of what Moore claims).
\_ Where do you get "incompetent"? He said what was general
knowledge at the time. Clarke retracted his statement
some time after the film was released. This goes to Clarke's
veracity. Not Moore's. --scotsman
\_ How is the White House magically not responsible for what
their cabinet does? The Cabinet are the closest direct
reports to the President and appointed by him. Bush can't
claim that he is not responsible for their actions, no matter
what Clarke tries to claim to deflect responsibility onto
himself.
Since I don't have a transcript, I can't address the
parts about the Taliban visit to Texas, but faulting Moore for
"not mentioning that THE CLINTON approved the visit" is pretty
hollow.
\_ Check the history then. The visit happened during the Clinton
administration. How is this hollow? He's blaming Bush for letting
the EVIL TALIBAN in when it wasn't Bush who did it.
\_ This is why I said "I don't have the transcript." But I'll grant
you, he did suggest it. And will you grant that the Bush admin-
istration suggested that saddam was involved with 9/11?
--scotsman
Moore has had plenty of harsh words about Clinton and
other democrats in his books. But he seemed to be comparing the
\_ That's right. When he's done with the right, he's coming
after you too. Be careful who you get into bed iwth.
tacit approval of THE CLINTON vs. the active support by THE BUSH
in regards to the Taliban. To wit:
But do not declare war and massacre more innocents. After
bin Laden's previous act of terror, our last elected
president went and bombed what he said was "bin Laden's
camp" in Afghanistan-but instead just killed civilians.
Then he bombed a factory in the Sudan, saying it was
"making chemical weapons." It turned out to be making
aspirin. Innocent people murdered by our Air Force.
Back in May, you gave the Taliban in Afghanistan $48
million dollars of our tax money. No free nation on earth
would give them a cent, but you gave them a gift of $48
million because they said they had "banned all drugs."
Because your drug war was more important than the actual
war the Taliban had inflicted on its own people, you
helped to fund the regime who had given refuge to the
very man you now say is responsible for killing my friend
on that plane and for killing the friends of families of
thousands and thousands of people.
\_ This is a big lie. The money was to a relief fund administered by
the UN to relieve the FAMINE in Afghanistan.
\_ How 'bout the Cato Institute's take?
http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-02-02.html
\_ Cato is anti-american. Boycott Cato!
\_ While CATO is useful to find stuff, I can't rely on them
alone. Every news story I find about this says the $43M was
in "additional emergency aid" and was the result of
perceived efforts in reducing the poppy harvest (which was
wrong). It doesn't say it went to the Taliban, and it
doesn't say how the funds were administered. My
understanding is that it was through the UN and was typical
aid (food, clothing, medicine, etc.). Do you have any
reason for believing it was a cash payment to the Taliban as
Moore suggests?
\_ Cato does not say (though kind of impies) that the money
\_ CATO does not say (though kind of impies) that the money
went to the Taliban. As far as I can tell that untruth
originated in an LA times, by (yet another leftist liar)
Robert Scheer. However, if you think that the taliban
got no part/control/benefit of that money (to say, give
building contracts to their cronies) then
you don't understand how international aid works in
autocratic 3rd world countries, even if it was
administered "though NGOs" by the U.N.
\_ So Moore is arguing that we shouldn't give aid to
countries with totalitarian leaders?
\_ I don't know about Moore, but I like that
argument. --erikred
\_ Moore said that we gave the Taliban in Afghanistan $48M
dollars. He did not say what the aid went for. He simply
say that we gave it. You call this "a big lie" yet you
agree with him that the money went to Afghanistan, which
was controlled by the Taliban at the time. How is this
a lie, again? It matters not if the money went directly
to the Taliban or indirectly helped them by supporting
their government and substituting for tax money they
would have had to spend on the same programs anyway.
--scotsman |
| 2004/6/30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, ERROR, uid:31084, category id '18005#21.245' has no name! , ] UID:31084 Activity:high |
6/30 http://www.drudgereport.com/kerryhrc.htm Anonymous insider claims that Hillary is going to be Kerry's VP pick. \_ Where's that hilarious motd troll who claimed that Drudge was never wrong? He needs to be properly mocked again. \_ No. Drudge was wrong once which he got sued for. The rest of his stuff is either links to other sites or like this URL make it clear he is quoting a single anonymous source. He leaves it for the reader to decide. Try again. \_ So you see absolutely nothing wrong with publicizing false accusations from single anonymous sources? Wow, you are really amoral. \_ Now you're confusing morals with the accuracy of his publication. I see no difference between this URL and the same anonymous sources getting quoted all the time in the newspapers. Do you? \_ For one, the anonymous source says nothing definitive so the whole quote is meaningless. But in fact, I see no difference on the whole. Reporting single anonymous sources without any effort to confirm their allegations, as Drudge routinely does, is amoral. If I have a very popular publication and I get a phone call in the middle of the night telling me that Dick Cheney rapes dogs, I have a responsibility to try and confirm that before I print it. Are you familiar with the concept of libel? And yes, I know US libel law requires malicious intent. \_ Bush it is! \_ The best part about this non-credible non-story is that there is no definite gotcha in the quotes - the "insider" is speculating just as much as Drudge is, reporting Capitol hill gossip and giving his opinion of what it means. It doesn't even qualify as decent hearsay Why do people pay attention to Drudge again? \_ It's hearsay about speculation about hearsay. That's a *kind* of evidence. -Lionel Hutz \_ Wrong! "Well, Your Honor. We've plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are *kinds* of evidence." |
| 2004/6/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:31069 Activity:high |
6/29 "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the Common Good."
Hillary Rodham Clinton, making my point much more eloquently than I
ever could. -- ilyas
\_ isn't that the definition of taxes?
\_ or the Republican line: we're going to take things away from
you and there's nothing you can do about it....buah! ha! ha! haaaa!
\_ Your comment does fall a little flat in that she was commenting
on the (hoped for) repeal of Bush's tax cuts. -- ilyas
\_ Okay, she wants to repeal ill thought out tax cuts. That
seems like a lesser evil when compared to an administration
that seeks to deny US citizens their right to legal counsel,
as well the right to a speedy public trial based on the
frighteningly slippery classification of 'terrorist' under the
aegis of National Security.
\_ Eh. I don't like erosion of rights. However, the Courts
recently reaffirmed that whole 'checks and balances' thing,
while they can do nothing about the growth of government
at our expense. It's telling, also, that most of the
responses to this thread have been counterattacks on
republicans (I am neither republican nor conservative),
rather than the defense of Hillary's statement. -- ilyas
\_ Think of it this way: The current administration is
like a guy that wants to shoot you in the left testicle.
He missed his first three shots, but he's still armed
and in a position to try again. Would you feel safe
knowing that? I can't speak for everyone else, but the
current administration makes me veeeery nervous when it
comes to preservation of rights. Don't get me wrong:
I want terrorists dead, but I'm not excited about seeing
the US turn into a police state acheiving that goal.
\_ Sure, you are neither conservative nor republican!
I thought you claimed to be a conservative of some sort
once upon a time.
\_ "We're taking things away from you on behalf of Halliburton and
Enron and the Military-Industrial Complex." Cutting taxes while
running huge deficits isn't really giving much. |
| 2004/6/25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:31006 Activity:nil |
6/24 Bush is God's gift to mankind. Clinton is a child rapist.
\_ Stop bringing facts into this thread.
\_ He's not bringing facts. He's just some ranting Republican.
\_ Why do you hate America?
\_ I don't hate America. I'm just saying that OP said
nothing factual.
\_ But you said you hate Bush. So surely, you must
hate America. You also like Clinton so you also
support child rapists.
\_ where's that guy that says "strawman! strawman!"??
This is definitely the right moment for him! |
| 2004/6/23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30971 Activity:insanely high |
6/23 How many members of the Bush Administration are needed
to replace a light bulb?
The Answer is SEVEN:
1. One to deny that a light bulb needs to be replaced,
2. One to attack and question the patriotism of anyone who has
questions about the light bulb,
\_ WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?
3. One to blame the Clinton administration for the need of a new
light bulb,
4. One to arrange the invasion of a country rumored to have a secret
stockpile of light bulbs,
5. One to get together with Vice President Cheney and well, no, no one
would want to be in the same room with Vice President Cheney.
6. One to arrange a photo-op session showing Hillary changing the light
bulb while carrying a tray of cookies she baked herself.
7. And finally, one to explain to Bush the difference between
screwing a light bulb and screwing the country and screwing an
intern.
8. And one more to explain that when your penis enters a woman's
mouth, that is sex, no matter what the definition of 'is' is.
\_ That's a waste of tax payers' money. Bush still would not
know the difference.
\_ AWESOME!!
\_ what are all these light bulb parts ending up in foreign country
scrap yards?
scrap yards like Kosovo and the Sudan and Afganistan?
\_ they just removed the filaments and discarded the shells |
| 2004/6/21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:30932 Activity:nil 66%like:30928 |
6/21 Clinton lies!
http://csua.org/u/7ue
\_ Please don't delete properly-formatted freeper links. -liberal
\_ It's a good thing 'liberal' is here to let others know that
s/he has given 'protected' status to properly formatted freeper
links. Here Ye! Here Ye! Let it be known that it is no longer
ok to censor properly formatted freeper links as they now fall
under the protection of 'liberal'! -!freeperboy
\_ Freeper links mysteriously disappearing makes liberals look
like we don't tolerate debate.
\_ It isn't a mystery. Leftists have been censoring the
poor lad since day 1. Where's the mystery? -!freeperboy
\_ I read it. Boy was it a waste of time. And here I was
trying to be mature and engage my Republican friends
in an thoughtful debate and all I read about are the
non-sensical rantings of a bitter author. There's
nothing substantive in here. Now I see why people
delete URLs.
\_ Freeper != Republican. Freeper != conservative. There
are real honest to god conservatives right here on the
motd. Freeperboy isn't one of them.
\_ No. Free republic is useless noise, and a link from it
with the description "Clinton lies!" is most certainly
noise.
\_ Of course, there is the possibility that it was posted
by a liberal to shake up an insufferably dull motd
to make a boring monday morning more interesting.
\_ That's the most reasonable explanation I've seen.
Given that the Freepers have cried wolf so much,
it only makes sense to feature them as entertainment.
\_ Not just reasonable, also correct. -op
\_ More fringie than the tinfoil hat crowd. I
love it!
\_ Big news! Sky is blue!
\_ No it's not. It's gray!
\_ Clinton Lies! Hillary Cries!
\_ The truth? You can't handle the truth!
\_ dude, he lied about *SEX* Everybody lies about SEX.
On the other hand, we got a guy in whitehouse right now lied about
WAR. If this is happening in Alex Hamiton's time, it would be
considered as an act of treason.
\_ Lied about war? Which war and what lies? URL, please. And no,
everybody doesn't lie about sex. People who aren't scumbags
don't have to lie about it. Chew on that for a while.
\_ Who is Alex Hamiton?
\_ Mmmmrrrnnnn Brrrrr!
\_ Look at a $10 bill some time.
\_ Oh thanks! I have achieved enlightenment! Now please
tell me, who was that poor old man that died the other
week? What was his name, Roald Raygoon?
\_ Hi troll!
\_ Not everyone believes that Bush lied about the war. There
is no way to prove (beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt)
that he lied about the war. Clinton, however was caught
with is pants down.
\_ If you note what was actually said and not what the media
op/ed pages paraphrase him into saying, there was no lying.
\_ I completely agree. I don't think that he has misled
or lied about the war. He has been fairly honest about
it since the beginning. Anyone who knows how intel.
works knows that it can never be 100%. You often have
to make time sensitive decisions based on incomplete,
conflicting data.
\_ He said he was certain that Saddam had WMD when the
evidence was contradictory and uncertain. That counts
as a "lie" in my book. Look up the defn of lie. It has
more than one defn. Spreading a falsehood (that you
believe to be true) is a lie by one defn of it. He
is certainly guilty of this kind of lie.
\_ I still agree with what the other guy said. What Clinton has done
is probably shop lifting. What BushCo has done is mass murdering.
You are right, there is no comparison.
Lie \Lie\ (l[imac]), n. [AS. lyge; akin to D. leugen, OHG. lugi,
G. l["u]ge, lug, Icel. lygi, Dan. & Sw. l["o]gn, Goth. liugn.
See {Lie} to utter a falsehood.]
[...]
2. A fiction; a fable; an untruth. --Dryden.
\_ bush hems and misinterprets and miscontrues
and exaggerates immensely the true economic costs of
his tax cuts like ALL THE TIME, whenever he opens
his mouth, i think we're living in an alternate
reality, i don't know how he gets away with it. |
| 2004/6/21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:30928 Activity:very high 66%like:30932 |
6/21 Clinton lies!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1157303/posts
\_ Please don't delete properly-formatted freeper links. -liberal
\_ It's a good thing 'liberal' is here to let others know that
s/he has given 'protected' status to properly formatted freeper
links. Here Ye! Here Ye! Let it be known that it is no longer
ok to censor properly formatted freeper links as they now fall
under the protection of 'liberal'! -!freeperboy
\_ Freeper links mysteriously disappearing makes liberals look
like we don't tolerate debate.
\_ It isn't a mystery. Leftists have been censoring the
poor lad since day 1. Where's the mystery? -!freeperboy
\_ I read it. Boy was it a waste of time. And here I was
trying to be mature and engage my Republican friends
in an thoughtful debate and all I read about are the
non-sensical rantings of a bitter author. There's
nothing substantive in here. Now I see why people
delete URLs.
\_ Freeper != Republican. Freeper != conservative. There
are real honest to god conservatives right here on the
motd. Freeperboy isn't one of them.
\_ No. Free republic is useless noise, and a link from it
with the description "Clinton lies!" is most certainly
noise.
\_ Of course, there is the possibility that it was posted
by a liberal to shake up an insufferably dull motd
to make a boring monday morning more interesting.
\_ That's the most reasonable explanation I've seen.
Given that the Freepers have cried wolf so much,
it only makes sense to feature them as entertainment.
\_ Not just reasonable, also correct. -op
\_ More fringie than the tinfoil hat crowd. I
love it!
\_ Big news! Sky is blue!
\_ No it's not. It's grey!
\_ No it's not. It's gray!
\_ Clinton Lies! Hillary Cries!
\_ The truth? You can't handle the truth!
\_ dude, he lied about *SEX* Everybody lies about SEX.
On the other hand, we got a guy in whitehouse right now lied about
WAR. If this is happening in Alex Hamiton's time, it would be
considered as an act of treason.
\_ Lied about war? Which war and what lies? URL, please. And no,
everybody doesn't lie about sex. People who aren't scumbags
don't have to lie about it. Chew on that for a while.
\_ Who is Alex Hamiton?
\_ Mmmmrrrnnnn Brrrrr!
\_ Look at a $10 bill some time.
\_ Oh thanks! I have achieved enlightenment! Now please
tell me, who was that poor old man that died the other
week? What was his name, Roald Raygoon?
\_ Hi troll!
\_ Not everyone believes that Bush lied about the war. There
is no way to prove (beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt)
that he lied about the war. Clinton, however was caught
with is pants down.
\_ If you note what was actually said and not what the media
op/ed pages paraphrase him into saying, there was no lying.
\_ I completely agree. I don't think that he has misled
or lied about the war. He has been fairly honest about
it since the beginning. Anyone who knows how intel.
works knows that it can never be 100%. You often have
to make time sensitive decisions based on incomplete,
conflicting data.
\_ He said he was certain that Saddam had WMD when the
evidence was contradictory and uncertain. That counts
as a "lie" in my book. Look up the defn of lie. It has
more than one defn. Spreading a falsehood (that you
believe to be true) is a lie by one defn of it. He
is certainly guilty of this kind of lie.
Lie \Lie\ (l[imac]), n. [AS. lyge; akin to D. leugen, OHG. lugi,
G. l["u]ge, lug, Icel. lygi, Dan. & Sw. l["o]gn, Goth. liugn.
See {Lie} to utter a falsehood.]
[...]
2. A fiction; a fable; an untruth. --Dryden.
\_ bush hems and misinterprets and miscontrues
and exaggerates immensely the true economic costs of
his tax cuts like ALL THE TIME, whenever he opens
his mouth, i think we're living in an alternate
reality, i don't know how he gets away with it. |
| 2004/6/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:30922 Activity:high |
6/19 Report: Ken Lay to be indicted
Trace Lay's ties to the Repubs. and Dems. throughout the '90 on this
thread.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1156564/posts
\_ It's not legit until it's linked through freerepublic?
\_ Ooh, I've been waiting for this to happen. |
| 2004/6/18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:30903 Activity:high |
6/18 Bubba whines:
Clinton wrote that he came to learn that his upbringing had made
certain things more difficult for him than for other people, and
that he was particularly prone to self-destructive behavior when he
was tired, angry or feeling lonely.
Give me a fucking break, Bill.
\_ Why do you hate ex-America?
\_ You are such a big strong manly Neocon. Can I suck your cock now,
please?
\_ Your cock is so BIG and TAX FREE! -Ann Coulter
\_ It doesn't take a Neocon to call "bullshit!" when shit stinks.
\_ In fact, most Neocons are so desensitized to the smell that
they hardly ever call bullshit when it's appropriate.
\_ You forget what he says in his 60 Minutes interview:
"I'm not making any excuses. I have no excuse and as far as I'm
able to explain it to myself, here's my explanation: ..."
\_ which really just means, "i did it because i wanted to and just
didn't give a flying fuck about anyone else".
\_ Contrast this to GWB who does give a flying fuck about
anyone else?
\_ That's an opinion. You could slap that charge on anyone
in power in any country at any time. Policy is different
from personal failure.
\_ In other words, when it comes to national policy, it's
okay not to "give a flying fuck about anyone else"
but when it comes to personal matters, it isn't.
That makes sense.
\_ GWB can believably say he is acting to protect America.
Clinton has no defense for Monica deep-throating him.
\_ He actually said: "I did something for the worst possible
reason. Just because I could. I think that's just about the
most morally indefensible reason anybody could have for doing
anything." Which echoes what you wrote, but he said it
before you just did.
Your thesis is Bill is making excuses. Bill says pretty
clearly, "I have no excuse", but he is providing some kind
of explanation: "Because I could", etc.
It's how you apologize. You say you fucked up, then you
explain why in the world you did.
\_ I didn't have a thesis. I only wrote the 2 lines above.
Anyway, having or not having an excuse really doesn't
matter. Some behaviour is inexcusable and if he was really
all that sorry about it, he could have apologized years ago
without earning $10m off a book to do it. I wish I could
get $10m for writing a book about how I cheated on my wife
just because, for no particular reason, really meaning
that I'm just an asshole. Can any asshole get $10m for
cheating on his wife and not having a reason?
\_ All right, then I challenge the thesis from the
original post.
As for the $10 mill, it's your right to think that
he's only apologizing for 10 million dollars and
royalties.
\_ There is no 'thesis' in the original post except
that Billy is whining, which is pretty obvious.
\_ Are you op? If you are, good.
"Whining" and "Give me a fucking break, Bill"
clearly implies the poster thinks Bill is making
excuses. I am pointing out that Clinton has said
he has no excuse for Monica blowing him.
\_ So why is he still whining?
\_ Oh yeah, I forgot he gets royalties for being an
asshole, too. The $10m was 'just' the advance.
\_ Hillary is reason enough to cheat. It's between the
two of them anyway. Sex isn't evil. |
| 2004/6/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:30802 Activity:high |
6/14 Here's the VRWCer Drudge reporting more of his pro-Bushco anti-Clinton
lies! I'm sure that none of this is true... hehehe, right wing
controlled media, hehehehe, yeah right.
http://www.drudgereport.com/bc1.htm
\_ CBS is right leaning if anything. This is about the revenue.
Not the politics.
\_ CBS would be considered right-leaning in France. Maybe. -- ilyas
\_ ilyas is talking about Abu Ghraib photos, experts who dispute
aluminum tubes, and Bill Clinton book press. The previous
poster is talking about CBS's older demographic and
patriotism advertising. Everyone's right! :D
\_ How exactly does CBS get revenue by *forcing* all of it's
affiliates to carry an hour long Bill Clinton commercial for
*free*? Hey, it isn't 1998 anymore! You don't make money by
giving your shit away for free. |
| 2004/6/12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:30765 Activity:nil |
6/11 Clinton >> Carter > Kerry. -dem. What's the republican take?
Or maybe Clinton > Carter >> Kerry ? |
| 2004/5/18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:30274 Activity:very high |
5/18 Military starting to call up inactive reservists. One step away from
conscription, woo-hoo!
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_irs_051804,00.html
\_ As an aside to this, there are indications that the Army is
planning to deploy some of its OPFOR training units to active
duty in the Middle East.
\_ Just out of curiosity, what does the gov't do if say, Joe
Reservist makes $100k per year and has $40k of mortgage per year?
And his gov't pay is only about $50k/year?
Must he lose his house to serve his country? --PeterM
\_ Why do you hate America?
\_ Yup. Especially since you're in the inactive reserves for
quite some time after you finish active service. You've gotten
your life together, gotten married, probably had kids and bought
a house, etc. etc. etc...
\_ Your country helped you out when you needed it. When your
country needs you, you go. It's part of the price you pay later
for the help you got earlier. Would you have that $100k job if
it wasn't for the rest of us paying for your education?
\_ I was almost called up for the 1st gulf war while on the IRR. I
got my postcard from the gov't...
\_ You too? Who are you? -ausman
\_ Since it was nuked: "What will you do when the draft starts?
Sign up? Move to Canada? Claim conscientious objector?"
\_ Why would Canada or Germany or any other country want to take in
the lazy assholes who won't serve their own country? What good
would you be to their country if you're no good to your own? So
just where does a "Citizen Of The World" hide when the shooting
starts? Maybe Kofi will take you in. He can certainly afford it
after ripping off the Oil for Bribes program in Iraq.
\_ What's the drafting age here?
\_ According to sss.gov, 18 to 25.
\_ yes! I'm 26. Go draft!
\_ Good. I'm 33.
\_ I was of age during the Reagan and Bush I years. I have
little sympathy for those of age during the Clinton/Bush II
years. No one is getting drafted. It's ridiculous.
\_ CO status is notoriously hard to prove, and I believe Canada
now has an extradition treaty with the US specifically related
to draft-dodgers.
\_ Okay, how 'bout Germany.
\_ You *do* know they have 1 year of mandatory military
service, right?
\_ not for everyone. I think that like Sweden and some
other places there's a lottery of some sort and only
those people have to serve.
\_ No EU country is going to take you in. You're useless.
Your beloved pacifist countries have closed border
policies.
\_ And most COs end up assigned as medics. The job of a medic
is even more dangerous than infantryman.
\_ Yep. Don't generally even have a real rifle to shoot back
with and mostly near the front where people are getting
shot to shit. Go COs/sniper finders!
\_ I'm pretty sure you're all already signed up for the draft.
\_ no, not if you're over 25, and almost no one here is *under*
25, which is why this thread is a little silly.
\_ For what it's worth, you can be called up to your 26th
birthday
\_ You can be called at any age.
\_ I heard on the radio that the Selective Service was doing
the ground work on extending eligibility to 35.
-- ulysses
\_ True. They call from youngest to oldest, though.
\_ Does that mean they actually expect to run out of
people < 26? That doesn't seem likely to me.
-- ulysses
\_ I don't think that's the point of the draft. The
point of the draft is to exert power over citizens,
by confiscating their labor (which is what a draft
is). -- evil libertarian
\_ Gotcha. Now does anybody else feel like trying to
answer the question - the question I asked, that
is?
\_ That's pretty amusing considering most
Libertarians consider national defense one of the
few legitimate functions of government. How
should the government raise troop strength if the
market isn't sufficient? Just give up?
\_ Libertarians think the market is always
sufficient. Just raise salaries for soldiers
until you attract enough of them. Of course
this will also entail raising taxes, but
raising taxes is ok as long as they're being
used for approved purposes like protecting
our property rights by sodomizing brown people.
\_ Straw men aside, I would expect one's life
to be a rather inflexible resource. The
Libertarian's property won't be worth much
if it's glowing. I see plenty of room for
debate among realy Libs.
\_ Mod +5 Funny!
\_ But my property rights could be protected
much more cheaply and efficiently by a
private army! Why should I be taxed to
pay for a wasteful public army when a
private-sector army could do a better job
for less money?
\_ Cf. Abu Ghraib prison scandal, private
military contractors.
\_ True, but a real Libertarian wouldn't
want his army in a foreign country to
begin with.
\_ Unless the foreign country was
threatening his property.
\_ Protecting collective assets
(infrastructure and stable gov't for
instance) requires a collective army.
\_ There are an awful lot of inactive reservists to call up before
they have to start a draft.
\_ I thought they are bringing in troops from S. Korea. Those
aren't enough?
\_ Not even close. The big problem is the literal size of the US
standing army, the time it takes to retrain units (both regular
army and Guard), and how long they can stay in the field. The
US troops coming in from SK will be able to provide some relief,
but is nowhere near enough for the long term.
\_ We've been needing to decrease troop size ing SK for a while.
But last I heard, only about 3-4k troops were relocating. Which
is only 1-2% of the troops in the ME.
\_ You mean like since Carter? That's what he thought, and
it almost ended up causing a second Korean war. (Ok
actually I agree with you, but I wanted to throw that out
because Carter is an idiot.)
\_ CARTER IS AN IDIOT.
CLINTON IS AN IDIOT.
CLINTON IS THE REASON WHY AMERICA LOST WWII
CARTER HATES AMERICA
CLINTON IS A BIG FAT LOSER.
CARTER WAS THE REASON WHY 9/11 HAPPENED
CLINTON CAUSED AMERICAN CITIES TO BE NUKED
CARTER AND CLINTON ARE COMMUNISTS
CLINTON IS A FUCKING LIBERAL TREE HUGGER.
CLINTON SOLD NUKES TO IRAQ
CLINTON WAS THE CAUSE OF BOTH IRAQ WARS
CLINTON SUPPLIED 767S TO OSAMA BIN LADEN
AL GORE INVENTED HIV AND AIDS.
AL GORE INVENTED CANCER.
GEORGE W BUSH IS THE NEXT MESSIAH.
\_ All right, you've ranted about Carter enough times that
you're getting a name. CarterTroll! Right up there in
the hallowed ground with ChiCom Troll and Freeper! Yay!
\_ It isn't a troll if it's true. Should we just call you
BlindToRealityTroll?
\_ Truth is in the eye of the beholder. Besides which,
maybe you should worry about the idiots that are
currently in office rather than the idiots that
haven't been in office in quite some time?
\_ Ninja poster strikes! He throws up a mindless
phrase to distract his enemies, then quickly
attempts the change the subject!
\_ DON'T CONCENTRATE ON THE FINGER OR YOU WILL
MISS ALL THE HEAVENLY GLORY!!! |
| 2004/5/15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, ERROR, uid:30237, category id '18005#5.94625' has no name! , ] UID:30237 Activity:nil |
5/15 The new world of campaign opposition research
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/06/green.htm |
| 2004/5/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30211 Activity:very high |
5/12 The Revolution Will Not Be Blogged
http://www.mojones.com/commentary/columns/2004/05/04_200.html
(why blogs suck as political force, basically)
\_ here's a shock; masturbation sucks as a political force, also. -tom
\_ I disagree. There are a ton of wankers in politics.
\_ but outside the ASUC, it won't get you elected. -tom
\_ did someone get elected to ASUC for masturbating?
\_ Can you prove there is no God?
\_ it's a reasonable question, dammit. tom made it
sound like there's a story there, and i want to
hear it.
\_ I think there was a "Masturbation Party" a few
years back. I don't know if they won. -tom
\_ And I wasn't invited?
\_ You were, but you didn't come.
\_ You're a founding member. We signed you
up while you were "busy" pushing your
"political agenda".
\_ That is what this guy gets for spending all his time reading
echo chambers. Blogs have already proven to be good fundraising
tools. |
| 2004/5/6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:30071 Activity:nil |
5/6 Cover of the new Economist:
http://www.economist.com/images/20040508/20040508issuecovUS400.jpg
\_Damn liberal media
\_ And where were the calls for Reno to step down after she immolated
a few dozen children and women in Waco?
\_ I see. It's her fault they were too nutty to leave the building?
In any case, some people *did* call for her to step down at the
time.
\_ Uh, I don't think you are very familiar with that incident.
-- ilyas
\_ Most of America agrees with him:
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/printerfriend/index.asp?PID=16
\_ Over 100 people were immolated by the Fed government and
you respond with a fucking poll!!?? The MOTD is
populated with fascist leftists.. I see that now.
\_ Can someone tell me what religions are sacntioned by the Fed
government so I don't have to be worried about immolation?
Thanks!
\_ just try to tone down the incest, pedophilia, and weapons
stockpiling.
\_ Good little fascist. Why don't you scroll through these
autopsy photographs:
http://www.public-action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/map/d_list07.html
\_ All over the place, don't you remember? Republicans in Congress
demanded that she step down.
\_ On the cover of the economist? the washington post? the
nytimes?
\_ latimes ran an opinion piece saying she should step down
over it in 1999.
\_ oooh an opinion piece on page A21. You're position is
completely vindicated!
\_ The story behind the cover is likely that Democrats are
calling for Rumsfeld's resignation. The cover looks like
The Economist is calling for hist resignation, but it's
probably just reporting that others are doing it. Bad
cover IMO. -emarkp
\_ No, I read the article, the economist is calling for
him to resign. This doesn't surprise me, however.
Waco is an internal incident -- Iraq has international
ramifications (well you can argue Waco does too...)
Certainly, I consider both incidents atrocities.
-- ilyas |
| 2004/5/6 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/Japan, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30059 Activity:very high |
5/6 Rush Limbaugh on the Abu Ghraib incidents:
http://mediamatters.org/static/audio/limbaugh-20040504.mp3
\_ Got a transcript? I can't listen to him at work.
\_ Got a transcript? I can't listen to him.
\_ Partial transcript here:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200405050003
\_ Despicable, and one more reason conservatives should abandon Rush.
Compare that to Glenn Beck's comments that he supports the troops
but would like to spit in the face of the soldiers who did this.
-emarkp
\_ Wow. Talk about taking things out of context. When will he start
saying that the prisoners were having fun too?
\_ "When you invade a country, you have to break some eggs.
My enemies are blowing this out of proportion, to get to ME."
-Dick Cheney
\-"The Iraqis should be glad they were abused by Americans.
If they had been abused by Italians for Japanese, then
it would have been even more humiliating." -D. Cheney
\_ Well, the (not so) silent majority of Americans think they are. |
| 2004/5/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:29948 Activity:very high |
5/1 Heh, your guy can't even get his story straight! hehe,
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040510-632009,00.html
\_ How about putting an old Republican Guard general in charge
of Fallujah? Talk about the Mother of Flip Flops.
\_ Here's someone who missed the message. -op
\_ maybe because it's totally unclear? who is "your guy?"
in case you haven't noticed, the motd has a plurality of
libertarians with a smattering of anarchists, democrats,
communists, far-right republicans, moderates and some
buchannan nuts.
\_ Clinton gave sworn testimony behind closed doors. Bush and
Cheney gave unsworn testimony behind closed doors. I'll take
sworn over unsworn any time. |
| 2004/4/26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:13383 Activity:moderate |
4/26 NYTimes is running an editorial promoting marijuana decriminalization
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/26/opinion/26SCHL.html
\_ An article written by Eric Schlosser.
'Eric Schlosser is the author of "Fast Food Nation" and "Reefer
Madness."'
Just so's you know.
\_ Right. Thanks for the correction.
\_ how is this a correction? is the piece no longer on
http://nytimes.com because Eric Schlosser wrote it?
\_ Someone performed sed s/editorial/article/ on my post.
\_ It's neither an article nor an editorial. It's an
op/ed piece.
\_ Has anyone been able to get nytimes working with the web browser
links? I can do it with lynx, but not links. tia.
\_ Wow. Was it really necessary ot modify my posting like 4 times? -op
\_ Yes. It is easier for the weak minded to modify your post
instead of replying intelligently to it. When my posts are
modified I accept it as complete and total victory over the
vastly inferior intellects that invest the motd. |
| 2004/4/21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:13310 Activity:nil |
4/21 Do you notice a lot of non-Indian, non-Asian, non-Caucasian
CS/EECS students these days?
related article:
http://tinyurl.com/2mg2f
\_ It could be that the College of Engineering's sundry programs
for recruiting underrepresented minorities and making
sure they graduate in CS/EECS is actually working. (I believe
Cal's is headed by a black, female Materials Engineering
graduate who also distinguished herself as one of Cal's few
Rhodes Scholars.)-elizp
\_ tell me how smart or dumb the incoming class is. don't tell me
what race it is.
\_ or how privileged.
\_ it would be great if uc adjusted admission based on socio-
economic status (or lack thereof) rather than on race-
substitutes. (btw, i believe i saw reference to a study
that said, based on se status, asain attendance would
go up, whites stay flat, and other privileged minorities
would drop. sorry, no ref, so may just be faulty on my
part.)
\_ Why? Why not just have smart people rather than stupid
poor people? Oh wait, I forgot... -John
\_ we are. poor kid who did well tend to be smarter
than rich kid who performed at an equal level.
take bush and clinton for example. if clinton
has low IQ like bush, he would not have made it
to governor of arkansas.
\_ The Clintons are poor now? -- ilyas
\_ Bill Clinton grew up poor. Are you purposely
being stupid?
\_ Well I am not a Bill Clinton scholar or
anything, nor did I read any of his
biographies. Quick internet search turns
up at least middle class, given the jobs
of his mother and step-father. But yes,
Tom, I am purposely being stupid. -- ilyas
\_ that wasn't me, twink. I'm not sure you
can help being stupid. -tom
\_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton
"Clinton grew up in a turbulent family.
His stepfather was a gambler and
alcoholic who regularly abused his wife,
and sometimes Clinton's half brother
Roger, Jr." Search harder padawan.
\_ I grant that he was a gambler and a drunk.
But poor? No way. Look up what Clinton's
parent did for a living again. -- ilyas
\_ "He rose from poverty to graduate
from Georgetown University with a
degree in International Affairs"
It does not matter how much money
you make, if you gamble it all away.
Your refusal to even bother reading
the first few paragraphs of the
refernce I found for you only
demonstrates your desire to
stay ignorant, the definition
of stupidity in my book. -!tom
\_ Well, I have a choice. One is
to take wikipedia's word for it,
and another is to look at what
his adult family members actually
did for a living... I ll take my
chances with that. I ll grant you
my stupidity if you want, just
to avoid having to talk about it
anymore. A short blurb from
wikipedia doesn't prove your
argument for you. I offered a
reasonable piece of information
for why he didn't grow up poor.
You just flamed. -- ilyas
\_ gambling can make you poor
even if you have a decent job.
\_ Yeah it may. Or not. It
would be nice to actually
look into that. But let's
just quote wikipedia some
more instead. -- ilyas
\_ http://csua.org/u/708
If you really are
interested.
\_ I am not the person
who quoted wikipedia.
\_ and rich kids who did well tend to be smarter
than other rich kids who did less well. so let's
control for se status.
\_ Cal does a "comprehensive review" which includes
looking at socioeconomic status. -tom
\_ And here I've been thinking that "comprehensive
review" is just court approved smoke screen
for "let's accept members of privileged
minority classes rather than members of
nonprivileged minority classes". Silly me.
\_ Somewhat related question. There have been many studies along
the lines of: send in white and black candidates for job/loan/
apt/whatever and observe white candidates getting better
response. Has there been a study where they sent in college
applications for black and white students of identical background/
grades/scores/recommendations/etc. and observe the admission
results?
\_ the scariest study of that nature I saw was one in which
computer-generatred resumes were sent to perspective employers
with fake randomized personal and profesional information, but
with some having "black sounding" names that are typically
associated with african americans, and some having more WASP
sounding names.
\_ Well who would this benefit? That's why it won't be studied.
Merit-based admission is the dream, but won't happen until
the educational playing field is leveled - which will be
never.
\_ Gee, isn't it worthwhile to find out if there's racial
discrimination in the college application process?
Color me curious.
\_ It would be interesting if we can attach a value for being
a member of <minority> in the college application process.
Someone enterprising might be able to take advantage of
that. A very straight friend joined all the usual gay/
lesbian/bi/transexual clubs as part of his med school
application process and got into some pretty impressive
schools that he thought he'd have no chance at. With no
control, it's hard to know what the effect of his club
membership might have had, but it'd be an intersting thing
to find out, no?
\_ We should screen for hot females. Old-time MIT-boys still tell
me how great the class of '86 was. |
| 2004/4/20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:13282 Activity:nil |
4/20 Mr. Ashcroft's Smear [in the 9/11 hearings]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25813-2004Apr19.html
\_ For those who can't be bothered to log into the Washington Post:
/csua/tmp/ashsmear
\_ This whole committee is a political sham and everyone knows it.
\_ Well, as far as Congress members, only a couple
Republicans have said that
\_ What good would a political sham be if all the
politicians admitted it was a sham? |
| 2004/4/19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, ERROR, uid:13262, category id '18005#5' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/911] UID:13262 Activity:nil |
4/18 Besides frontline what is good to watch online?
\_ http://www.cspan.org
Has cspan, cspan2, cspan3, cspan radio and archived bits from
the various cspans. All free.
\_ http://Archive.org has a ton of "ephemeral films" free to download. |
| 2004/4/8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:13088 Activity:very high |
4/7 Condi Rice paraphrased. "It's not our fault. We didn't know exactly
what was going to happen so we couldn't do anything to prevent it.
It's Clinton's fault."
\_ Truth hurts, huh? Read the transcript for yourselves instead of
getting the mindless motd leftist rehash:
http://wid.ap.org/transcripts/rice.html
http://wid.ap.org/transcripts/rice.html
\_ Truth? From a series of subjective statements by one woman,
in the face of numerous subjective statements by several other
people? Yes, that'll get us to the bottom of this.
\_ Better subjective statements by the person under discussion
than subjective rehashes by others. I think the above
poster makes a good point. Thanks for posting the link.
You hear a lot of lies watching CSPAN, but IMHO that's a lot
better than hearing a brief, badly understood, spun version
of the lie by some reporter on one of the "real" networks.
\_ You're right, primary sources are better than secondary
sources. Unfortunately, it's now devolved into "She said,
people? Yes, that'll get us to the bottom of this.
he said." It's hard to get to the truth at this point.
\_ when it comes to a question of crediblity between
a white man and a black woman, we all know who to
trust.
\_ We already found that out when Clarke testified (he said that had we
done everything he wanted it wouldn't have stopped 9/11). It's a
shame that this commission is a blame hunt instead of an attempt to
fix problems.
\_ To fix problems you need to find the cause. The blame game tells
you who thought what way. Was it institutional or executive
based? What were the priorities? Who knew what when? Was it
incompetance, lack of communication or PHB syndrome?
\_ If you want to find the cause, you shouldn't be lobbing
partisan opinions, or even having this in open session. This
whole Rice inquisition is happening not to find answers, but
to present a dog and pony show to the public, which includes
the blame game.
\_ Like Cheney's Energy policy? Golly, no partisans there.
fix problems.
Yes it was a dog-and-pony show, because sometimes you NEED
prove you have a dog-and-pony, that can state your case
instead of being told "don't worry your pretty little head
about it, we know what we're doing."
\_ as one radio commentator mentioned- the phrase "couldn't the FAA
have put heavier doors on the cabin / armed the pilots"
never came up from any of the commission members. They
seriously are not interested in the truth, even the Democrats
who would benefit from showing the Bush administration's
failures. They are all worthless parasitic trash.
\_ Because the FAA could never have gotten that passed though
committee before 9/11.
\_ what committee?
is a lot more glamurous.
\_ you guys have such short memory span. Remember, Bush and his
neocons were putting China and Russia under their cross hair and
eager to start another cold war. Fighting an evil empire
is a lot more glamurous.
\_ I thought it was 'neocons and their Bush'?
\_ my bad, i'm sorry.
\_ glamorous.
\_ What frustrates me is the emphasis on how "lucky" the US caught
previous terrorists attempts. You can MAKE luck. It's like sodans
whining about no sex when they spend whole weekends playing UT.
If you're not trying, it's not going to happen.
\_ Exactly. We all know that it's the CounterStrike guys who get
the chix.
\_ Word. I hate those guys.
\_ Clinton lobbed cruise missiles at bin Laden (after the U.S. embassy
bombings that killed hundreds). You can bet he would have liked
to have Predator accuracy at that point.
On the other hand, Bush didn't do anything. Nothing was
"actionable". The attitude was that if Clinton supported it, the
Bush people didn't want anything to do with it.
\_ Given Clinton's record it's a sound basic policy from which to
start.
\_ Condi testimony indicates a failure of the intelligence
community, mostly their fear of being wrong.
\_ Maybe. That's the question. Emperor's clothing or deaf ears?
\_ no, the statement means keeping mouth shut before
telling the emperor or emperor's helpers like condi |
| 2004/4/6 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:13032 Activity:high 50%like:13030 |
4/6 Don't you hate it when facts get in the way of your book sales?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1112119/posts
\_ Here's a much better article on the same subject:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040406-121654-1495r.htm
\_ You are joking right?
\_ if you have to ask...
\_ exactly.
\_ i don't get it |
| 2004/4/6 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:13030 Activity:high 50%like:13032 |
4/5 Damn it, I hate when facts get in the way of my book sales! --clarke
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040406-121654-1495r.htm
\_ Damn it, I hate it when the real news doesn't furnish pithy,
topical subject lines, so I have to resort to my limited creative
writing skills.
\_ Clue bat: this isn't a news site. If you want boring, go read
CNN. But you do score half a point for completely ducking the
content and point of the URL. Maybe next time you'll get an
entire cookie!
\_ Damn it, I hate it when people having fun pointing out the
faults in my posts gets in the way of my trolling! --op
\_ Keep ducking. So far you've got 2 ad hominens, 2 ducks
and 1 falsely signed post and 0 real replies. --real op |
| 2004/3/29 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:12897 Activity:very high |
3/28 Let's take some perspective on Dick Clarke. He was the counter-
terrorism point man through 4 presidents. His ideology, whatever
it may be, obviously wasn't offensive enough for Reagan to appoint
and Bush I to keep. So he voted for Gore. Big fucking deal. He
voted for the VP of the administration that gave him his ear. This
somehow discredits him? Does it not disturb you that his suggestions
and recommendations were abandoned by Bush II? Because he "wrote a
book," his experience is negated? mumble mumble emperor mumble mumble
clothes... --scotsman
\_ It disturbs me that some disgruntled book writer gets so much
positive media attention which plays up his role as if he had
actually had a successful track record and plays down the timing
of his book and his bitter demotion and exit from government.
\_ The only people putting this view of the man forward is the
Bush admin and Bill Frist. You're buying a whole lot. How
many people will they be able to convince you are slimeball
opportunists?
\_ He has a positive track record-- during the Reagan, Bush I, and
Clinton years, no foreign terrorist organization committed an
act of terrorism on American soil. From what it sounds like,
he was demoted for wanting to do his job effectively instead
of pushing the Iraq invasion.
\_ Dude. Remember the first WTC attack? That was during Clinton.
\_ In the first few weeks of his presidency. And led
to his increased watchfulness on OBL. Clarke's point
is that the numbers just weren't high enough for Bush
to take it as seriously as he should have.
\_ Dude. I guess you didn't hear his testimony at the
hearings? The one where he says the Bush Admin wasn't
doing anything about terrorism, even the plan that
was put together under Clinton? Not following their
OWN plan INSTEAD of Clinton's, they were doing
not a thing. Nuthin. Nada.
\_ Chill. I was noting that the first WTC happened under
Clinton. Your attempt to change subjects and ignore
facts has failed. Try again later.
\_ I was actually fortunate enough to meet someone who worked in the
upper echelons of the White House during the Clinton and Bush 2
administration. She said something very similar to what Clarke
said. Basically, Bush really wanted to distance himself from
anything remotely "Clinton" related. Things like Middle East
Peace and Terrorism were Clinton obsessions and so Bush really
wanted to distance himself from them.
\_ Clinton? Focussed on terrorism and the middle east? Clinton
pushed so hard in the middle east that there's a fair argument
to be made that he's partially responsible for the current
uprising (at least the start of it). On terrorism? What was
done after the *first* attack on the WTC? After the Cole? After
2 US embassies in Africa? Nothing. Nothing happened. BC went
on TV and made pretty speeches but there was no intelligence
action, no military action, no diplomacy either in the UN or
country-country. Nothing. "I feel your pain". BFD. If I was
the new President I'd want to distance myself from previous
failure also.
\_ Clinton did plenty of things after every attack
mentioned Your contention that he did "nothing" is a big
fat Republican lie:
http://www.bartcop.com/clinton-terrorism-truth.htm
\_ I just thought that Bush Jr. and his neocons were too busy
start another Cold war, with Russia and China at their
crosshair. The scrap of Ballistic Missle Treaty, dumping
billions on missile defense just couple examples of where is
Bush Jr's priority lies. This is an example of how Bush and
his *STUPID* ideology put entire nation in danger... and he
got high approval rating as result. -kngharv
\_ You do realize that the Soviet's were never in
accordance with the ABM treaty right? It was
meaningless gesture on the part of the NATO (U.S.).
How is theatre missile defense a bad idea? The Airborne
Chemical Laser will be operation in a few years.
\_ And yet, the most likely nuclear attack is a smuggled
in dirty bomb. I'm sure your laser is real cool dude.
\_ This commission is one big let's cover each others asses. That
said I base my opinion in actions not words. Clinton had
eight years, 5 attacks do something, anything. Instead in
every foreign policy arena he simply kicked the can down the
road. What was Clinton's pinacle of foreign policy success?
Kosovo - where we effectively gave muslim insurgents a Balkan
base by bombing Christian Serbs?
I remember repeatedly posting links in 2000 about BC's 'diversity
quilt' policy at the CIA. When Woolsey was head of the CIA
he met with Bill Clinton alone twice, TWICE, in the span of two
years; other administrations this would be weekly. And this
was after the first WTC bombing. The running joke in
Washington was that the Cesna aircraft that crashed into
the White House was Woolsey trying to get a meeting with
Clinton. Sorry. You can whine, spin, and cry all you want but a
review of leftist policy the past 30 years is completely
damning. I've said it before: BC was too busy raising money
from Chicom's and jerking off the Oval Office sink - we now
now see the legacy of the Baby Boomer's quintessential
representative. BC's only anti-terrorism 'success' was immolating
the 'religious fanatics' in Waco.
Clarke was an integral part of BC administration - based on
his testimony is directly culpable.
\_ So you believe spurning our allies and sinking massive
resources into nation building is a foreign policy success?
\_ Good duck! When someone says something and you try to turn
it around and point a finger elsewhere without disputing any
of it, you should understand that you're granting everything
they say is true. Little one-off quips like this are weak.
\_ Pot, kettle... Your answer to the question of Clarke's
credibility, and the terrifying nature of his character-
ization of this administration was "Clinton was a do noth-
ing, sex-mongering hippie". 4 presidents. 4. --scotsman
\_ Way to avoid the question...
\_ The best part was where you define "stopping Milosevic's
genocide" as "giving the muslims a Balkan base". Shine on,
don't ever change.
\_ So you swallow CNN's propaganda wholesale. Fine -
Enjoy your dream world. Even a cursory search
on google for Islam Kosovo Albania is alarming.
\_ The Balkans are a sump. Unfortunately, you are both
right. Rather, I'd give Clinton & co. credit for
helping to prevent an Islamic takeover in Bosnia. -John
\- Helo, I think the way the back and forth went
about "he's fishing for a job in the kerry campaign"
was great, i.e. when Clarke said in front of Congress
"I wont take the job". What some of the slow witted
democratic supporters should have said "Hey, isnt
Condi Rice et al also fishing for a job in the
Bush Admin." I think the "could 9/11 have been
prevented" part of this is a huge distraction.
There is saying "dont make weak arguments your
opponents can win" and 'split the difference' since
it's hard to make the case "well that's not the
important matter" ... they should have kept hammering
in the iraq fiasco. the dems still dont get how to
play dirty. Dan Qualye has no political career/
power now because of low politics. You should
try to do the same to Scalia for example. Lots
of people are talking about whether Cheney is a
liability now etc. --psb
\_ Rice *has* a job and she'll be keeping it. She
doesn't need to sit quietly somewhere after being
demoted for incompetence and then retire just after
her 30th year in government (gotta get that next
big pension hike) and write a book in the middle of
an election from out of nowhere. I find it really
sickening that you want politics to be even dirtier
than they already are. There's a reason the % of
people who vote in this country is so dismal.
\_ You are right -- there is a reason so few
people vote in the US, but it is not because of
dirty politics. It's because of the asinine
pluralality-majority voting system we use.
\_ Are you refering to our Federalist
voting system designed to thwart
dictatorship by the majority?
\_ No, i'm referring to plurality-majority
voting systems (sorry about the typo):
http://tinyurl.com/3c2mq
http://tinyurl.com/36k4w (fairvote)
\_ I wouldn't say is opinion is wothless except he's so OBVIOUSLY
playing partisan politics NOW. I mean, here he is on the one
hand complaing that Bush didn't care enough about terrorism
(like good old Clinton did) and on the other saying Bush told
them to kill Bin Laden at the first opportunity and such.
In other words he says "Bush cared less, did more. BTW Bush
bad." Uhhh right man. Whatever. Besides the plot was almost
entirely underway by the time Bush took office. The fixes
would have had to have been instituted under Clinton to have
done any good. What the heck is with this "On September 9th
I tried to tell Bush that we should pay more attention to
Al-Quieda." Maybe so, but BIG FREAKING DEAL! Little late
by then, don't cha think?
\_ No, he said very little of what you attribute to him here. It's
good to know that your lack of attention to details will assure
\_ I didn't realize Scott McLellan had a csua account. [Delete me
again, and watch your little screed disappear.]
on google for Islam Kosovo Albania is alarming.
helping to prevent an Islamic takeover in Bosnia. -John
me of a job for quite a while. Thank you. |
| 2004/3/24 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:12834 Activity:nil |
3/24 Clarke told reporters different story in 2002 background briefing
http://cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/24/clarke.bush.binladen/index.html
\_ Okay, now try a news source that isn't rabidly right-wing.
\_ Cnn is rabidly right-wing.. umm whatever Lenin.
\_ Sorry my sarcasm was too subtle for you.
\_ Apology Accepted. |
| 2004/3/8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:12577 Activity:nil |
3/8 Stop dwelling on the Floriday election people - it doesn't matter
that people were scrubbed from the voters rolls- elections are
determined by those who actually vote. You can only guess at
what these others would have done, or if they even would have
showed up. Although, imo, scrubbing should be done before the
primary, not in between. That gives those improperly knocked
out time to raise hell. FL is just like San Francisco - the
election machinery is a joke. Here we just don't have close races,
or even races at all. I vote absentee and avoid it all.
\_ good point, voter fraud is fine.
\_ Nah, it's only bad when a Republican won. There was (apparently)
hardly any voter fraud to worry about when Clinton won, or during
any other race that wasn't close. Because you know, if there
_was_ voter fraud then, I am sure you diligent non-partisan
folks would have been screaming about it at the top of your
lungs too.
\_ anything specific, or are you just talking out of your ass?
\_ Nah, I am sure it was nothing. I think republicans
invented presidential voter fraud in 2000.
\_ What is your point?
\_ My point, my frothy friend, is that if you dislike
voter fraud, you should have been yelling about it
all these years. As it is, your serendipidous
discovery of this unfortunate malaise on our
society, and subsequent outrage seem a little too
well-timed to be well-intentioned (or honest).
\_ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
HEY SHITBOX STOP WRITING OVER OTHER PEOPLE'S POSTS
\_ Kennedy/Nixon, 1960. Illinois. Texas.
"[T]he Chicago Tribune concluded that 'the election
of November 8 was characterized by such gross and
palpable fraud as to justify the conclusion that
[Nixon] was deprived of victory.'"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36425-2000Nov16?language=printer
\_ yes, yes, so what? Kennedy was a better man so we got a
better President out of it. |
| 2004/2/19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:12309 Activity:nil |
2/18 Anyone interested in seeing what Max Boot is writing these days?
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-boot19feb19,1,6229710.column
\_ Not unless it is an apology for lying to America about the
threat Iraq posed. |
| 2004/2/13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:29802 Activity:kinda low |
2/12 "Right-wing news web site The Drudge Report -- which broke the
Monica Lewinsky scandal -- claimed a woman close to Senator Kerry
recently left America at his behest." -Irish paper
Yes, I know the news is old. But it's funny how they call Drudge
right-wing.
\_ Yeah, all those links to main stream news sources, the right wing
nut bastard! It's insane! He must be stopped! |
| 2004/2/9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:12174 Activity:kinda low |
2/9 Another Albright success story. Gotta love that woman!
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/392006.html
\_ Wouldn't the lead-in, "Al Qaeda has the bomb!" have been enough
of a troll without reference to Madeleine Albright, who seems to
have nothing to do with this story?
\_ You don't seem to understand how the government works. That's
ok. You have time.
\_ Oh, right, I forgot about the black helicopters.
\_ Wow, nice attempt at going way off topic. Maybe you'd like
to go re-read the URL and join us for serious discussion.
\_ What part of this discussion has been serious?
\_ Whoa, like, dude, the Clinton Administration has been out of power
for MORE than three years now. You guys need to get it out of your
system. |
| 2004/2/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:29783 Activity:nil |
2/4 If the Republicans can dig up dirt on Clinton (affairs, etc etc) how
come the Democrats are so incompetent that they can't find dirt on
Bush? |
| 2004/2/5 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/SIG] UID:29782 Activity:very high 50%like:29780 |
2/4 Conservatives -- what two issues do you really care about?
\_ a. keeping my money
b. making more money
\_ you are making conservatives sound very selfish
\_ of course he is. he isn't a conservative. he's trolling.
\_ 1. Making sure my money is spent how I want it to be spent.
2. Reducing government services/intervention/size to those the
government does best (e.g. defense)
\_ I disagree with #1. Tax money should be spent wisely and for
what helps the nation, not on a new pool in your backyard. Or
better yet, my backyard. --conservative
\_ Maybe I feel strongly that a new pool helps the nation. I
think deciding what "helps the nation" is at the core of
this question and liberals have a different idea than
conservatives do. I don't think a lot of "helpful
government programs" help the nation.
\_ your feelings have nothing to do with it. you won't be
able to demonstrate a new pool helps anyone but you. I
agree that various social programs only destroy those
they are intended to help.
\_ How about the Interstate system? Are you opposed
to that, too?
\_ Built during the Commie Liberal Roosevelt
New Dealism era.
\_ The IState system improves commerce efficiency, so
no. The welfare system destroys lives, so yes.
Various tax credits and penalties are used to
conduct government directed social engineering which
IMO is the biggest crime possible in this context.
\_ a new pool will increase overall GDP (by increasing
consumption, and the pool maker will also consume and
so on.. sort of like the multiplier effect.) Thus, a
new pool might be helpful to society.
\_ no, because the final product has no value to society.
if the pool was purchased with his own money then what
you say would be true. but when purchased with tax
dollars which otherwise would have had that multiplier
effect in the economy, they are first filtered through
the government waste system and what little is left is
then multiplied.
\_ So you are saying it's better to build a pool
than to give the money to the wasteful
government in the form of taxes. Exactly. If I
pay some laborers $20K to build my pool I think
I've done more for them than any government
program would have.
\_ 1. Promote traditional family values. Protect the family.
2. Protection of Life and Liberty (from conception to natural
death) and the pursuit of happiness.
\_ Isn't racism a traditional family value?
\_ hint: I'm not white, or a WASP.
\_ yes, it is, in white, black, hispanic, asian, and just about
all other cultures. would you prefer breaking up all
families because sometimes they do bad and stupid things?
\_ No. But I'm pointing out what a vague and meaningless term
"family values" is in politics. What, specifically, do you
expect politicians to do about family values? They like to
talk about it in elections but it sidesteps any debate over
actual policies. In short, it's a load of bullshit. And
historically speaking, liberals were the ones fighting for
the rights of women and minorities. Maybe nowadays, family
values is a euphemism for anti-gay, xtian fundamentalism.
\_ killing people (born and unborn) is bad.
What about those rights? And affirmative action
is not the only way to help minorities.
\_ 1. Only allow the traditional sexual position.
2. Only adult can and must be killed.
\_ Bad troll, no cookie.
Liberals -- what two issues do you really care about?
\_ 1. Universal health care and education.
\_ Provide a service with infinite costs like healthcare and you'll
get everyone over-using it to the point that everyone gets near-
zero care. Education is a different story since the costs are
limited and predictable with long term benefits for all of
society.
2. I'm very glad to see a good number of the candidates talk
about fair trade and tax incentives to keep jobs here. If
we're going to play in a "global" marketplace, all players
must play fair. --scotsman
\_ They're talking but once elected it'll be outsource as usual.
\_ I'm being naive but I thought conservatives were free traders?
\_ Did I say free? Check your prescription. --scotsman
\_ what does fair mean exactly? I'll raise my tariffs
to match yours?
\_ It means "I actually care about how you treat your
workers"
\_ how does this translate into policy?
\_ Getting Bush out of office.
\_ is this an "issue"?
\_ only if you're an extremist leftist motd wacko. the rest of
country is more concerned with jobs, healthcare, and defense
\_ I bet 1/3 of the Democratic party would disagree with
you. You might think that 10% of the country is extremist
left whackos, but you are starting to stretch the
definition a bit there. Many of them are more partisan
than leftist, anyway.
\_ you are right. kind of like how all the
republicans want clinton out no matter what.
\_ "all" and "no matter what" are incorrect.
\_ 1. Making sure the most helpless in society, especially
children, are adequately taken care of.
\_ isn't that what *PARENTS* are for? who else?
\_ Parents have the first responsibility, but in many
-- ilyas
cases they fail to do their job. What then?
\_ Take the kids away and sterilise the parents. There
are a lot of people who can't have kids and would take
much better care of them. It Takes A Village, remember?
2. Keeping the rights of the minority safe from being
trampled on by the majority.
\_ including free speech rights for those who disagree with
you, right?
\_ In my case, absolutely. I am an ACLU member.
\_ mmmmm, yeeaah... I like the concept of the ACLU and
what they claim to stand for but they don't always,
but overall I'm glad they're there than not at all.
\_ I was an ACLU member once. Then they sold my name
to a bunch of mailing lists.
\_ 1. Protection of civil liberties
\_ Where were the Democrats during the Civil Rights movement, huh?
Blocking Highschool doorways so black kids couldn't enter.
\_ Didn't Johnson sign the Civil Right's Bill and send
federal troops to Alabama to desegregate the schools?
2. Socialized Medicine
\_ what is the conservative way of dealing with Medicine?
- not a liberal
\_ not going EU/Canadian style and destroying the system.
\_ Let the free market handle it.
\_ how would the free market handle it? What about those
who can't afford it?
\_ I believe there should be a minimal level of health
care provided to all citizens such as shots for kids,
and 911 emergency care but I don't think we should all
be paying for some of the things I've seen such as the
$250,000 spent so far just in medical costs to keep a
friend's near-brain dead child alive for the last 10
years. And then there's the $150,000 or so spent on
other care. The child is non-functional, unable to
speak at all, can almost crawl and doesn't recognise
her own mother from a hole in the ground. None of this
ever should have been allowed to happen. She should
have been allowed to die at birth and would have with-
out *amazing* amounts of top notch western medical
care. How many kids could be helped with that $400k
who can actually *use* the help?
\_ 1. Equal rights under the law, civil liberties.
\_ Where were the Democrats when the Civil Rights Movement was
taking the nation? Blocking black kids from entering white
high schools.
2. Promoting the welfare of the masses and egalitarian society.
\_ You mean taking money from one group and giving it to another
who hasn't done anything to earn it.
Moderates -- what two issues do you really care about?
\_ they care about nothing at all, that's what makes them moderates.
\_ No, they just aren't fanatics. They don't have a pet agenda to
push. So they listen to the yammering of both sides and want
something in between.
\_ They're mushy heads. How can they have been awake for the
last however many years and still not have an opinion on so
many topics which will send this country down very different
paths in the years to come? Mushy heads.
\_ They may like how things are or have views which don't
all neatly fall into one column or the other. Most things
end up being a compromise and therefore "moderate".
\_ The key concept of compromise is no one likes it.
I have no respect for people who prefer to compromise
all the time instead of making something happen. Mushy
heads. If they really believed in the status quo then
they should be opposing both sides. They *do* have a
pet agenda if you're correct. Since we don't see
your version of moderates raising their voices in
loud opposition to the extremes we must conclude they
really don't care and are just a bunch of Mushy Heads.
Message from OP: I'm not trying to troll. one of the reasons
I have is to see whether the priorities of conservatives and
liberals are very similar or very different.
\_ Mr. OP, in my opinion the difference between conservatives and
liberals isn't priorities (they are often the same), but
that they view human rights differently. The set of human
rights for a liberal is different from the set of human rights
for a conservative. Hence the vehement opposition, etc. Rights
are pretty basic stuff. -- ilyas
\_ are there rights when it comes to economic issues?
\_ Of course. For instance, a liberal might think everyone
is entitled to healthcare. In fact, he might think this
right trumps the property rights of others. A conservative
thinks property rights are more important. It is in the
specifics of what rights trump what other rights that the
whole disagreement is rooted. In some sense, liberals and
conservatives want the same thing (unless they are evil,
or sleazy political scumbags) -- for people to be happy
productive and free. But the devil's in the details.
I think the ordering of rights is not entirely subjective,
and there is one natural one that is 'right.' But some
might say that's naive platonism. -- ilyas
\_ we may have to make a distinction between the
hardliners of each side versus the more moderate
conservatives or liberals.
\_ Still, I think the difference is the ordering of
rights, and not something else. -- ilyas
\_ This might be true for the difference between
big business conservatives and liberals, but
you have to read the bible to understand the
religious conservative types. They aren't really
interested in the concept of "rights" at all.
It is more a matter of salvation and saving souls
to them.
\_ Religious conservatives may not be interested
in the concept of rights, but their position
implicitly defines how they view rights. For
instance, most religious conservatives have a
very restrictive view of rights when it comes
to homosexuality, same sex marriages/unions, etc.
Even if their philosophical position had been
\_ [ Hi, deleting other people's replies is
not cool. ]
\_ FU. I always use motdedit, unlike
you apparently, who frequently
overwrites my posts.
reached by reading the bible, and not thinking
about it a whole lot, it's still a position.
Some religious conservatives can give a
thoughtprovoking defense of their position, so
it's not easy to dismiss them.
-- ilyas
\_ Are you agreeing me, or what? I am saying
the differences are a lot more complex than
just an "ordering of rights." Not everyone
agrees that being happy and free is the
goal of existence.
\_ Ordering rights is a lot more complex than
you think. In some sense, the whole of
moral philosophy can be viewed as figuring
out what human rights are, and how to
order them. I will go out on a limb here,
and suggest than people who don't want
others to be happy and free are bad people.
I try not to talk to bad people. -- ilyas |
| 2004/2/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:12100 Activity:moderate |
2/4 For whomever said that the VP candidate matters in a presidential
election I have only two words for you: Dan Quayle.
\_ VP candidate matters only when the Pres. candidates are closely
matched. Bush won because the GOP convinced voters that Dukakis
was soft on hard crime.
\_ and because Dukakis looked like a twink in that oversized
helmet and tank
\_ I like that picture of Al Gore looking down a barrel of
a rifle.
\_ No, because Dukakis said, "I will raise your taxes".
\_ Dan Quayle was a good man. If you knew anything about Dan you
wouldn't say he was a negative for Bush.
\_ He "was"? What happened to him? Did he die? Turn into
a bad man?
\_ I'm unaware of what he's done with his life since then.
He isn't dead AFAIK but he may be out raping nuns for all
I know. I tell you he "was" because he "was" but it is
possible he may not be anymore. I chose my words carefully. |
| 2004/1/30-31 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:12036 Activity:high |
1/30 The Real Way Presidential Elections Are Won:
http://www.anesi.com/presname.htm
\_ psb for President!
\_ why doesn't psb use "\_" like everyone else? his "\-" is
inferior and shows a selfish refusal to follow social
convention. clearly not a team player. |
| 2004/1/30-31 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:12034 Activity:nil |
1/30 I really love how every thread that points out glaring faults with
the Bush administration has as its response "Well, what about when
Clinton did..." Can we agree that both had their fuckups and their
appearance of wag the dog and move on. I think 500 dead troops and
their families would want that. --scotsman
\_ Except you are only admitting it retroactively. Where was your
foaming at the mouth when Billy was in power?
\_ You call this foaming at the mouth? Have you read some of your
own crap below? --scotsman
\_ This is beautiful, Ben. You were just complaining about this
"well you do it too" line of reasoning a few lines above...
\_ You miss my point. Again. I reject you calling my
post "foaming at the mouth," and while I don't have proof
of who you are, because you don't sign, your rants on
Clinton are attrociously rabid. --scotsman
\_ I for one WAS pissed when Clinton pulled this crap. Clinton's
wag-the-dog stuff was quite cheap by comparison and didn't cost
any U.S. lives (not that Sudanese lives don't matter too) --!op |
| 2004/1/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:11972 Activity:nil |
1/27 Anyone have a recommendation for a decent digital sniper rifle scope?
\_ What's the diff between a digital scope and your bog standard
tube-with-lenses-at-either-end? -John
\_ just curious, what is wrong with an optical one?
-- can't shoot anything beyond 150 yards
\_ y00 sux0rz!!1 my gild w1l r0x0rz y00r sux0rZ gild! h@r!
\_ how are digital scopes different?
\_ they're kewler!1 i hav wun in doom3, d00de!
\_ ask on http://www.freerepublic.com
\_ what's wrong with a leupold vari-x?
\_ my g1ld doom3 hax0rz sk0pe r0xrz y0r lamER lop0ld!
\_ you are most likely a troll. But to those who know,
what is the advantage of a digital scope?
\_ http://www.nightvisionplanet.com/atn-dgtlu.html
\_ Seems like a waste. You really only need one good reticle,
and once you learn to use it well it'll be more than
sufficient. For those who have the time/interest, there's
a book by Maj. John Plaster called, "The Ultimate Sniper,"
that has a chapter on choosing and using various reticles. |
| 2004/1/27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:11968 Activity:nil |
1/27 Nerdtest: http://students.washington.edu/mmccain/nerdtest.html how do you score? -61% \_ 42.85% \_ I don't have time for shit like this anymore. :( \_ me either. there's way too many idiotic javascript tests out there written by bored cs students or other bored cs students. \_ then U LOSE! Seriously, part of being a nerd is having time to waste on things like that. \_ 52.38%, with a couple guesses. Yay. |
| 2004/1/23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:11900 Activity:nil |
1/23 Cho: don't dish it out if you can't take it.
http://www.nydailynews.com/01-23-2004/front/story/157605p-138358c.html
\_ Haha, from Drudge? This is the guy that's famous for excerpting
words from speeches that are sometimes minutes or even hours
apart and then using ellipsis to glue them together into whatever
phrase he wants to publish.
\_ "Cheney... gather... violent... law enforcement personnel...
and... come all... over... my... face."
\_ From anyone. If you're going to spew, be prepared to get
quoted, misquoted, and slammed. |
| 2004/1/21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:11868 Activity:moderate |
1/21 SOTU. Thoughts?
\_ That's an overly-obscure acronym.
\_ On some other day than right after the State of the Union, it
might be. I think the SOTU should be modded -1 troll.
I predict any mention of any topic from the speech will be
deleted as a troll by someone within an hour of posting, hence
troll. It's hard to imagine a more divisive or blatantly
political SOTU.
\_ Talk about trolling. You just trolled the motd on the same
topic you said others would be trolling. A weak meta troll
at best. You score -2 weak meta troll.
\_ there's an important difference between a bored grad
student posting to the CSUA motd and a US president
addresssing congress. The former is expected to
troll, and the latter is expected not to.
\_ I shall clarify: expressing a different political
viewpoint from yours is not trolling. Not outside
your tight nit little knee jerk circles, anyway.
\_ Anyone remember Clinton's 1996 SOTU? Was it nearly this political?
\_ Clinton's SOTU addresses were mostly just boring.
\_ It didn't include half as much DoubleThink and lumping of
dubious claims with beneficial effects (i.e., reference to the
Estate Tax as the "Death Tax" in the same sentence as expansion
of the married-filing-jointly tax exemption).
\_ You don't like the death tax? Exactly what right do you
have to the money a man has made over his life time and
wants to leave to his family? Why do you have more claim
to his hard earned wealth than his family?
\_ CNN poll showed only 45% approved of the speech, compared with
52% for Clinton's speech during the height of Monicagate. The
cracks are showing.
\_ Dream on. Your party is imploding. Go waste a vote on that
maniac, Dean.
\_ In what way is he a "maniac"?
\_ You are so right. 49% of America thinks that GWB is
doing a good job. The 50% who don't are just a vicious
minority:
http://www.zogby.coma
\_ Let me guess, you are the same guy who assured us 100%
that there were WMD in Iraq. Your track record ain't too hot. |
| 2004/1/9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:11725 Activity:nil |
1/8 Hey, what a suprise, President Bush fudge the WMD report:
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1589731
\_ NPR? Don't even bother bringing that biased shit here. You're
no better than the freeper guy. Find a real source and we'll talk.
\_ How 'bout that liberal bastion, MSNBC?
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3909150
\_ How 'bout USA Today?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-01-08-report_x.htm
\_ How 'bout reading the report yourself?
http://www.ceip.org/files/pdf/Iraq3FullText.pdf
\_ How about you see who the http://ceip.org is before taking their
'report' seriously?
\_ The administration obviously took it seriously enough
to offer a rebuttal. --scotsman
\_ Because it was reported everywhere even though the
source is trash but that never stopped the media.
\_ How 'bout fox's take?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107798,00.html
\_ See, we need more fair and balanced articles on the motd.
\_ All of these are clones of each other, some taking things
more out of context than others but none of them backs up
the garbage in the so-called "report". Posting lots of links
that say the same thing doesn't prove the crap in the links
are true.
\_ You expect actual insight in journalism? You expect
unbiased reporting in journalism? Debunk it if you're
bored.
\_ Already debunked. The source is more biased than
the freepers.
\_ Like what?
\_ Here we go. NPR is just quoting a think tank. Let's go see
their website: http://www.ceip.org and then decide how likely it
is that their 'report' is in any non-partisan or unbiased. For
those who won't bother, it's a ultra left wing .org that makes
the typical motd leftist look like a right winger.
\_ NPR is not "quoting a think tank". They're reporting on a think
tank's report and the response from the administration. If you
haven't noticed this sort of reporting comprises probably 90%
of "journalism" over the last couple decades. You don't
complain like this when it happens in the other direction...
And calling them ultra-left-wing is pretty knee-jerk. Not
all pacifists are left-wing, and vice versa.
--scotsman
\_ So you admit it is a pacifist .org? What are the odds of
getting a "report" from a pacifist .org that there was
justification for any violent act?
\_ I thought liberals didn't need tanks to think...
\_ Like I said, calling them ultra-left-wing is knee jerk.
They seem to have a platform of pacifism. Who knows if
they have a fiscal policy agenda? Who knows if they
supported LBJ but not Nixon? Do the research and decide
for yourself. --scotsman
\_ Eh. The 'religious right' is lumped with conservatives
for moderate coalition politics reasons. I see no
problems with lumping irrational pacificts along with
irrational fiscal socialists.
\_ Quite seriously, calling them "ultra-leftist" just
makes you look like a kook. They publish Foreign
Policy, the most respected journal of International
Studies published. They are financed by such far
left organizations as Boeing, Citigroup, GE and
Boeing. Their chairman is a venture capitalist!
http://www.ceip.org/files/about/about_trustee.asp
\_ Indeed. Have you noticed how campaign finance
reform is hurting _democrats_ more than
republicans? Republicans get a lot of their
support from ordinary middle class and small
business owners. Democrats rely on big business
with a case of white guilt and hollywood.
Orson Scott Card was right, liberals are the
modern status quo. Warren Buffet's a liberal.
You can't be stupid enough to insinuate that
big business or venture capitalists would
necessarily fund conservative causes.
\_ I am saying that they are not "ultra-leftist"
Are you claiming that GE, etc are ultra leftist?
Did you look at their board of directors?
\_ I agree with your comment about journalism 100%. Now here's
the hard question: what the hell do we do about it?
\_ So, you think this is the ultra-leftist conspiracy? give me a
a break. If Bush's WMD report was true, we would of find WMD
long time ago. Instead, Bush (and all your supporters) is saying
that the reason to go to war is "not important" because Saddam is
a dangerous man at first place.
\_ No, I'm saying there are WMD and we either haven't found them
yet, we're still going through millions of documents to find
and prove them or they were there and moved and need to be
tracked down. We *know* he had them. Everyone in the Clinton
administration and almost every (D) at the time agreed. Did
they just suddenly evaporate when a (R) got into office? That's
just plain stupid. If you believed Clinton, you must believe
Bush as well.
\_ Stop believing what politicans tell you. |
| 2004/1/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:11709 Activity:insanely high |
1/7 Hillary Clinton jokes about Mahatma Gandhi and Gas stations:
http://tinyurl.com/3a6ch
\_ Why are conservatives so obsessed with Hillary Clinton?
\_ Well I dunno could it be she is the star of the
Democratic party and is fawned over by the media?
\_ Good one. That had me going for ages...
Why do the commies obsess over Bush?
\_ Hey, didn't you get the memo? You're suppposed to
call people "terrorists" now, not "commies."
\_ Hah! i knew it--you're a Soviet spy, aren't you?
\_ Because they hate women and fear peace and understanding.
\_ there are lots of good conservative women out there.
\_ Yes, barefoot and pregnant and in the kitchen, right?
\_ once again, leftists stereotypes persist.
\_ Surely they're only stereotypes if they're not
based on real-life examples.
\_ wow, what an asshole, even for a troll.
\_ Aw, did I hit a nerve?
\_ not at all. you're just a troll and an
asshole. your stereotype is sexist and
anti-intellectual as well as being just
plain wrong which makes you stupid as well.
\_ Please. The core Repub values include
archaic gender roles and the recognition
of male superiority. If you haven't
figure this out by now, you're not paying
attention.
\_ I agree. you are a troll and an idiot.
I'm refering to 'Surely they're only
stereotypes if they're not based
on real life examples'
\_ why are you and far leftists so anti-pregnant?
is it so wrong to be pregnant? Is it wrong
to have a family?
\_ it's only ok if you're republican.
\_ That's what the Repubs tell us.
\_ I'm not. She got a lucky niche in NY when the competition
was forced to bow out for medical reasons. That's as far as
her political career will ever go. She's not a has-been, but
more like a never-was-or-will-be. I say you boys should put
her up for election every 4 years forever. --conservative
\_ So that's why she's the most admired woman in America?
\_ One has little to do with the other. It is *very*
common for the First Lady to get that title each year
yet none of them ever had a chance of being elected to
anything. Apples n oranges.
\_ She got that "title" this year too, dunderhead.
\_ Uh yeah, go re-read what I said and seek the less
juvenile interpretation. Assume I'm aware of who
juvenile interpretation. Assume I'm award of who
the current President, FL, and Jr. Senator from NY
are at the present time. Anyway, getting the most
admired title has nothing to do with election
chances. It's only a measure of how many people
can name her from thin air. She's done little that's
actually admirable, especially if you're one of her
White House Travel Office or other victims.
\_ the report I heard said that the First Lady doesn't
get most admired woman status (remember, First Lady
is Mrs. Bush).
\_ I said it is very common for her to do so in the past
which is not the same as 100% of the time. Why must
I explain such trivial statements to college students
or possibly graduates?
\_ Because you make overreaching generalizations
and fail to back them up with anything resembling
sense. Speak clearly, or stfu.
\_ It was neither overreaching or required a lot
of sense to understand. The problem is the
reader, not the writer in this case.
\_ Actually, you said that many First Ladies
win the title of "most admired." You did not
expand to include ex-First Ladies. Again,
sense. Speak clearly, or stfu.
speak clearly, or stfu.
\_ Clinton isn't still president?!
\_ Clinton isn't still president?!
\_ He is on TV. Watch more West Wing.
\_ You must be a very important man indeed to consider a
United States Senator a nobody. Can I ask which billionaire
or head of state is posting in the motd?
\_ The Jr. Senator from NY who has written no legislation and
or head of state is posting in the motd?
co-authored nothing and chairs no committees and is a
member of the minority party? Oh, please. My dog's vet
is more important.
\_ Once upon a time, prior to the great depression, the Hayes Code,
gas chambers (and gas stations), in the era of the Thin Man and
W.C. Fields, when America desperately needed a collective drink,
there was a thing called humor. It was funny. Hillary Clinton
is about as funny as plague. The gas station joke, on the other
hand, is very funny. -John
\_ I dunno... which plague are you referring to?
\_ I didn't get the joke. Can you explain it please?
\_ Lets not forget about her "fucking jew bastard" comment.
\_ That's ok. She's part-Jew (it's very trendy these days to claim
most admired woman so it's ok.
some Jew blood but don't actually be a real Jew because we hate
them) so she can say things like that. And anyway, she's the
most admired woman so it's ok.
< |
| 2003/12/23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll] UID:29731 Activity:nil |
12/22 Fuck you right winger nut bags for censoring my "Clinton can connect
the Al Qaeda/Iraqi dots, why can't Bush?" thread.
\_ I still don't get your fucking conclusion, perhaps you should
study fucking basic logic. How the fuck does your article
help your stupid commie cause? So what if you dems knew about
Al Quida and Iraq, you didn't do shit about it like
Bush did.
\_ Bad Troll, no cookie.
\_ actually, it was squished along with ~ 5 other threads by the
perpetual motd political censor. Then a friendly neighborhood
motd restorer(tm), restored most of the threads but left out that
one.
\_ This is why I just post on http://www.pantsfactory.org - no evil censor,
and the signup isn't manditory (you can post anon).
\_ from looking at that site, i'd say you and about ten other
people are having a great time posting every other day or so.
I'm just going to nip off to the local golf course and watch
the fucking grass grow now.
\_ It looks like they've been posting every day.
\_ Hi lye! |
| 2003/12/22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11559 Activity:high |
12/21 Hah! Clinton managed to 'connect the dots' between Iraq and Al Qaeda,
why couldn't your little bush leaguer do it? Muahahahaha!
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp
\_ Post the printer-friendly link if you're going to post a story:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3527&R=79F61E497
\_ Okay, so now you are agreeing with the Iraqi war because we caught
Saddam? Now it's cool to be Pro-War you're digging up articles
showing that the dems are agreeing that there is an Al Qaida and
Saddam connection? Boy, you commie left wing liberals sure are
standing on your last leg... You were wrong about Afghanistan, you
were wrong about Reagan, you were wrong about Iran, and you were
wrong about Iraq. The only thing you dems are good for is dragging
us into lost causes like Vietnam and Korea. Way to go.
\_ Whoa, whoa, whoa there. Since when was Korea a lost cause?
Yeah, we failed to unite the whole country, but the part we
saved sure turned out well. You should have said Solmolia.
(BTW the difference between Korean and Vietnam or Somolia,
that while the S. Korean's didn't love our soldiers all the
time, the did generally want us there.)
\_ Apparently you don't read enough history. Korea was a lost
cause and it cost Truman the election. The only reason the reds
stopped attacking was that relations were breaking down between
the USSR and Red China. They would've whipped them off of the
peninsula if the USSR had kept on supporting the war (it was,
after all, their jetfighters and their pilots). And I didn't
say Somolia because that's small potatos compared to Cuba (yep,
you dems lost Cuba too, and you also technically lost China to
after all, their jetfighters and their pilots). And I didn't say
Somolia because that's small potatos compared to Cuba (yep, you
dems lost Cuba too, and you also technically lost China to
the Reds, but then the Chang-Kai-Shek gov't was way too corrupt
to keep things under control).
\_ I pine for the days when they taught history in our
country's schools. Do the phrases "third UN offensive",
1951, and "north of the 38th parallel" mean anything to you?
Note that this was previous to any serious Sino- Soviet
breakup. -John
\_ While true that it cost Truman the election, that just means
it looked like a lost cause at the time. Also, Truman was
running the war like an idiot, so just as well he lost.
\_ Appearently, you guys have forgotten how Korean was divided
at first place. It is you arrogant American decided to allow
USSR to occupy Northeastern China and north of 38 parallel
of the Korean peninsula (instead of Chinese Nationalist
Army) after Japanese surroundered in the Yalta Conference,
in exchange for USSR declare war on Japan. Later, you
Americans decided that allowing USSR to declare war on Japan
and occupy Japanese islands was a bad idea after all, thus,
used nuclear bomb (read: WMD) on 300,000 civilians to end
the war quickly.
In all, USSR declared war on Japan for one day before
Japanese surroundered. Number of shots fired upon Japanese
by the Russians: ZERO.
\_ Except for the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-05 where Japan
kicked Russia out of Korea/Manchuria, started by a
Japanese suprise attack on Port Arthur.
If you guys had any respect of sovereignty of a non-
European nation at first place (i.e. China) , none of this
nuclear holocaust and Korean War would ever happen.
\_ So China would never have invaded South Korea and force
reunification as was done in Vietnam? Neato!
Then again, you guys at the time were still in that White
Supremist mode... not just Americans, but French and English
turned around continue to occupies Algeria and Indo China.
Democracy? Human Rights? give me a fucking break.
-kngharv
as well. French, after crying foul for Nazi's occupation,
turned around continue to occupies Algeria and Indo China.
Democracy? Human Rights? give me a fucking break.
-kngharv
\_ Dude, EVERYONE has problems with Human Rights.
\_ Korea wasn't supposed to "defended" the US. It was a
mistaken statement by the US Secretary of War that included
Korea as a protectorate. After that it became a pissing
match once MacArthur decided to draw China into the war.
\_ So now you are trying to pass off Clinton's bombing of the
to keep things under control).
\_ I pine for the days when they taught history in our
country's schools. Do the phrases "third UN offensive",
1951, and "north of the 38th parallel" mean anything to
you? Note that this was previous to any serious Sino-
Soviet breakup. -John
\_ While true that it cost Truman the election, that just
means it looked list a lost cause at the time. Also,
Truman was running the war like an idiot, so just as
well he lost.
asprin factory in Sudan as some kind of intelligence success?
I guess it is about as real as Bush's WMD. At least Clinton
didn't lose 500 brave Americans over his goof.
\_ That many died a week in Vietnam because of
LBJ's "goof"
\_ No, I'm saying Clinton was able to successfully make the clear
connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam's Iraq but that little
bush leaguer couldn't even when he had access to Clinton's
intelligence work. Unable to come up with anything new he went
in on the hope we'd find WMD because it was too embarassing to
use the good intel from the previous admin on the Iraq/Al Qaeda
connection. Bill Clinton: connecting the Iraq/Al Qaeda dots!
\_ Read the story. There is no "clear" connection, that is why
they call it connecting the dots. More like seeing things
that aren't there, if you ask me. |
| 2003/12/20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11544 Activity:nil |
12/19 Connecting the dots in 1998, but not in 2003.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1043839/posts
\_ hard facts would help. |
| 2003/12/18-20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:11510 Activity:nil |
12/18 Republican says 9/11 was preventable:
http://csua.org/u/5b9
\_ See, you can't win. If we go in before something bad happens,
we are unilateral imperialist aggressors. If we go in after
something happens, that something was 'preventable.' I guess
a republican just can't win if he's in office. Not unless he can
see the future.
\_ or even if he can because it doesn't matter what he does, it is
still wrong.
\_ "the commission has navigated a political landmine". Why can't
even professional journalists use metaphors correctly? It's like
reading an all-kinney motd.
\_ We live in the Age of the Mixed Metaphor.
\_ We live in an age of ignorance and journalists are leading
the way. Few people are more stupid than a journalist.
\_ "As you read the report, you're going to have a pretty clear idea
what wasn't done and what should have been done," he said. "This
was not something that had to happen."
Appointed by the Bush administration, Kean, a former Republican
governor of New Jersey, is now pointing fingers inside the
administration and laying blame.
"There are people that, if I was doing the job, would certainly
not be in the position they were in at that time because they
failed. They simply failed," Kean said.
...
Asked whether we should at least know if people sitting in the
decision-making spots on that critical day are still in those
positions, Kean said, "Yes, the answer is yes. And we will."
\_ So do we go back and retroactively fire half the clinton admin?
\_ Quick look! Micheal Jackson, over there!
\_ What? Where?! |
| 2003/12/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:11395 Activity:moderate |
12/9 If the president cannot serve over 2 consecutive terms, does that
mean our beloved Bill Clinton could come back to serve?
\_ It would be funny to see a Bill Clinton / Hillary Clinton
presidential bid. (Gives new meaning to the term "running mate",
though I'm sure those two haven't actually mated in 10 years).
\_ No one can serve more than two terms, consecutive or not,
short of a constitutional amendment (for details, see
22nd Amendment).
\_ It also says here that the manufacture, sale, or
transportation of intoxicating liquors is prohibited.
And ducks are required to wear long pants.
\_ And dancing on the Sabbath shall be punishable by 40 lashes.
\_ But he could be a Veepee.
\_ But he could be a Peepee.
\_ No, he can't. One of the roles of the VP is to become
president if hte president is incapacitated.
\_ Really? By the same logic, a VP must be US-born. In
reality someone foreign-born is allowed to become the VP.
\_ The VP is 1st in sucession, but there are a lot of other
people further down the line. The VP could be president
of the senate, and in the event POTUS dies, the VP is
passed over for a native-born person.
\_ It's not that he can't do more than 2 consecutive terms, he can't
do more than 10 years total. If someone is removed from office,
a VP can become president for a partial term and then server two
full terms... so if Hillary were assassinated, would Bill be able
to take over as President for a while, assuming his total time in
in office were less than 10 years? |
| 2003/12/9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:11377 Activity:kinda low |
12/9 I'm a registered democrat. And I think Dean or whoever gets nominated
will lose in 2004. Our best hope for a comeback is Hillary in 2008.
I want the Clinton days back!
\_ the only hope for the survival of the democratic party is for
new people to join and push aside the libermann-type democrats
who have an appeasment policy toward republicans, and become more
like them every election cycle. Dean brings new people into
the democratic party(i just registered democrat for the first
time today, *only* because of dean), who can not only revitalize
the democratic party in general, but who may well beat bush.
\_ The impending American divide.
\_ please elaborate
\_ You're a Republican troll. Dean is the real thing, the Clintons are
plastic.
\_ Dean blows and he will lose if he runs. I don't want to see
Bush win. Why can't the Dems ever find a good candidate? Did
they just get lucky with Bill?
\_ Oh, he 'blows.' What an insightful analysis.
\_ I'll type up a document and post it to the motd. Not.
\_ That's ok, your opinion holds no water based on how
much you seem to love Bill, a man who was really good
for Bill Clinton but probably put the nails in the coffin
for the Democratic party. Dean is a real person with
a good platform. Do you think he 'blows' because he's
against the war?
\_ It has nothing to do with his position on the war, but
instead his record in Vermont, his stated platform,
his waffling on the Middle East, and his stupid
flag comment.
\_ His record in Vermont is commendable. His platform
is cohesive. He has not waffled on the Middle
East at all - in fact, he's the only politician
of note that has anything resembling a clear
position other than GWB. And the flag comment
was great. Anything else?
\_ You're a tool. Go look at what he did in
Vermont, not what he *says* he did. His
platform is not consistent with his claim
of being fiscal conservative and neither
is his opposition to free trade. He has
indeed waffled on whether support to Israel
should continue. The flag comment was offensive
and even his fellow Dems thought so. He will
not win middle-America's vote and so he will
lose just like Gore even if people in CA and
NY like him.
\_ *laugh* I love how you make these
predictions based upon a few snide opinions
about things that no one really cares about.
The truth is that the Democratic nominee can
lose the entire South and still win by only
winning *one* more state than Gore did.
Remember, Gore lost New Hampshire. Dean has
a stunning organization that represents a
whole new way of doing things. The last
two elections, done the old way, have been
a total disaster for the Democrats. I'll
enjoy making fun of you in November, almost
as much as I'll enjoy Bush losing.
\_ Bush losing would be great, but I'm
not even sure Dean will win the Dem
nomination.
\_ He will. He's the only one running
a risky, fiery campaign, and that's
a risky, firey campaign, and that's
the only chance the Democrats have
to win those swing states. They've
gotta take risks, because the number
of sure-fire Democrat states is less
than the number of sure-fire Republican
states. |
| 2003/12/9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:11367 Activity:nil |
12/9 Clinton arrested with a crack pipe!
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/entertainment/gossip/7444864.htm
\_ We elected the wrong Clinton. |
| 2003/12/9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:11361 Activity:nil |
12/8 Gore endorses Dean: http://tinyurl.com/ydad (sfgate.com) |
| 2003/12/7 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:11346 Activity:high 60%like:11380 |
12/7 Bush regime pre-emptively kills 9 future terrorists:
http://csua.org/u/567
\_ Yeah, he knew they were little kids while sleeping in the White
house, mentally took control of the A-10s, mentally imagined the
Mavericks taking them out. Oh pluz! Why don't you say the Clinton
regime took out two Chinese "spies" in the Serbian campaign while
you are at it?!
\_ What happened to taking responsibility for your actions?
I thought that was a Conservative virtue. I guess not a Neocon
one.
\_ Yeah but you think we shouldn't even be in Afghanistan. |
| 2003/11/22-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:11194 Activity:moderate |
11/22 Any thoughts on the medicare bill on the house? There was lots of
discussion on the energy bill, but little on this one. Good/bad?
\_ The democrats are opposed and republicans in favor: it must be bad.
\_ It has this really curious feature where beneficiaries with very low
bills and very high bills are given lots of coverage, but those
with bills within the median are given much less coverage.
Anyway, both sides can go stick it where the sun don't shine - this
is just more expansion of the entitlement system for immediate
political gain, when they should be taking much more important
(and of course, politically painful) steps to reform the system.
Neither the Congress nor the President have displayed anything
approaching the courage and integrity necessary to make that happen.
--motd liberal
\_ What is a liberal doing bitching about an entitlement system?
You're no liberal. You sound more like a libertarian.
\_ Yup, agree. -- another motd libertarian
\_ I consider myself a liberal because of my opinions on social
issues and the workings of the justice system. I recognize the
need for serious reform of our entitlement system for the
elderly, however. From what I have seen, those than consider
themselves libertarians would like to dismantle the entire
entitlement system, rather than change the way that it
functions. Also, I think corporate welfare (i.e, the ethanol
subsidy which amounts to a direct transfer of taxpayer money
to ADMs executives) is equally in need of reform, but I haven't
heard the same from many libertarians. Not every liberal is
a raving Marxist/ANSWER loony, just like not every
conservative is a jingoistic dittohead. BTW, the Economist
has a very nice graph on what may happen to the budget
deficit in the next 10 years:
http://economist.com/images/20031108/CSF889.gif
--motd liberal
\_ Whoa there, bucko. If you haven't heard that corporate
welfare is bad from libertarians, you haven't heard from
any libertarians.
\_ that's the biggest load of shit on todays motd.
Libertarians blather about this, but when you look
issue by issue, they clearly favor the rights of
corporations over individuals, which will always lead
to corporate welfare. Libertarians are quite possibly
the biggest threat to american society today. if
libertarians continue to destroy the government,
issue by issue, they clearly favor the rights
corporations without any legal or ethical restraint
will rule our lives. [formatd, big time]
\_ Please point to ONE single instance of
libertarians, or even the libertarian party
supporting "the rights of corporations over
individuals". Libertarianism is ALL about the
the rights of individuals. You don't know what
the hell you are talking about. Your irrational
fear of what you clearly know nothing about is
disturbing. -phuqm
\_ read their fucking platform
http://www.lp.org
in particular, see
http://www.lp.org/issues/program/health.html
Yeah, I can't wait till we eliminate the
evil FDA so we're free to take whatever
drugs the pharmas feel like marketing.
\_ Health Care is what i assumed you would say.
I didn't consider opposition to the FDA.
I didn't realize that not being able to buy
drugs that have been legal in Europe for ages
was one of the "rights" of individuals that
you would be concerned with.
For the record, I personally believe a Food
and Drug admin. could play a valuable role
in society. But THE FDA is a net loss even
In terms of "rights" I don't see how any
you just have no standing whatsoever. Exactly
in terms of absolute benefit to society.
In terms of "rights" I don't see how you
will rule our lives. [formatd, big time]
drugs the pharmas feel like marketing.
can make any argument whatsoever. Exactly
WHICH "individual" right do you think is
being threatened by this position? -phuqm
\_ Just because you SAY libertarians favor the rights
of corporations over individuals, doesn't make it
true. Personally, I am not even sure all
libertarians are willing to grant corps legal person
status. At any rate, the libertarians don't
trust government much in the same way your amusing,
ranty little self doesn't trust Big Business.
Big Business is motivated by money. What is
of corporations over individuals, which will always
lead to corporate welfare. Libertarians are
quite possibly the biggest threat to american society
today. if libertarians continue to destroy the
government,
corporations without any legal or ethical restraint
\_ You're not the only one, you should
http://www.freerepublic.com Lots of libertarians.
will rule our lives.
Big Government motivated by? Think about that.
Big Government motivated by? Think about that.
\_ this libertarian thinks it's insane that corps have
legal person status and the rights that go with it.
that was a *huuuuge* mistake we'll be paying for
forever or until changed.
\_ agreed. It was primarily libertarians railing about
this in the motd previously. (e.g. me). It is also
mostly libertarians fighting eminent domain
abuses, where government orgs steal private
entity's property to give it to other (invariably
richer) private entities. -phuqm
\_ You're not the only one, you should
http://www.freerepublic.com Lots of libertarians.
\_ nice graph. looks like we're just repeating the same
numbers as the clinton glory years of economic health.
anyway, it's easy to knock something. how would you
reform the system if you had the power?
\_ Just politicians spending more of the taxpayers money to
buy votes.
\_ Isn't that what all entitlement programs are? |
| 2003/11/22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:11182 Activity:nil |
11/21 Latest time/cnn poll: bush would crush any of the democrats if the
election were held today.
\_ Which is nothing more than a function of name recognition.
Bill Clinton was in almost identical position in 1992.
\_ Ross Perot isn't running this time around. |
| 2003/11/21-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:11175 Activity:low |
11/21 America vs. the World:
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2189509
\_ Did this strike anyone else as somewhat double-speakish? I would
hardly classify the current state of American affairs as a vibrant
democracy. You can't speak out against the White House without them
outing your undercover wife, the newspapers are afraid to ask tough
questions because they'll be sent to the back of the pressroom and
ignored...
\_ I haven't seen/heard of any such problems. The papers are full
of anti-White House/Bush articles as is tv.
\_ but radio is full of rush limbaugh clones so we should censor
radio and get a tax payer funded left wing station going. oh
wait, we already have npr. nevermind!
\_ NPR gets around 2% of its funding from the government.
\_ They're cronies of the left anyway.
\_ Hey is there any proof of the wife thing?
\_ There is proof that the identity of an undercover agent
WAS leaked by at least one member of Whitehouse staff.
Draw your own conclusions from there.
\_ Ok, what proof? Incidentally, the wife in question is
decidedly NOT an undercover agent. Read the news.
\_ Sigh...must the motd continually revisit the same
endless arguments over and over again?
\_ as long as you keep repeating lies, yes.
\_ IFILE!
\_ no, ED!
\_ Wasn't digging up yer past the Clinton method of
sqelching "Bimbo Eruptions?" |
| 2003/11/19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:11152 Activity:nil |
11/19 Africa hasn't come up on the motd in months. Here's my two cents:
http://www.kimdutoit.com/dr/essays/essays.php?id=P82
\_ So we're supposed to read the opinion of some random white South
African dude who starts his second paragraph with the deathless
cliche "In Africa, life is cheap." I think not.
\_ Yeah, how true, he isn't a clone of you so his experiences are
totally meaningless and should be dismissed unread.
\_ I read his "essay." He's a terrible writer. This is a good
indication that he's a dumbass.
\_ Ok, so he's a dumbass. What's your answer to any of
Africa's many problems?
\_ I'm not sure. I don't pretend to be an expert, unlike
the writer of said crappy essay.
\_ From The Onion:
African Leaders Still Treating Clinton As President
NAIROBI, KENYAKenyan President Emilio Mwai Kibaki said Monday that his
country continues to enjoy excellent diplomatic relations with former
U.S. President Bill Clinton. "I have always enjoyed working with Mr.
Clinton, and the recent international Agricultural Development
Conference was no exception," Kibaki said. "And I know that
[Democratic Republic of the Congo President] Joseph Kabila enjoyed
meeting with him to secure an American commitment for humanitarian
aid, as well." Kibaki said that none of the leaders have anything in
particular against President Bush, but added that all the same, they'd
rather stick with Clinton. |
| 2003/11/19-20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:11144 Activity:nil |
11/19 Does anybody remember that SNL TV Funhouse cartoon where Clinton,
Dole, and Perot are all trying to talk at the same time to Congress,
and a giant rabbit busts down the wall and screams "EEEAAAAWWWRRRG"
and all the Congressmen clap? That was so cool.
\_ no. |
| 2003/11/12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:11038 Activity:nil |
11/11 8/10 want a new job:
http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/11/pf/q_iquit/index.htm?cnn=yes
\_ I blame Clinton!
\_ the revolution is in my pants! |
| 2003/11/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:10989 Activity:moderate |
11/7 Liberal views force soldier out of military
http://csua.org/u/4xk
\_ There is no free speech in the military. Good thing they got
rid of this guy.
\_ I'm ashamed to call you an American.
\_ ITs the military, chain of command and all that stuff.
DUH.
\_ Just following orders?
\_ Non sequiter?
\_ Here's a good line which motd leftists should take to heart,
"The unfortunate aspect of this is not my demise, but their
inability to understand or accept the opinions of others as
different from their own." And here we see a leftist of all people
correctly describing the difference between the right and left in
our little motd world. As a conservative I understand and accept
the opinions of the leftists here. I simply disagree. What I do
not do is rant about how you're all automatically evil and wrong
and stupid without discussion simply for thinking differently.
Mostly I feel badly for you. I have hope you'll one day think about
the world with open eyes and see how it is for others and come
around. I'm not giving up on you.
\_ What are your thoughts on Bush?
\_ He's not a real conservative. Mostly, I'm disappointed.
\_ if only any of this were true....
\_ I think you so-called real conservatives need to take a good
look at how suppressing differing viewpoints is really starting
to hurt America. Here is a case where a good, and it turns out
accurate, young Marine was driven out for telling the truth.
The Bush Administration is increasingly driven by ideology and
not facts.
\_ There is no opinion in the military - don't you
understand this? You follow the Commander in
Chief's orders - thats it. If every soldier acted
on some whim based on the alignment of the planets
chaos would reign (not an effective military
not facts.
machine).
\_ We've been watching differing viewpoints get suppressed for
years in the media. This is nothing new to us. We're quite
aware how suppressing other viewpoints is bad for America.
Pot, kettle, black. --conservative
\_ And your point is...? Just because it's happened to
the conservative team (since all politics can clearly be
categorized by one of exactly two labels) doesn't make it
somehow magically okay or any more acceptable. Two wrongs
& etc.
\_ When others do it, it is just as bad. It is just more
disturbing when those in power do it.
\_ Maybe you and the person above missed the other reply
where I said Bush isn't a real conservative and I'm
\_ Well, since you don't sign your fucking posts,
expecting people to automatically associate them
where I said Bush isn't a real conservative and I'm
as originating from the same source is a little
silly.
mostly disappointed with his actions/policy/whatever?
If you think Bush is a conservative, which he isn't,
and want to stick real conservatives with his policy
as if we all 100% believe in all 100% of it then you're
nuts. That's a strawman argument. I hope you can do
better than that. Would it make sense for me to claim
that Al Sharpton represents all liberals and everything
he says and believes is something you all 100% believe
at all times, too? Real conservatives disavowed Bush
about 30 days into his first term when one of his first
actions was to expand all government programs by 4%
across the board. From that day forward he became
nothing more than the lesser evil of the Bush/Gore pair.
It's the very same media bias that conservatives
complain about that keeps people like you thinking that
conservatives like me are pro-Bush zombie ditto head
clones. Real conservatives don't exist in the media.
We're just a caricature that your media kicks around.
\_ the Weekly Standard crowd aren't "real conservatives"
either? ok, fine. from now on I will identify all
my unusual opinions as those of a "real liberal"
and claim every liberal you've ever heard of isn't
really a liberal so you can't use any published
information on liberal ideology to disagree with me.
this is absurd. why don't you start a new thread
and post the three to five most basic priciples of
whatever you're calling "real conservatism?"
I suspect you're the same person who signs their posts
"real conservative" periodically on the motd, and
some of us are genuinely curious.
-real transcendentalist
\_ I don't write for the weekly standard. They have
nothing to do with anything. It's a for-profit
publication of no interest to me. Some basics:
1) smaller government, lower taxes 2) no
religious hijacking of government in *either*
direction which means the 10 commandments being
posted in a school or court room is not a crime,
but we shouldn't have prayer in school either, 3)
no business in people's personal lives which
includes sex, abortion, euthanasia, and other
medical decisions, however that also means being
gay or whatever doesn't make you a protected
class either, 4) the end of government created
poverty: give a man a fish and he eats for a day
(and then comes back for another fish tomorrow).
There's more but that should give you some idea.
The core concept is the government stands in the
way of personal achievement and progress for all
people once it grows beyond a certain size and
exceeds it's mandate as laid out in the
constitution. We need government, because
without it we'd have anarchy leading to
dictatorship, but we don't need a government that
has the power and the will to destroy and steal
our freedoms through the sheer size of government
and the average citizen's inability to fight
against it to protect our most basic rights.
Would you like to provide a few summary points of
what a real liberal is?
\_ actually, I don't consider myself a "real
liberal" at all, I just said that to point
out the flaw in your argument. I basically
agree with most of the points you claim for
"real conservatism". However, I don't
believe you can claim point (3) above for
coservatives. If you look at the opinions
of the vast majority of republicans vs.
democrats, there is not question that the
republicans are the worse party for civil
\_ waco, elian, creating swat teams
within virtually every Fed department
(eg. IRS, Forest Service, FEMA)
rural cleansing through endangered
species, etc..... what Pres did this?
The Patriot Act was written
during the Clinton administration and
contains provisions proposed much earlier,
law enforcement has always wanted power.
The Act merely codified actions
used by law enforcement for decades.
The problem is government, period.
If you are concerned with government
intrusion why do you insist on giving
the Fed more power and money to pass
more laws to regulate more aspects of our
lives. This is common sense, freedom
and a social welfare state are
irreconcilable. The latter always
marches inexorably towards tyranny.
\_ How many Canadians do you know? How
many got sick? The ones I know came
to the US to get medical care
because their oppressive government
doesn't allow them to purchase
better care than the government
offers. They are forced into using
sub standard care and must cross to
our country to restore their free
access to western medical standards
even though ours has sunk since
HMOs took over and destroyed most
of it, it's still better than there.
\_ Yeah, like Canada. Those Canadians
with their welfare state and
socialized medicine are so oppressed.
Philosophical support for a small
government inherently protects
liberty... this always has been
provenance of the right (though there
are many, probably a majority, of
RINOs in government). The 'opinions
of ...' is a very vague term.
liberties. To claim otherwise is an analogous
arguement to that made by leftists who
claim all the evils of communism in the 20th
century were by governments that were
"not real communists." I don't buy into either
argument. Your claims for "real conservatism"
sound a lot like William Safire's brand of
"conservatism." Unfortunately, you and
William Safire appear to be the only
"conservatives" in America who give a
damn about civil liberties. My point about
real liberals above was just this: just
because I like to call myself a liberal and
believe in smaller government and fewer
\_ Once again, you only see the conservatives
as the leftist media presents them. It
*really* pisses me off to read the pseudo
right wing op/ed chick in the Chronical
who makes the most idiotic points in the
most illogical manner possible. We exist
and we are not happy with Bush but it's
better than anything the minority party
has to offer so we hold our nose and vote.
not facts.
\_ Here's a good line which motd right-wingers should take to heart,
"The unfortunate aspect of this is not my demise, but their
inability to understand or accept the opinions of others as
different from their own." And here we see a leftist of all people
correctly describing the difference between the right and left in
our little motd world. As a liberal I understand and accept
the opinions of the right-wingers here. I simply disagree. What I
do not do is rant about how you're all automatically evil and wrong
and stupid without discussion simply for thinking differently.
Mostly I feel badly for you. I have hope you'll one day think about
the world with open eyes and see how it is for others and come
around. I'm not giving up on you.
\_ if only any of this were true....
what a real liberal is?
subsidies does not make that a liberal ideology
no matter how much I wish it was. so I don't
call myself a liberal. |
| 2003/11/7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:29622 Activity:nil |
11/7 Its time for a new verb:
clinton (v), as in "to clinton," to assign blame for your own mistakes,
or those of the people that you support, on someone wholly unconnected
to the mistake in question. e.g., "I screwed up the quarterly report,
so I called my boss and clintoned Bob. He totally fell for it." |
| 2003/11/4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:10930 Activity:very high |
11/3 One day my people will stop being victims of the left. Unfortunately,
that day has not yet come. Sigh....
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001782176_clinton04m.html
\_ Hey look, its a freeper posting a CONTEXT FREE LINK. Who woulda
thunk it? I actually bothered to paste your link into my browser,
and I wish I could get the three minutes of my life back that I
spent reading this lame article. They booked Clinton, they didn't
get the ticket sales they wanted. Big freakin' deal. Happens
ALL the time in concert promotion, but do you see whiny little
bitches posting on the motd about how everyone is a victim of
U2 or REM? Stop obsessing over Clinton, he hasn't been the
president for 3 YEARS.
\_ Everyone who thinks differently than you is not a freeper.
Anyway, since it was so obvious you missed it, this was supposed
to be a charity event and when it didn't even break even due to
his high fees, he didn't cut back and return any money. Ya know,
charity?
\_ You know, it's still his fault...
\_ Yup, everything is Clinton's fault. You know that helicopter
that got shot down the other day? Clinton's fault. And that
enormous federal debt? Clinton's fault. Not to mention the
Kobe Bryant case - definitely Clinton's fault. The Blaster
worm - without a doubt, Clinton's fault. SARS too.
\_ wow, talk about missing the point. Get back on your meds.
\_ There was no point to miss. Just more Clinton-hating
hot air from the usual motd gasbags. |
| 2003/10/30-31 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:10881 Activity:moderate |
10/30 Man, if Clinton was doing this kind of shit the media and the GOP
would have been screaming about it 24/7. To elaborate, this is a
Reuters article about how companies awarded lucrative contracts in
Iraq have made very large Bush campaign contributions.
http://csua.org/u/4uk
\_ I'm not saying there's nothing dodgy about it, but using Bechtel
as an example seems fairly weak--they are, after all, one of the
world's biggest construction companies, and a really big company
in its own right. Wouldn't you expect them to have political
connections, just like Microsoft, GM, US Steel, Exxon, and RJR
Nabisco (among others) do? And frankly, I don't think it would
have gone over too well if we'd started paying the Binladin group
to build roads in Afghanistan. Although regarding the Clinton
thing, I don't know if it would have started a real shitfest--
don't forget, the GOP screams about everything. That's what makes
them so cuddly and lovable. -John
\_ There are contracts, and there are no-bid contracts. --aaron
\_ And there are also Federal sole source regulations
that constrain the structure of no-bid contracts.
\_ Which have been violated in Iraq.
\_ Halliburton is a great example, though.
\_ Yeah, and Halliburton is one of the biggest oil engineering
firms in the world (or at least US.) I'm not doubting the
potential for monkey business, but the examples given are
like saying "Red Adair has a good relationship with the
government, including giving campaign contributions, so it's
suspicious that he's given all those contracts to put out oil
fires." -John
\_ This is what you get for 1. non-bid contracts, and 2.
the sheer fact that the Vice President, which a has
the shear fact that the Vice President, which a has
overwhelmingly influence in Iraq policies, was the
CEO of Halliburton. Last time I check, Halliburton is
still paying for his compensation today.
\_ Which still doesn't address my point. They are a big
company, with lots of references in their field.
Yeah, Cheney was on their board and probably still
has ties, which is wrong. Are you saying that no
company, no matter how competent they are, with any
ties to politicians should be given any govt.
contracts? -John
\_ They should be forced to compete in a fair and
competitive bidding process. Halliburton was
given a no-bid contract. And I personally believe
that politicians taking campaign contributions
should not be allowed to grant federal contracts
to those companies. But that is not the law, at
least not yet. -ausman
\_ While I agree with you that competition is
good and healthy, it is not always feasible.
One should be careful with statements like
"all bids should be through competition"--it
has the competition to create lots of
still paying for his compensation today.
inefficiency and other side effects. -John
\_ Also, Bechtel has had big government contracts for decades, under
the administrations of Dems and Repubs.
the administrations of Dems and Repubs.
\_ Bechtel built the Hoover Dam.
\_ So why don't I see any criticism of URS Corp., owned in part
by Diane Feinstein's husband, which receives several billion
annually in government contract? They were just awarded
4 billion dollar contract.
\_ Because We Love Diane Feinstein! She can Do No Wrong! If she
were a republican, however, her actions would be unspeakably
evil and beyond redemption.
annually in government contract? They were just awarded
4 billion dollar contract.
\_ No, because those contracts were awarded after a fair and
competitive bidding process, while the Iraq contracts were
not. Are you honestly unable to see the difference? |
| 2003/10/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:10799 Activity:very high |
10/25 Republicans LOSE again:
link:csua.org/u/4sx
\_ Hmm, control all 3 branches of government, no electable minority
party candidate emerging from the 9 dwarves for 2004, got bill &
\_ wow, what news do you read? you're in a dreamworld if you
think dean/clark/kerry aren't "electable". read anything
but hard right opinion lately?
\_ I'll wager $1000 that none of them get elected as
President in 2004. Are you up to it? -williamc
\_ What kind of odds will you give me? http://tradesports.com will
give me 60/40, can you match it? -ausman
hillary lurking about screwing up the party for their own gain,
and just lost the governorship of the largest state to an actor
in an election where the majority party split their votes among
two candidates but still won. If that's what it's like to be a
loser I can't imagine how much better winning feels. Link unread
because it's not worth the cut n paste effort to read a context
free url. At least tell us what's there, otherwise you just look
like a partisan whiney little bitch.
\_ Uhm. Pot, Kettle, Black.
\_ I think the emphasis was on WHINEY LITTLE BITCH,
not partisan.
\_ I think the emphasis was on the whole phrase. Nice
try.
\_ right, and I'm sure that from 1992 to 2000 the
above partisan was totally respectful to the
President and never whined once. People like that
on both sides are useless.
\_ Heh. Clinton doesn't deserve respect. The man
is slime.
\_ Clinton didn't sell a war on false pretexts or
ignore his staff blowing the cover on a
CIA agent, but he got a blowjob. What are
your priorities? Sheesh.
\_ Dude, did you listen to his speech? What
false pretexts? Do you KNOW iraq has no
WMD? Tell us how? You can be rich!
\_ What, by reading the news? Get serious.
\_ I repeat, how do you know? How do
the reporters know?
\_ Ah. So this is a NHSG existential
answer, "No, dude! You totally
3am-talking-with-my-stoned
roomates thing. I guess the right
like a railroad spike!"
answer is, "No, dude! You totally
can't KNOW anything! Not unless
it gets jammed through your head
like a railroad spike!" Of
course, as a basis for a voting
adult to make real-world decisions
it's completely assinine.
\_ See, this is what I don't get.
3 billion dollars of Hussein's
money magically slips through
American fingers and ends up
in Syrian banks, and no one
thinks it's strange. How
much easier do you think it
would be to slip some key
laboratory equipment or
ampules out of the country?
\_ We didn't go to war over
a few ampules. Money can
be wired. 10000L of nerve
agent cannot.
\_ You really think they
wired those 3 billion
to Syria? Are you
fucking nuts?
\_ By paying attention in class?
\_ Clinton >> Bush. -independent
\_ viewing a link is harder than ranting for 10-12 lines on the
motd? |
| 2003/10/11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:10588 Activity:nil |
10/10 Sweatshop Protests May Hurt, Not Help, Poor Workers
http://csua.org/u/4om
\_ woo woo, prostitution
\_ We should never protest evil because otherwise some other evil
might happen in it's place. It's better if we just don't worry
our pretty little heads over it and let Bad Things Happen To
Other People because ya know, hey, some economists said so!
\_ Having trouble with arguing against that part that points
out that "no one is forcing the workers to the factories,"
aren't you. News flash: Industrial Revolution NOT bad! |
| 2003/10/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:10571 Activity:nil |
10/10 Arafat dead soon. All the lies and rumors and denials reminds me
of how the Soviets handled their leaders being sick (or dead for a
few weeks sometimes). http://nypost.com/news/worldnews/7776.htm
\_ while I agree in principle that the PA is likely to lie through
their teeth about this, it's also clear that everything in
this article is based on rumors. If he's really about to die,
wouldn't isreli spies know that? And if they knew that, why
the very recent public death threats against Arafat?
That bastard should have been executed in public years ago,
but he seems to be remarkably resiliant, and I'll believe he was
at death's door only when he finaly dies.
\_ yes, it's rumors. that's all we ever got from the soviets
until a few days after they each dropped dead. that's all
i was saying. contrast to this country where we're told about
carter's hemroids(sp) and every other disgusting personal
health fact. well except for clinton, but whatever. -op
\_ where is dick cheney?
\_ in hiding for security reasons
\_ and reagan
\_ in his home slowly dying of a horrible disease.
\_ or FDR, or JFK...
\_ dead. also dead but he met with Elvis on his alien ship
before they got him. some would say that's why, too.
\_ Well he was trained and financially backed by the Soviets... |
| 2003/10/8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:29566 Activity:high |
10/7 What do you so-called "real" conservatives have to say about our
government selling bio-tech weapons to the lowest bidder?
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/10/06/gao.pentagon/index.html
\_ you mean highest bidder?
\_ Duh. Obviously it's stupid and a bad idea and that's why your
own link says they stopped and never should have in the first place.
What does one's political philosophy have to do with this?
\_ Duh, they thought it was a fine idea until they were caught.
\_ caught? it's called government stupidity. read your own
link. the retail value was $46k. it was just stupid. know
why they did that? because stupid shit happens in big
governments under every administration. i hope you're not
trying to claim this was a conservative plot.
\_ and of course you're not bothered that our government
will happily supply any whacko with a bio-lab as long
as they can pay the discounted price. If this happened
5 years ago there'd be calls for Clinton's head.
\_ Yes I am bothered. Where'd you see that I said it
was ok? You're an idiot and trolling. Go die.
\_ supply side trickle down terrorism? |
| 2003/10/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:10480 Activity:nil |
10/5 I've already voted no on the recall, but I'm immensely annoyed with
Davis' need to attack Ahnuld. It's just lame political strategy
and allows Ahnuld to claim victim status-- precisely the same way
AlGore gave away his lead by appearing to bully his weaker, less
effective opponent. When are the Dems going to figure out that
rabid attacks only make you look rabid?
\_ Never. That's what makes them Dems. They're rabid. The more rabid
they are the better they do in Dem polls and higher they clime in
the party. It feeds on itself. As far as Davis goes, why does it
surprise you that a man who lets loose the dogs of war in *every*
election would do the same in this one? You think Davis has
suddenly seen the light or something? He's still the same cynical
PoS he always was, thus the recall's success.
\_ Nice troll...
\_ It's a valid point.
\_ Anytime someone says something he doesn't agree with but can't
refute, it's automatically a troll.
\_ no it isn't. The republican party is much worse at being
rabid, foaming at the mouth, and at making up shit jsut
to attack people. Need I mention a certain deaf, drug
addict slimeball who made a career out of doing stuff like
making fun of the Clinton's daughter and calling her the
white house dog? |
| 2003/10/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:10449 Activity:nil |
10/3 "Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And so if
people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused
and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up," he
said to his audience during the broadcast. - name that conservative
\_ "Absurdly high levels of imprisonment, some might say, is
destroying this country..."
\_ You're right. We need more executions.
\_ If he was a liberal you'd be screaming that he's been framed by
the VRWC which owns and controls all media and we shouldn't judge
until there's been a trial by his hollywood peers.
\_ Er.. When was the last time you heard a liberal saying that we
should lock up more drug offenders. And you miss the point. The
op is pointing out the hypocrisy. Not the drugs.
\_ You miss the point, intentionally I believe. I'm talking
about liberal & liberal media hypocrisy, not drugs.
\_ And now you've missed MY point. And no, liberals wouldn't
be screaming that one of their own was framed. They would
realize that he had a problem and hope for his sake that
he could own up to it and get the help he needed. And they
wouldn't have ranted idiotically about drugs being the
downfall of society at the same time as they were making
some side cash dealing.
\_ Simple counter point to the concept that liberals are
all enlightened and would hope the poor guy would seek
help: Bill Clinton. Here's another: any Kennedy. And
of course a liberal wouldn't bitch about drugs.
Liberals *like* a well drugged population. It keeps
them stupid and passive.
\_ When did Bill Clinton or the Kennedys start posting
on motd. And your so called counter point rests on
a proof by counter-example against a broad
generalization. Doesn't hold water, pal.
\_ Who posts on the motd has nothing to do with
anything. When you stop ducking, bobbing, and
weaving, come back.
\_ No, really. Do you seriously not recognize
Rush's hypocrisy? Was your initial lashout
borne from a deeply held respect for the man?
Or were you the one trying to deflect the
conversation?
\_ Duck, bob, weave. You've already convicted
the man based on what his maid from two
years ago is alleged to have said. I still
believe in that quaint notion about innocent
until proven guilty in a court of law and
all that other fancy democracy and freedom
stuff. I'm not sure why but I put due
process above whatever it is you're basing
your unfounded claims on. If the story is
true then he's not a hypocrite but simply
insane because anyone in this country can
get any prescription drug they want without
using their maid(!!!!) as a dealer! Can
you not see this story is idiotic on it's
face?
\_ Whoever it is, he's an idiot. His logical premise is that
because some people believe something, we should punish other
people extra harshly.
\_ Keep up with current events, dude. It's Rush.
\_ No, that's not the premise at all. Try again grasshopper. |
| 2003/10/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:10424 Activity:high |
10/2 So Arnie groped women. So what? Clinton also groped women and used
a cigar on Lewinsky. I'm still voting for Arnold.
\_ for me the "so what" is that the same ultra-conservative republican
power brokers that were willing to go to any lengths to bring
down Clinton over this not only don't care, but are 100% behind
him. why doesn't that seem to bother anyone?
\_ Will. To. Power.
\_ Please name these nameless ultra conservative power brokers.
\_ See, most people have this notion of "consent", and they think it's
important. Without "consent" it's called "assault". Tune in
tomorrow when we discuss what a "lie" is and why it's bad when used
to start a "war".
\_ They don't call it assault in france, italy, japan, etc.
It's just normal there.
\_ Why are they speaking out only now? I mean, they never filed
charges or spoke out (even anonymously) until now. Just because
he's running for gov, it's only now important the truth be
revealed? I guess being violated by only a big-shot actor is not
enough to demand justice.
\_ How long did it take for Flowers or Jones to come forward?
\_ A few weeks.
\_ I hope someday a woman you love has a long talk with you
about what it can be like to come forward with this type of
allegation. That is if you know any women. --aaron
\_ My wife was grabbed on campus. She went straight to the
cops and somehow isn't permanently psychologically damaged
for life. She doesn't walk around calling herself a victim
or go to therapy 5 times a week. Weird, huh?
\_ Several of the women came out anonymously, according to the
LA Times article, so it's not like we know who they are.
All I'm wondering is what the motivation is. It isn't
solely because of what happened to them.
\_ Stop pretending to be dense about it. You can't
imagine why a woman who felt taken advantage of by
Arnold might feel he isn't fit to be governor? How
she might consider paying the pain of coming forward
due to the prospect of him being elected? --aaron
\_ *laugh* Do you feel their pain, aaron?
\_ Have you ever actually talked with a real girl?
People are a lot more complicated than sheep,
even the blow up kind that you're probably more
familiar with. Especially in regard to trauma
where the victim is often more socially
stigmatized than the criminal. -sax
\_ Any reason you talk to traumatized girls, sax?
Are you looking for a cheap lay on the rebound,
or are you just that kind of sensitive new age
guy?
\_ Which still begs the question of why they came
out. You're saying they value politics more
than their personal pain.
\_ Stop Trolling.
\_ It's a valid point. Calling it a troll
doesn't magically make it go away. What
you simple mindedly call a troll is the
very thing being debated, fool.
\_ Paula Jones charged that there wasn't consent. While defending
himself from the lawsuit, Clinton lied about Lewinsky and
tried to get her to lie about it. That's a bit worse.
\_ technically, a bj isn't sexual intercourse, so he sort of told
a half-truth instead.
\_ Don't get all lawyerly on us. You're now comparing a bj
of an intern that worked for BC to some random and nameless
women who, days before we vote, suddenly start claiming
he touched them. Gee, what a shocker.
\_ did you miss the part below where this is old news?
It's only sudden news in the American media.
\_ Let's put the woman issues aside for now. Do you want someone
spends $100k on car washes annually, $4k on haircut, etc to manage
your state's budget? If he's elected, I wouldn't be surprised
if he authorizes a hummer for every elected officials.
\_ 1) you're stupid, there's a difference between what he does
with his own money, and our money . . . just like there is
a difference between how he runs his businesses and his
personal life.
\_ TBD.
2) if he authorizes hummers, then I'm running for office
(for either kind).
\_ Does it bother you that BC held up airport traffic so he could
get a haircut?
\_ You know this never happened right?
\_ I know for a fact it did, thanks. History isn't so easily
rewritten.
\_ it didn't cost us $87b.
\_ good way to divert the topic and ignore the point. well
no, not really actually since you're busted doing it.
\_ i fear the candidate who wants to make money being Governor
so he can do the things you describe
\_ Arnold has lots of money and he is doing that already.
What I fear is not Arnold but his *advisors*. You see,
Arnold is not going to run California. He is just a puppet.
"When your muscles feel like they are about to explode, when you are sure
that you can't do another rep, you stop- Only if you want to come in
second place." -Arnold Schwarzenegger.
\_ Uhm, no. I don't.
\_ gropes or not, you have to admire him. -ax |
| 2003/10/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:10408 Activity:high |
10/1 Oh gawd. Check http://latimes.com for an Arnold expose on his treatment of women. I still might vote for him, though, as bad as it is. \_ Don't be a hater. \_ *laugh* If it was ok for Bill Clinton, if it was ok for the entire Kennedy clan, then I say it's ok for Arnold! \_ Wow. You have no idea what 'consent' means, do you? I pity your SO. \_ Reading problem? Don't they teach basic reading comprehension to freshmen anymore? \_ For Clinton, it was consensual. For Arnold, that's sexual harassment. \_ Monica worked for him. It's called "sexual harassment" when it's your boss's dick you're sucking or his cigar going into your vagina. I noticed you ignored the entire Kennedy clan's many decades of rape and murder. What about that? Were those rapes consentual? \_ What a bullshit rationalization. \_ Go look up "sarcasm". \_ The funny thing is this was on wall a month ago. It was reported in a UK paper back in August. See: http://tinyurl.com/kj1n And no new information in the Times. Why is the Times reporting it now? \_ "The Times did not learn of any of the six women from Schwarzenegger's rivals in the recall race. And none of the women approached the newspaper on her own. Reporters contacted them in the course of a seven-week examination of Schwarzenegger's behavior toward women on and off the movie set." \_ So they didn't report or even refer to the UK paper's story until the week before the election? Because they wanted in-depth info? They didn't add any details to the UK story. The timing is just a bit suspicious. \_ My impression was that the LA Times reporters re-interviewed the people from the UK story, and uncovered new examples of Arnold's bad behavior. As for the timing, you could say they were trying to get as many examples as they could before the election. \_ Which means they planned to release it shortly before the election, and hence timed it for most political clout. They could have easily issued a preliminary story and then had a big followup. \_ That wouldn't be politically expedient. \_ Which means they planned to release it shortly before the election, and hence timed it for most political clout. They could have easily issued a preliminary story and then had a big followup. |
| 2003/10/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:10399 Activity:nil |
10/1 http://www.drudgereport.com/matt.htm 30 years? damn. \_ hell, if she's not as sexy as the Alias girl who cares? \_ no, she's hotter "slim, blonde ... In the photos in his office, she has the looks of a film star. 'She is really quite amazing,' Wilson said." Wash Post \_ 30 years? What about 30 years? \_ Valerie Plame has been undercover for 3 decades \_ 3 decades != 30 years... 3 decades could be 14 years: 1989-2003 \_ 3 decades! damn! (Oh and given that she trained someone who quit in 1989 and was in the service for 4 years I suspect more than 14, but the whole Plame is 40 thing makes much more than 18 years seem unlikely.) \_ another interesting perspective: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20031001.shtml \_ jesus. novak's own column makes him look like an utter idiot. \_ I agree. For one, he claims the Washington Post report about leaking the wife's name as "simply untrue" without providing any evidence. Second, when the CIA rep asked not to publish her name, and said it would cause "difficulties" if it were, what does Novak expect? For the CIA rep to say, "She's covert, so you can't report her name". \_ The CIA should just execute Novak. |
| 2003/9/30-10/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:10388 Activity:kinda low |
9/30 Guardian is reporting that several of the journalists have named Karl
Rove as the source of the agent leak...and *doooooown* goes the ship.
\_ urlP
\_ link:csua.org/u/4ks
Unfortunately this is a real audio link, sorry I can't do better
as its a developing story. The report is about 1:20 in.
Also I should add, none of them have gone *public* with this
information yet...
\_ Is it because all the journalists Rove called are Republican
buddies like Novak
\_ Revealing your source is a big no-no for a journalist.
\_ Definitely. However, if a subpeona is issued in the
course of a criminal investigation the reporter would
be obligated to name the source, or face contempt of
court. We're a long way off from that, but you never
know.
\_ Journalists have First Amendment protection. Look
at the Pentagon Papers for precedent.
\_ they still get thrown in jail for not
revealing sources. -tom
\_ not usually. the exceptions get in the news.
\_ as in most things it's more complicated than
that. law is a balancing of rights and the
court has a track record of not weighing
journalist privilege as heavily as other types
of first amdmt privilege. not making a
judgment here, just pointing it out. --aaron
\_ I'm suspicious. This thread has been
remarkably well-behaved, on-topic, and troll
free. WHO IS THIS IMPOSTER, AND WHERE IS THE
REAL MOTD?
\_ With yermom. Happy?
\_ Because us conservatives take criminal
activity very seriously no matter who did
it. We won't defend Rove if he turns out
to be a criminal. It's that whole thing
about having principles. Should I make the
obvious comparison or let it be?
\_ We liberals applaud your adoption of
our principled stance.
\_ So as good liberals and not as (D)
party hacks, you were in favor of
removing Clinton from office due to
his crimes? We have a very different
idea of what principles are.
\_ Many people (including enough
Senators) didn't think Clinton's
offences rose to the level of
necessitating removal. Time
shall tell what comes of this.
--scotsman
\_ Yea... he was debarred in
Arkansas and debarred by
the USSC. Lying under oath
before the US Congress.
Interesting. Accused of
rape by at least two women,
and of philadering by
at least 1/2 dozen more.
\_ Paula Jones is angry
with her lawyers and
has said publicly she
believes they
represented the Repub
interests that funded
them at the expense
of her own. --aaron
\_ says nothing about
Clinton's crimes.
\_ Clinton was not debarred.
And I hate to break it
to you, BUT CLINTON IS
NOT THE PRESIDENT ANYMORE!
\_ Debarred from Arkansas
resigned from
USSC before he was
debarred.
http://csua.org/u/4l1
What now?
\_ Disbarred, for
chrissake.
debar
v 1: bar temporarily; from school, office, etc. [syn: {suspend}]
2: prevent the occurrence of; prevent from happening; "Let's
avoid a confrontation"; "head off a confrontation"; "avert
a strike" [syn: {obviate}, {deflect}, {avert}, {head off},
{stave off}, {fend off}, {avoid}, {ward off}]
3: prevent from entering; keep out; "He was barred from
membership in the club" [syn: {bar}, {exclude}]
[also: {debarring}, {debarred}]
\_ CEASE! NO FACTS!
\_ Thi
s p
ost
is
nar
row
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/11/9/181815.shtml_
Jeeze you Clinton haters are pathetic, you can't even get the
basic facts right. Five year suspension is NOT disbarrment.
\_ Or maybe a different idea of "high
crimes"
\_ Yes, leftists have no trouble
selling out our country to get
a few votes until some day we
won't need to bother with all
that pesky democracy and choices
because we'll have the liberal
elite making all the decisions.
after all, when you're the
smartest woman in the world, you
don't have need for democracy.
\_ What crimes?
\_ Don't bait me.
\_ Apparently my Lvl 5 Troll Summon
spell worked. Must have been the
+3 Staff of the Magi.
\_ He's busy with the Falun Gong Republican
Jew Asian woman fetishists. And it's
'impostor'. -John the Troll King
\_ CROM! |
| 2003/9/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:10374 Activity:moderate |
9/29 Sorry kids! Better luck next time! In Novak's own words,
'Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this. In July I
was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador
Wilson's report when he told me the trip was inspired by his wife, a
CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction. Another senior
official told me the same thing. As a professional journalist with 46
years experience in Washington I do not reveal confidential sources.
When I called the CIA in July to confirm Mrs. Wilson's involvement in
the mission for her husband -- he is a former Clinton administration
official -- they asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it
would endanger her or anybody else. According to a confidential source
at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert
operator, and not in charge of undercover operatives'
\_ Sounds like a leak to me. Reread the second sentence over again.
Just because Novak called the official doesn't mean that he didn't
have a responsibility to keep her identity secret from the press.
Plus, there are those six other reporters that were contacted
by the White House....
\_ Reread the last sentence you twink.
\_ I agree: Novak is telling it like it happened, and it still
sounds bad. There were no calls to Novak according to him,
but two senior Bush officials did reveal her identity. The
CIA told Novak not to use Wilson's wife's name. Novak found
out -- possibly only recently -- that the wife was an analyst
and not undercover.
The effect is still to intimidate, the law still broken
by the two senior administration officials, and someone may
end up going to jail.
\_ If she wasn't a covert operative then no law was broken and
there's no intimidation.
\_ sure, and analysts are desk workers who are never ever
in danger from foreign governments.
\_ As the other person pointed out, Novak was told that revealing
her name would cause problems. The real blame lies with the
leakers, who according to a second SAO leak to WaPo, did this
purely to indimidate. They broke federal law and anyone who
knows about it and doesn't come forward is also guilty according
to US Code (misprision of felony) --aaron
\_ Let me quote DailyKOS: (--aaron)
A couple of things:
This changes nothing re: the law -- two senior administration
officials still revealed the identity of an undercover CIA officer.
Also, if Novak is correct, then what about the other reporters
contacted with the information? Novak has had a rocky
relationship with this administration, but at the end of the
day, he would rather have a Republican in the White House than a
Democrat. He _is_ a partisan, and his statement (which remember,
doesn't exculpate the administration from wrongdoing) is simply
the first salvo of the administration's counterattack.
\_ Now you're mix n matching to suit your agenda. She worked for
\_ Sounds like a leak to me. Reread the first sentence over again.
the CIA pushing paper, not as a field agent. One is a felony,
the other is nothing.
\_ BTW, I hope none of the impressionable young motd readers
out there actually believe this "analyst" spin. Novak
himself was even backpedaling on that when Ensor stated
that his sources say she was undercover. Wilson also stated
the same thing on NPR.
\_ The reply to you above said it all. Your response are very
revealing. Let me guess, you were one of the many who
screamed about every Arkansas Project invention from
Troopergate (found to be fabricated with bribes from
Scaife) and Travelgate (found to be cooked up by RNC) |
| 2003/9/29-30 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:10373 Activity:high |
9/29 I keep having people tell me they prefer Republicans because the
Republicans have "principles". What "principles" do Republicans
have?
\_ Conservatives. Republicans may or may not have principles.
Conservatives have principles. They are well documented. No
need to troll here.
\_ Sigh. Some people are principled. Some people are not.
Their political affiliation has nothing to do with it.
Also, what's so great about principles if they are awful
principles? I hear Tom Metzger is quite principled.
\_ Who said anything about great? The question asked about
existence. It was answered. The op can draw his own
conclusions. Move along, no pile-on here, lefty boy.
\_ Also, saying some people are principled is true but unhelpful.
Being a conservative implies a certain philosophical
commitment, hence having certain principles. It's what
being a conservative MEANS. Being a republican entails nothing
except membership in a certain org. Sheesh. Why does this
need to be explained?
\_ Well done. -conservative and only sometimes republican
\_ What principles do Conservatives represent?
\_ "You can never be too rich."
\_ Democrats have principles too. Just not Davis, Clinton, etc.
\_ From WordNet:
conservative
adj 1: resistant to change [ant: {liberal}]
2: opposed to liberal reforms
3: avoiding excess; "a conservative estimate" [syn: {cautious}]
4: unimaginatively conventional; "a colorful character in the
buttoned-down, dull-gray world of business"- Newsweek
[syn: {button-down}, {buttoned-down}]
5: conforming to the standards and conventions of the middle
class; "a bourgeois mentality" [syn: {bourgeois}, {materialistic}]
n : a person who has conservative ideas or opinions
[ant: {liberal}]
\_ Clearly this dictionary needs to be burned.
\_ clearly this entire thread is pointless and uninteresting. - danh |
| 2003/9/18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:10239 Activity:moderate |
9/17 Wesley Clark: General Issues
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=9522
Wesley Clark's command at Fort Hood lent 17 pieces of armor and
15 active service personnel under his command to the Waco Branch
Davidian operation.
\_ food for thought- he's the Chairman of a electric car company.
maybe the voters can help the environment by bringing in corporate
influence from the opposite direction!
http://www.wavecrestlabs.com/news/pr042103.html
\_ He is a soldier. Soldier doesn't make decisions. They execute
orders.
\_ I imagine alot of German's said this during WWII.
\_ It's not a war crime to lend out personnel for a mission.
\_ And the Imperial Japanese.
\_ And the Americans in Vietnam.
\_ Vietnam is hardly comparable to Germany/Japan in
WWII.
\_ In scale, no, in principle, yes.
\_ Sorry, I normally don't reply to motd
posts with insults, but this statement
marks you as an idiot beyond the pale
of the ordinary ignoramus. -John
\_ We are talking about the principle
\_ We are not talking about the nature
of the wars, but the principle
that soldiers should not always
blindly follow orders. "It's my
orders" had been used as part of
legal defense for trials of Vietnam
atrocities. Don't get too excited.
\_ Wasn't excited, was calling you
an idiot. My apologies, you've
clarified yourself, I take it back.
\_ Officers are expected to make decisions.
\_ People accusing how China dealing with FaLunGong... The way
USA dealing with cult within its territory is not all that
different neither.
\_ Uhm no. The situation was largely unacceptable and there was
a LOT of criticism and debate that resulted from that fiasco.
Do you really think a situation like this would hit the chinese
press as anything but glorious victory of chinese nationalist
forces over subversive insurgent criminals???
\_ Perhaps the better analogy for PRC-Falungong is US-Muslims.
\_ Perhaps not. Where are Muslims being rounded up and put
in prison or insame asylums? Take it home, Jack. We know
about China.
\_ Perhaps the better analogy would be US-Mormons in the
past.
\_ Many muslims were rounded up and detained for weeks or
months post 9/11.
\_ Do FaLunGong members stock up firearms?
\_ no, firearms are hard to come by. They did disrupt
TV signals, etc. I guess anything they do is legit
because they are against a "communist" government, right?
\_ Gasp! Stocking up firearms! They must DIE DIE DIE.
\_ Since when is this illegal? Koresh jogged daily
through Waco. |
| 2003/9/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:10235 Activity:high |
9/17 I refuse to accept the premise that surpluses are going to
decline if I'm the president. I think they're going to
increase, because my plan will increase productivity
by cutting marginal rates. -GWB 12/7/1999
\_ WOW, I can't believe that you are blaming the .com
bubble and its side-effects on GWB.
\_ Are you claiming that the .com bubble is what forced
GWB and the Republican Congress to increase federal
spending by 15%? Right....
\_ Even if there was no spending increase the
surplus would have declined because of the
the .com bubble. I'm not saying that what
GWB is doing is right, I'm saying that the
state of the economy (and hence the budget)
is the way that it is due to circumstances
out of his control (he could no more have
stopped the .com bust than you or I).
The only way for GWB to restore the surplus
created by the .com bubble would be to cut
federal spending drastically, but this would
piss off the 'Republicans are Nazi's who
don't care about sick, infirm, aged and
poor people who aren't white christians'
crowd and they would go on national tv
crying about how if we just passed up one
sidewinder or a single aid pkg to Israel
we could have all the welfare and medicare
forever. Since Bush doesn't want that, we
are stuck with a budget that doesn't (and
cannot) properly reflect the economic
circumstatnces we find ourselves in.
GWB is doing is right, I'm saying that it
is largely out of his (or anyones) control.
\_ I notice you have avoided the question.
The tax cuts and spending increases have
done more to increase the deficit than the
\_ Note: pre-9/11
revenue decreases since 2000.
\_ There was an article in the WSJ recently
plotting federal spending through the Clinton
and GWB years. It was a very nice straight
line going down (about 15% total) during the
Clinton admin, and a very "nice" straight line
going up during GWB's admin, rolling back about
80% of what Clinton achieved.
\_ ^GWB^Gray Davis
\_ Davis screwed the state over in the
"Energy Crisis". Sure the state was
hurt by the .com bubble, but the
major screw up was the "Energy Crisis".
\_ And sold out to how many different
unions?
\_ Note: pre-9/11 |
| 2003/9/15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:29539 Activity:high |
9/14 The tread regard to Iran has been censored again. Haha, I think
I know why that particular thread is being targeted. It exposes
the failure of current administration's foreign policy. And the
Motd Censor think by deleting it, people wouldn't know about it.
\_ LOL why censor why you Carter and Clinton to fall back on.
\_ LOL why censor when one has Carter and Clinton to fall back on. |
| 2003/9/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:10061 Activity:nil |
9/3 http://www.business-standard.com/archives/2003/jan/50310103.016.asp Republican party outsources fund raising to India telemarketers. All hail bush! \_ Urban legend. \_ Cite! \_ Testify!!! \_ Anybody see The War Room, about Clinton's first campaign? They had video of Bush talking up jobs for Americans next to footage of GOP banners being printed in a S. American country. \_ http://www.differentstrings.info/archives/002552.html Probably some Republican but not the RNC. \_ awwwww. the republicans are a victim of irresponsible journalism by the washington times. cry me a fucking river. \_ Nice to know where you stand. I'd like journalistic honesty to be non-partisan. \_ More obnoxious is the spamminess of the (verifiably) RNC sanctioned email campaigns. |
| 2003/9/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, ERROR, uid:10044, category id '18005#6' has no name! , ] UID:10044 Activity:high |
9/2 Finally. A poll that's more than simple fluff and used more
than a 1000 likely voters instead of the typical 529 random
people who may or may not vote.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential%20Ballot_Sept2.htm
\_ it's the arnie effect. people go for the name they recognize.
\_ Wow. Check out the poll where 72% of adults say Fox News is
a reliable source of news. Yup, Rasmussen Reports is definitely
living in the REAL WORLD. Sheesh.
\_ That says nothing about Rasmussen. I bet a fair percentage
of people might believe that Onion is a serious newspaper.
of people might get believe Onion is a serious news paper.
Real people in the real world are real(ly) stupid. Get REAL!
\_ Idiot, do you really not know the difference between a polling
service and the people they poll? You may disagree with the
people they talk to but that does not in any way make the service
any less accurate. Did I remember to call you an idiot? Yes, I
did remember to call you an idiot.
\_ Its a valid criticism - polls can be based upon invalid
assumptions. I noted absolutely no explanation of how they
determine "likely voters." The love showered on Fox suggests
they poll only in rural South Carolina.
\_ I don't like Fox but I doubt on south carolinans look to
it as the source of the Truth. Just remember that tabloids
did remember to call you an idiot.
they poll only in rural South Carolina.
are sold in every supermarket.
\_ It was interesting to note that "Democrat" faired better than all
\_ Zogby uses 1000 likely voters and has a very good track record.
the available candidates...
\_ People like the concept but not the candidates presented?
\_ welcome to the Democrats!
\_ Zogby uses 1000 likely voters and has a very good track record. |
| 2003/8/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:29500 Activity:nil |
8/27 Add this to the Clinton historical legacy:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A59136-2003Aug28?language=printer
\_ you mean the Kissinger legacy? get a clue |
| 2003/7/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:29113 Activity:moderate |
7/23 http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/clinton.iraq.sotu/index.html I didn't like him as President but he was sure good at the politics thing. It isn't what he says here but what he doesn't say to his fellow party memebers: "you won't win 2004 on Iraq and WMD, it's the economy, stupid!" He was and still is a brilliant politician. Too bad he had no character or I might have switched parties. \_ Wait, so you would have loved to be on the winning team, even if you're not a Democrat at heart? Who's the one with no character here? \_ Put away the axe, man. I don't think your interpretation matches what the OP was trying to say. \_ Character != blindly stick with one political party. That would be *your* world view. Me? I actually vote for the more desirable candidates without looking at the little (R) (D) or (I) after their name. You can go stick your head in a pig or whack yourself in the head with your axe, your choice, because I believe it's ok to make choices in life. --op \_ He plays with woman, that is his personal issue. Kennedy, FDR, T. Jefferson also played with women. Politicians are politicians, we should judge them by their effectiveness and their ideological alignments, not their personal characters. If you judge leader by their personal life, Hitler would be a godsend because he doesn't drink, doesn't play with women neither. |
| 2003/7/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:29012 Activity:high |
7/11 What hypothetical scenarios has to happen in order for Bush to lose
re-election in 2004? I'll offers a couple:
a) american soldiers getting killed by an angry iraqi mob and his
body dragged through the streets. All on live TV. Just like what
happened in Somalia.
b) stock market goes back into the pre-war lows. Dow has to go below
7000. And another big coporation collapsing like Enron.
c) real photos of bush sniffing cocaine.
\_ a) wont matter, been there done that, b) that'd do it, c) even if
they were real most would think they were fake anyway, the public
has seen way too many photoshop jobs by now.
\_ Democrats get a clue and remove head from ass. Only the dumbass
Dems would've let him win in the first place when he was the
less popular candidate.
\_ The opinions of dead people in Chicago don't count.
\_ Nor do the opinions of black people in florida.
\_ nonsense. completely made up. however if you're on the
florida panhandle the press is likely to announce the
polls are closed and your state's voting is done an hour
early. or maybe someone will enforce the local deadlines
and standards for military votes in violation of previous
federal law and agreement. sorry, your feelings dont jive
with the facts on this one. although if you're black and
in pennsylvania we count your vote many times in some
precincts where the total vote count for Gore was over
100%. The New Math?
d) Tenet took the blame for the uranium thing right? Credible CIA /
Bush administration underlings come out as whistleblowers.
\_ This will be difficult for the dems to use since tenet is a dem
who was initially appointed by clinton and kept by bush.
Nothing like having an important member of the opposition on
your side. And don't forget, clinton already admitted he
believed the same things bush did.
e) Economy continues to slide, with unemployment going up until
election day.
f) A fucking miracle. GWB is the new Teflon President.
\_ domestically, GWB is a lib, what are all you democrat ninnies
complaining about? On foreign affairs, he is reshaping the world
and transforming our strategic objectives, we are in an era
not seen since WWII. You have worked yourselves into such a frenzy
you completely miss this.
\_ no, he is not a lib. in what way is this era like WWII?
what a dumbass.
\_ Please cite meaningful conservative policy he's
enacted - ooh a 30 $ billion a year tax cut out of
2++ trillion federal expenditures. The US geopolitical
strategy has been redefined to fit the post
Cold War, this significant departure will shape the
world for 20-30 years. Clinton and GB I wasted
the peace dividend and their 12 years in office in
this respect.
\_ I love how your idea of count point is to blurt out some
drivel and personal insult. That may work in the dorms,
kiddo, but no one here with a brain larger than a pea is
reading that crap, nodding their head, and going "uh huh!
yeah! what he said!" say something worth the bits or
don't bother at all. Debate is much more enjoyable when
the other side actually shows up.
\_ i don't bother anymore. i've read the motd long
enough to know when it's useless to argue with the
people who express opinions like the above...
"democrat ninnies"? oh yeah that's intelligent.
i simply point out some of the more ridiculous
stupidity. the whole iraq thing was such a joke.
the tax cut was worse than a joke. bush's nepotism,
policies do not win elections in this country.
his stupidity in speeches, his tactless diplomacy...
like the poster below it makes me embarrassed for
the country.
\_ George W. Bush is an embarrassment to our country.
He may have brilliant people on his staff or whatever,
but he's just plain stupid.
\_ You and Ann Richards should hang out sometime. He may
be an idiot as a student, and I think his foreign policy
sucks, but to the extent that his job is to win elections
he is *very* smart and good at his job. Good or bad
policies do not win elections in this country. He's
not an idiot at all at the things he cares about.
\_ in what way did that require smarts of him? he has
been surrounded by coddlers and coaches all the time.
the man can barely talk straight. his connections got
him where he is.
\_ when he was a freshman rushing DKE, he was the only
person among the frosh who could recite the name of
every single member of DKE having just met them
once. The ability to instantly network with people
and make the right kinds of friends quickly does
not qualify one to lead the free world, but to
deny that bush has this skill is a mistake.
that mbeing said, I should point out that
the Yale DKE guys are
a bunch of fucking hooligan criminals(I used
to live next to their house). |
| 2003/7/7 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:28952 Activity:high |
7/7 Justice Breyer: U. S. Constitution should be subordinated
to international will. A justice goes on television
to argue his case.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/941589/posts
\_ Scalia's a homophobe! (News bulletin!!1!)
\_ At least he defined the homosexual agenda. |
| 2003/6/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:28808 Activity:very high |
6/22 Sandy Berger Defends Decision Not to Extradite Bin Laden
http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/6/22/140449
Paraphrase of recent Clinton quote - 'I was obsessed with
bin Laden and terrorism'
\_ It's true. Look at how hard Clinton fought against terrorism after
the first bombing at the towers, after the Cole, after the two
embassies got blown up, after Monica hit the news. We killed an
aspirin factory and a tent. I know *I* felt safer after that.
\_ *I* felt safer after Reagan sold weapons to Iran for profit!
FREE MARKET BABY!!
\_ Irony = Free Market Conservatives grousing about Hillary's
book being a bestseller. "How can people buy that crap?" |
| 2003/6/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:28750 Activity:nil |
6/18 Hillary is getting the full Lewinsky:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/927756.asp?0cl=c1&cp1=1
\_ "According to the survey, 63% of Democratic voters want Clinton to
run for the 2004 Democratic nomination, while a whopping 100% of
Republicans want her to do so." |
| 11/26 |