| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 11/27 |
| 2007/6/5-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:46861 Activity:kinda low |
6/5 http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0605071libby1.html Mr. Libby takes one for the team ... too smart, and too loyal. \- this is disgusting. but on a mildly humorouss note ... "hi this is henry kissinger. i was secretary os state. scooter is ok. but let's get back to me. i am great. let me tell you some more about me." \_ There is a time when I thought blow the cover of an undercover agent is considered a threat to national security... Then again I am not a Republican. \_ Let me guess. You think Clinton got impeached for getting a BJ. \_ That didn't came into my mind when I posted it. IMHO, Libby should get executed for what he is willing to do to advance his party's political gain. And, now you mentioned, since we are willing to impeach someone for a BJ, then, may be we should impeach our current commander And, now you mentioned, since we are willing to impeach someone for a BJ, \_ I was correct. You're an idiot. then, may be we should impeach our current commander in chief for treason. AND/OR turn him over to International War Crime Tribunal for all sort of war crime he has commited. \_ He'll write a book. I think he was too dumb and too naive. He didn't have to talk to the prosecutors. He did so voluntarily and now is going to prison + $250k fine for trying to be a good samaritan, the fool. And when he does *not* get a GWB pardon I have a $1 million bet with someone on the motd I'm going to put away for my early retirement. \_ I will bet you, anonymous h0zer. Not $1M but I am happy to put real money on this. Contact me. -ausman \_ I've already got my $1M bet. If you can't play with the big boys, you can't play. \- fine, we can form a syndicate to bet again you. who are you. --psb \_ Uh huh. link:www.csua.org/u/iv2 |
| 2007/6/5-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:46859 Activity:kinda low |
6/5 Pathetic liberal attempt to sway borderline Republican voters:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/05/democrats.religion.ap
\_ Because everyone knows all libruls are godless atheists, duh..
\_ Informal poll: who thinks Hillary Clinton is genuinely religious
in a sense her quote meant -- someone who uses her faith in God
to overcome difficult situations. -- ilyas
to overcome difficult situations. (Yeah that's what I thought)
-- ilyas
\_ What, other than antipathy, leads you to think she doesn't?
What about the others? If you believe in a strong separation
of church and state, does that invalidate your personal faith?
Too many people, IMO, would say yes. This is a real asshole
comment.
\_ This is an amazing comment. It's true I don't much like
Hillary Clinton, but I certainly don't dislike religious
people. I find it amazing, though, that some folks can
seriously consider her earnestly religious. That's just
not in her background or 'life trajectory' if you will.
Before this turns long and boring, yes I realize that
Hillary's religiousness is not a logical impossibility, but
statistically it's pretty unlikely. -- ilyas
\_ Antipathy toward HRC and/or liberals, not toward
religious people. "Statistically"? You're gonna need
to explain yourself. What percentage of Democratic
congress members would you guess self-identify as
Christian? Or of Democrats in general?
\_ That percentage would certainly be very high since
being an admitted atheist is political suicide in
the United States. I would guess the percentage of
genuinely religious people (in the sense of Hillary's
quote) is very low (it's not even all that high
in the general population). Politicians lie to get
elected, fyi. -- ilyas
quote) is very low. Politicians lie to get
elected, fyi. Someone can lie about religiousness
and get away with it because it is extremely difficult
to falsify if you are careful. The way I would
go about falsifying this claim is to look at the
people with similar life stories as Hillary, but who
chose to pursue careers other than politics. If the
percentage of 'genuinely religious' people among
that population is low, then the professed religious
feeling is based on constraints of the job (politics)
not actual feeling on the matter (unless you feel
that pursuing secular power makes people turn to God).
Finally, I have never disliked someone based on
their politics. -- ilyas
\_ Because everyone knows that Hillary is a shameless
self-serving carpetbagger who will do/say anything to get
votes.
\_ then you stopped at the headline. edwards "lives with sin
\_ She won her last election in New York by 2 to 1. Claims
of carpetbagging get a bit dull after the people have ignored
it twice..
\_ She's not from New York. She moved there so she could
run for Senate in a race she could win. Whether her
constituents are happy with her or not, the term
"carpetbagger" seems appropriate to me. Why do you think
it isn't? --alawrenc
\_ It may have been in 2000. She represented the state
for 6 years after winning 55%. She pulled down 67%
in 2006. I think you're missing the point to call her
a carpetbagger the second time around. The whole idea
of the carpetbagger is that it's someone who doesn't
represent the people. The electorate spoke vociferously
in favor of her representing them. How many terms has
Louise Slaughter served in New York? Is she a
carpetbagger? --scotsman
\_ I see what you mean, but disagree. I think the term
captures (appropriately) that it describes someone
to whom geography is merely a matter of political
expediency. Frankly, I'm surprised we don't see more
of this from both parties (prominent politicians
moving to other states to get elected), given that
politicians tend to be very wealthy (mobile) and in
professions that aren't tied to particular areas
(not the way wealthy landowners were tied to their
home states 200 years ago, at least). --alawrenc
\_ Because it takes time to build up a local name.
In her case she New York was an easy target with
an open seat and no competition from either
party. She hasn't had to run in a real race
until now.
\_ So how many terms would she have to serve with
landslide victories before "carpetbagger" wouldn't
apply? And back to the original point, how is
saying you relied on your faith to help you
through a difficult point in marriage shameless
and self-serving? Maybe it would be if you had
spent the last few decades bouncing from spouse
to spouse.. --scotsman
\_ I don't think any number of elections would
change that she moved to New York as a matter
of political expediency. I find it odd that
you think the appellation should go away after
two (and not one). As for the rest, I think
you're confusing me with the original poster
(I just thought the claim that she's not a
carpetbagger because she got reelected was
interesting). --alawrenc
\- i hate hillary clinton and i agree she
is a carpetbagger, however in the great
chain of scum, carpetbagging is a lot
less bad than corrupt, hypociritical,
torturing evil cyborg. in fact just
\_ You don't like Arnold?
focusing on hillary, being sanctimonious
and a soulless panderer are worse faces
of her than her cappetbagger self. if you
want to criticize hillary, focusing on
"she went venue shopping for a senate
seat" is lazy and proably just mindless
labeling.
\_ then you stopped at the headline. edwards "sins
every day". does that mean he's gay?
\_ "Edwards is uncomfortable with gayness"
\_ no, it means he's human. "He that is without sin among
you, let him first cast a stone"
\_ "It's a joke, son... Laugh..." |
| 2007/5/30-6/4 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:46797 Activity:high 90%like:46794 |
5/30 When did Hillary join the Communist Party?
http://urltea.com/nwv (timesrecordnews.com)
\_ Right about the time you applied your mad reading comp skillz to
this article.
this article. --scotsman
\_ So I used a little hyperbole. But at least I can read better
than you.
\_ Let me see if I get your point: any regulation of the Free
Market is Communism?
\_ 'it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one
based on shared responsibility and prosperity.' Sounds
like communism to me. -op
\_ Then you're an idiot.
\_ Then you're an idiot. You either have a fundamental
misunderstanding of what Communism is, or you can't
read. Either way, your little jaunt here says that
you're an idiot.
\_ Trying to explain an idiot why he's an idiot is
kind of a waste of time.
you're an idiot. --scotsman
\_ Trying to explain an idiot why he's an idiot is kind
of a waste of time.
\_ I understand what Communism is. I guess you just
can't defend your point. -op
\_ You haven't made a point at all. You've called
\_ I haven't made a point at all. You've called
HRC a member of the Communist Party, with no
basis. You don't do this whole "thinking"
thing too well, do you?
\_ I haven't made a point at all. You've called HRC
a member of the Communist Party, with no basis.
You don't do this whole "thinking" thing too well,
do you?
do you? --scotsman
\_ And you simply call me an idiot. I posted a
quote which is part of why I believe she's
pushing towards a communist agenda. You called
me an idiot again. You'll pardon me if I don't
see this as the height of debate. Oh, and then
more ad hominem. Yawn. -op
Here's another quote:
"Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the
right government policies."
more ad hominem. Yawn. -op Here's another
quote: "Fairness doesn't just happen. It
requires the right government policies."
\_ Explain how that quote is in any way untrue,
or "pushing towards a communist agenda".
Your wink-and-nod approach may win you
points at freerepublic, but you're making
little sense here.
\_ Having the government define
'fairness' and then enforce it
sounds a lot like communism. If
you don't understand, I'm afraid
I can't help.
little sense here. --scotsman
\_ Having the government define 'fairness'
and then enforce it sounds a lot like
communism. If you don't understand, I'm
afraid I can't help.
\_ you're an idiot.
\_ You obviously do not understand what
Communism is, in spite of your earlier
claim. Where is the classless society
or the government ownership of all
means of production? What about the
dictatorship of the proletariat? You\
are not an idiot, you are insane.
\_ Thank you for reminding why I gave $1000 to the HRC for
President campaign. Hint: it isn't because of her political views,
it is because I love watching Freepers squirm.
dictatorship of the proletariat? You
are not an idiot, you are nuts.
\_ tom, you're the idiot. You don't
need this to be part of the CPUSA.
See:
http://www.cpusa.org
See: http://www.cpusa.org
\_ That wasn't my post, idiot. -tom
\_ You still haven't shown where
defining and regulating the
marketplace means that the
government owns the players in
it. You keep talking, yet you
say nothing.
marketplace means owning
the players in it. You keep
talking, yet you say nothing.
--scotsman
\_ My original statement was
about the communist party,
not an academic definition.
Go back to your cage. -op
\_ This doesn't help your
point, as noted below.
\_ From your source:
"All Communists are for socialism, seeing it as a transition stage to
communism, a higher stage of economic, political, and social
development. All socialists arent for communism; some see Communists
as too radical.
Socialism is social ownership of the main means of production
(factories, transportation) and the commanding heights of an economy
(banks and other financial institutions) and runs them in the
interests of the working people, using part of the value that
workers produce to build up the social institutions and benefits
for the whole people."
Is that what you claim that HRC is supporting with her statement?
\_ Thank you for reminding why I gave $1000 to the HRC for President
campaign. Hint: it isn't because of her political views, it is
because I love watching Freepers squirm.
\_ A fool and his money are soon parted.
\_ Funny, my net worth goes up every year.
\_ Are you getting a VIP dinner for that money?
e.g. <DEAD>contribute.hillaryclinton.com/events/paloalto0531.html<DEAD>
\_ I'd rather have $1k than eat dinner with Hillary.
\_ Maybe I read a different article that you did, but Sen. Clinton's
comments suggested to me that she prefers a strongly regulated
market. At most she would be advocating a socialist position, not
a communist position. A communist position would not allow for any
private enterprise.
In addition, it is not at all clear what level of regulation that
Sen. Clinton feels is necessary. She merely states that some add'l
rules are needed to protect workers, &c. In light of Enron, &c.,
one needed not be a socialist to think that perhaps some add'l
regulation or supervision of the market is needed.
Of course, if one were a Ferengi, then perhaps one would not see
any difference between the two b/c either one would prevent you
from maximizing your horde of gold-pressed latium, which would
violate countless rules of acquisition.
violate countless rules of acquisition. And we all know the Rules
of Acquisition are the ultimate way to run a free market b/c they
work so well for the Grand Negus.
work so well for the Grand Negus. -stmg
\_ Regulating markets is not socialism or communism. Until the
government, under the direction of the people, steps into the
marketplace, either as an unfairly subsidized player, or as
a strongarming force to takeover and shut down private players,
it's not socialism. Seriously, everything you add to this
discussion further betrays your misunderstanding of the subject.
--scotsman
\_ Really? I always thought that socialism existed where the
government imposes its judgement in place of what the mkt
under reasonably unrestricted conditions would provide.
But then again everything I know about economics comes from
E120, DS9 episodes and broad generalizations in my Contracts
class, so its not surprising that I'm completely wrong. -stmg
\_ Socialism is where the government/society imposes OWNERSHIP
not judgement. Regulating capitalism is not "socialist".
It's "necessary".
It's "necessary". --scotsman
\_ Is this really true? I was always that Sweden was a
socialist country but they still have private business
over there.
over there. -stmg
\_ Here's a succinct little snippet from a critique
of Swedish Socialism:
http://www.namyth.com/SocialismWORKS!/index.php?sw=Sweden#third_way_home
http://urltea.com/o8e (namyth.com)
Medicine is socialized. Schools are socialized.
The state holds large chunks of the marketplace,
and highly regulates the rest.
I personally believe health care and education
should be considered rights and therefore should
be guaranteed by the state. I also personally
believe that outside of those "common good" bits
of the economy, the government's primary duties
are making sure the marketplace is fair, and that
workers are protected. For that, would you call
me a socialist? Because, really, I'm not.
me a socialist? Because, really, I'm not. --scotsman
\_ They also have some government owned business. But
then, so do we. But actually "socialism" is not as
well defined as the know-it-alls here think. I think
any schemes where the government causes resources
to be redirected to the poor can be classified as
socialist. Countries with high tax rates that provide
lots of public services fit that description
perfectly. It's a matter of degree. Public schools
and libraries ARE socialist institutions. Same with
welfare, medicare, progressive income tax, subsidized
housing projects, food stamps, etc. Government owning
businesses or regulation etc. isn't socialist per se
unless it has socialist goals. (e.g. the gov't could
run the something like the postal service completely
unsubsidized).
\_ Please provide a reference for your know-it-all
definition of "socialism." Preferably one which
includes reference to public libraries being
socialist institutions. -tom
\_ The part after "I think" was merely my opinion.
But some dictionaries and other references will
support my opinion. See:
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109587/socialism
"there is no precise canon on which the various
adherents of contemporary socialist movements
agree" "property and the distribution of
income are subject to social control rather
than ... market forces" "The uses and abuses
of the word socialism are legion".
Some apply the term interchangeably with
communism. However, in my opinion the term is
most commonly applied today in reference to
"welfare-state" type policies such as those
in Sweden. A public library, ok it's arguable,
but they provide access for the poor to things
the rich can afford to purchase. They take my
tax dollars and buy books for the use of
others.
\_ Okay, so now that you've actually thought
about it, and had your wikipedia brushup,
let's go back to Hilary's quotes. What in
there, without putting words in her mouth,
says "welfare-state"? Though if you think
public libraries are socialistic, there's
really no hope for this discussion.
--scotsman
\_ Hey I just jumped in on this socialism
definition subthread. I wasn't involved
in the HRC stuff. But it is arguable that
"shared responsibility and prosperity"
can imply things like social "safety
nets" and wealth redistribution. How
would you interpret that quote? What
specific political options other than
welfare-state principles would you
infer from that quote? Re: libraries,
\_ As a reassertment of the Social
Contract, a la Rousseau. As a
rejection of the lassaiz-faire
bullshit that Bush et al. espouse.
That we don't change all our
regulations to voluntary guidelines.
That we actually run inspections on
our food supply, workplaces, etc.
That we make decisions rather than
"make reality". --scotsman
\_ You mean we can't count on "The
Invisible Hand" to take care of
everything?!? That sux. He was
my favorite super hero.
I consider them in the same category
as public schools. If they didn't exist,
private citizens could establish their
own libraries either as charity,
private purpose or commercial operations.
Having the government take my money "at
gunpoint" as ilyas liked to say and use
it for a library fits communist views
of the role of government. Note that I
am not arguing about whether they are a
good thing or not.
\_ I don't think I can take credit for
that particular turn of phrase.
-- ilyas
\_ Read Jack London's People of the Abyss
for first-hand accounts of how an
unregulated society treats its poor.
Cf. Low Life, an account of the
history of the poor in NYC around the
same time period. Also review the
plight of shanty-towns in African
countries where industry operates
unregulated. Wealth-based altruism is
nice, but it doesn't work on its own.
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=11134
\_ See now, you just admitted "reasonably unrestricted" which
is a fancy way of saying "reasonably restricted" from the
other side. Regulation != communism.
\_ Um, so? My original point was that regulation !=
communism && at most (lots of regulation) == socialism.
\_ Apologies! I must have confused you with op.
\_ Don't you understand, regulating the market is exactly like
building a Gulag and killing millions of people. The SEC
is secretly in the employ of Kim Jong-il. If you believe
otherwise, you are an apologist for Stalinism.
\_ Don't forget the FDA which (until recently) tried to prevent
us from gaining the superhuman strength that Salmonella
confers |
| 2007/5/30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:46794 Activity:very high 90%like:46797 |
5/30 When did Hillary join the Communist Party?
http://www.timesrecordnews.com/trn/local_news/article/0,1891,TRN_5784_5560488,00.html
\_ Right about the time you applied your mad reading comp skillz to
this article.
\_ So I used a little hyperbole. But at least I can read better
than you.
\_ Let me see if I get your point: any regulation of the Free
Market is Communism?
\_ 'it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one
based on shared responsibility and prosperity.' Sounds
like communism to me. -op
\_ Then you're an idiot. |
| 2007/5/23 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:46733 Activity:nil 50%like:46725 |
5/22 Lurita Doan is BLOWJOBS BLOWJOBS BLOWJOBS
http://www.federaltimes.com/index.php?S=2777859 |
| 2007/5/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:46682 Activity:moderate |
5/17 http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/17/candidates.wealth/index.html 7 out of 18 Presidential candidate are millionaires. "All of the candidates are seeking to lead a country where the median net worth is about $93,000, and the median yearly income is about $46,000." Hold on. How the hell do you make $46K but save only $93K net worth? Don't most of us own homes that are at least 3-4X our income? \_ Two words: CREDIT CARD. More words: HOME EQUITY LOAN \_ 1) because the saving's rate hovers around zero, 2) no. \_ "most of us" don't own homes. \_ 68% is "most". \_ 68% is "most". (Correction, 2000 census, 66.2%) \_ You mean there are 200M homes in the USA? \_ There sure is a big helping of the stupid piled on motd today. \_ here in America, we like big helpings. |
| 2007/5/16-19 [Politics/Domestic/President, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:46658 Activity:moderate |
5/16 Interesting that Larry Flynt shows more class than most on motd
regarding Falwell's death.
http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_135185122.html
\- why exactly are we supposed to be shamed or impressed by
larry flynt. i think his reasoning is specious: "My mother
always told me that no matter how much you dislike a
person, when you meet them face to face you will find
characteristics about them that you like." ... so if you
meet somebody who is say a racist but tells good jokes and
cooks a mean steak you shoild try to focus on that? i wonder
if david duke is a good BBQer.
\_ He had a very long and bitter fight with Falwell. And was more
charitable to him in death than you are even though you've never
met him.
\- look, to me "charity" and "tolerance" toward a bigot is
no virtue. yes i am well aware of the the Hustler v. Falwell
case and i think it is quite an interest case because of
case and i think it is quite an interesting case because of
the inclusion of his mother, who was not a public figure.
since somebody mentions the hst nixon obit, my first thought
on hearing oh his passing was "he should be burned in a
trash can".
on hearing oh his passing was "he should be burned in
on hearing of his passing was "he should be burned in
/bin/trash". "he was an american monster".
\_ psb the Bengali, do you have a bigger penis than
Pujabis or other southern Indians?
\_ Fuck this. Falwell made his career on the backs of the less
fortunate or powerful, whom he routinely demonized. He was
slime, and the public fellating he is currently recieving
is in need of a counter. It's too bad HST isn't around - c.f.
his Nixon obit:
http://www.counterpunch.org/thompson02212005.html
\- this is more like it:
http://www.slate.com/id/2166337/nav/tap2
[and rememeber among non-xtians, the jews are the best of
the lot in thwir view. people like pat robertson say even
the lot in their view. people like pat robertson say even
worse things about people of other religions]
\_ Gotta love the Hitchens. "It's a shame that there is no
hell for Falwell to go to..."
\_ Speaking of whom, did you catch his latest appearance
on the Daily Show? He looked even more drunk than he
usually does. |
| 2007/5/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:46554 Activity:nil |
5/8 Clinton v. Obama voters:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/24yqxr (youtube.com) |
| 2007/3/30-4/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:46151 Activity:nil |
3/38 Out of 69 senate votes on the war, Clinton and Obama differ on only
one vote, the confirmation of Casey:
http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/mar/29/comparison_of_hillary_and_obama_votes_on_iraq
\_ I am going to vote for the one that pisses off the most Republicans.
\_ I am going to vote for the one that pisses off the most Freepers.
\_ I'm pretty sure that would be Clinton.
\_ Or (shockingly) you could vote for who you honestly think would
be the best President for the country.... |
| 2007/3/29-4/2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46141 Activity:nil |
3/28 "Bush's long history of tilting Justice"
by Joseph D. Rich, JOSEPH D. RICH was chief of the voting section in
the Justice Department's civil right division from 1999 to 2005. He
now works for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rich29mar29,0,3371050.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
\_ This man is a hypocrite because not even once did he mention
Bill Clinton's c*ck. |
| 11/27 |
| 2007/3/28-29 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Reference/Law/Court] UID:46134 Activity:moderate |
3/28 Attorneys fired for performance, not political reasons? It depends on
what "performance" means:
"The distinction between 'political' and 'performance-related' reasons
for removing a United States attorney is, in my view, largely
artificial" -Kyle Sampson, chief of staff to Gonzales
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/28/fired.attorneys.ap/index.html
\_ The administrations can define the meaning of any words in the
language as needed. For example, "sex".
\_ Yes, clearly the incompetence and corruption of the current
administration is the fault of Clinton's penis.
\_ The only crime taking place is the political stupidity of the admin
who should hav come out on day 1 and said, "We fired them because
we can, tough shit" and walked away. At least KS is finally, but
too late, sort of kind of saying it.
\_ There is a reason they lied about it in the first place and
I am kind of surprised that you don't understand why. |
| 2007/3/23-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46065 Activity:kinda low |
3/23 L.A. Times leans right. Notice how the top 3/4's of the story spews so
much irrelevant chaff, focusing on how Reagan/Clinton/Dubya fired
most/all attorneys when they came to power. Only toward the end do you
get: "When you have a transition between presidents - especially
presidents of different parties - a U.S. attorney anticipates that you
will be replaced ... the unwritten, No. 1 rule ... is that once you
become a U.S. attorney you have to leave politics at the door."
http://tinyurl.com/2na94k (latimes.com)
The perversion of truth -- especially the willful, disingenuousness
attitude that permeates the Republican Party today -- disgusts me.
\_ I think most politicians are like that. Except guys like Nader
who cannot get elected.
\_ Seriously, do you really believe one party is all beauty and nice
and the other the sole benefactor of all evil? They are the same.
The Democratic party is absolutely in no way shape or form ethically
or morally superior to the Republicans. You have one party with two
names. And btw, how dare the LAT actually tell it's readers that
all USAGs expect to be replaced? Let's not tell anyone anything
that might soften the political damage to the evil Bush even if it
is the truth and relevant to the story.
\_ Answering your first two lines: No. I think both parties are
guilty of stupidity and petty politics designed to keep them-
selves in power; this is the nature of our current political
system. That said, the Bush Admin has done so in a much more
blatant and egregious manner. I expect corruption, but I would
prefer some decorum and a modicum of circumspection along the
way. The current firings are simply insulting. -!op
\_ You have Democratics currently in office in positions of
great power, even holding Chair positions who were caught red
handed in bribery scandals, in land scams, in having $90k in
cash stuffed in their fridge, using the IRS to punish
political enemies, etc, etc, ad nauseum. Don't come on here
and try to tell me the Bush Admin is more blatant and
egreious about anything. I don't find bribery, theft, fraud,
and fridge stuffing to be less corrupt or more circumspec or
providing more decorum than what the Bush admin has done with
the USAG firings. In comparison the USAG thing is trivial BS
and I find it ridiculous and insulting anyone cares *at all*
about this compared with everything else going on in *both*
parties. Do any of the things I mentioned about the Dems
upset you at all? Or would they only be worth mentioning if
they were Republicans? And hey, how about stuffing that Iraq
funding bill with Democratic pork? That's cool, too, huh?
Take off the blinders.
\_ What part of "both parties of are guilty of stupidity and
petty politics" and "I expect corruption" didn't you get?
Jail anyone, Dem, GOP, or Ind. who's engaged in corruption,
bribery, or abuse of power. How can your outrage over
Dem corruption not spill over into the arena of egregious
abuse of the US Atty system to punish political enemies?
Before pointing out the mote in my eye, howzabout dealing
with the beam in your own?
\_ The part where you find firing a few USAG worse than
stuffing $90k in your fridge *and* *still* *keeping*
*your* *seat*. I'd like to see a URL that says why
they were fired and not from a NYT op/ed piece. Show
me a reliable source that says they were fired for not
punishing political enemies. You continue to weigh
(R) ethical violations much heavier than (D) ethical
violations even when the actual events don't match up
like that. Example: Which is worse ethically? Canning
a few prosecutors who server at your whim and aren't on
the same political page (and understood the deal when
they accepted the job) or stuffing bribe money in your
fridge as an elected representative of the American
people at the highest levels of government? Go ahead
and say the fridge stuffing isn't as bad and we can stop
right there. The firing is just hard ball politics and
although unfortunate for the guys sacked, TS. It's a
political event. The fridge stuffing is a felony. How
is that investigation going, huh? It's not. The guy
will be in office until he retires 'honorably'. *That*
is truly sickening.
\_ For the love of G_d, get this: They're both bad.
\_ of what now?
\_ "God". for some level of
orthodoxy among jews, to
write the name of god on
anything that might be erased,
destroyed, damaged, etc, is
profane.
\_ But God is not the name of
god.
\_ ...than to open it and
remove all doubt.
\_ KNEEL BEFORE YAHWEH
\_ For the love of YAHWEH, get this: They're both bad.
I appreciate that you're frustrated that the fridge
investigation has faltered (and yes, it should be
investigated fully), but it's not being held up
just because Congress is investigating Presidential
abuse of power (i.e., firing USAtys for not pursuing
political opponents). If fridge-stuffer is guilty of
accepting bribes, jail his ass. If AG fired the US
Atys because they wouldn't persecute the opposition,
can his ass. Also, didn't the FBI say they had
Jefferson on video taking a bribe? Then they should
arrest him for it! Right now, there appears to be
more evidence of dickery in the White House than in
Jefferson's fridge!
\_ I guess I don't understand why this is a story. Almost every
president fires all the attorneys and replaces them with their own.
W decides to just replace a few. Therefore W is bad? huh?
\_ He decided to replace a few on the basis that they weren't using
their power to hound and harrass the political opposition. An
across-the-board replace wouldn't have raised eyebrows;
demanding loyalty oaths to The Leader is another thing entirely.
\_ Why do you think they normally fire them all? To get loyal
ones. Duh. I see no difference.
\- a company can close a plant and open one a town over.
but they still cant fire all the black people.
you are allowed to hire who you want. you can
fire them for incompetence or if they are not
"getting with the program" but the program cannot
be political prosecutions. a second issue is the
be partisan prosecutions. a second issue is the
"cover up". at this point there is probably nobody
guilty of a legal crime in the executive branch, but
certainly people can be tried in the court of
public opinion for being mendacious, unprincipled
sacks of shit. it is reasonable to hypotheteize
"ALBERTO has made the DOJ a wing of the white
house" ... i think people are free to hold that
against BUSHCO just like they are free to hold
CLINTON being a serial adulterer against him.
much of this turns on the relatively simple distinction
between political and partisan. the doj can have
poltical priorities like going after sodomites and
drug fiends instead of antitrust, but it cannot be
a partisan enforcer like a party whip of chairman who
withhold appointments or $$$ from you. this is not
an especially subtle argument.
\_ I guess you're welcome to hold it against him if you
like. Seems pointless to me, there are pleanty of
actual things he's done wrong to hold against him.
Your "firing the black people" analogy is obviously a
completely false analogy. But, still. You think it's
morally superior to fire everybody, then only rehire
white people? I would argue the opposite. If you only
want to get rid of a few people, don't make everyone go
through the unemployment ringer.
\- you cant hire "only white people". yes, i commented
early on it is odd congress is fixating on this
when there is katerina incompetence, iraq
incompetence, not catching osama, the plutocrati-
zation of society etc. at least w.r.t. to the
iraq war, congress feels they have "clean hands"
here. and of course the dems are in agenda control.
you're also caught in the "93 > 8" mentality.
\_ No crap. You also can't only fire black people.
That's why this is a false analogy, as I noted.
Also: So, 93 < 8? Must be that "new math." :)
\_ Obtuse little fucker.
\_ I don't think it's morally superior. It think it's
Better Form. It implies an understanding that the
appearance of propriety, while not sufficient in
and of itself, is necessary.
\_ Another way to say this is "The first is easier
to prove." I can't argue with that, I just don't
see any moral difference.
\_ Out of curiousity, so you see a moral diff
between this and, oh, using postage to send
mail out as Socks the Cat?
\_ Had to look that one up. Yes, there's a
difference. I can't see anything wrong at
all with using postage to send out mail as
"Socks the Cat."
\_ Okay, then what about the christmas card
list "scandal". That warranted 140 hours
of testimony UNDER OATH to determine that
nothing improper happened. Is there a
moral difference between that possible
impropriety and this?
\_ Seesh, are you just going down a list
a dem talking points, trying to prove
I'm some rep stooge? I can't even
find this story, just dem blogs
whining about it. I never said the
lame-o Rep attempts to get Clinton
were ok, so get off it.
\_ Are you saying, though, that the
firing of the USAs was proper, and
therefore should not be looked
into? That's what you seem to be
saying with "I guess I don't
understand why this is a story."
I think you may be too short for
this discussion.
\_ Sheesh, sorry I'm too young for
you. Somehow pulling out old D
talking points I don't recall
that then saying I'm too "short
for this discussion" seems
amazingly lame though. I'm done.
\_ I'm saying the firing was
standard enough politics to not be worth looking into. I don't like
hardball politics to begin with, so I'm not going to say firings were
'proper,' but they aren't unusual. The Dems are playing lame-o gotcha
games with Bush, just like the Rs did with Clinton. Niether case was
worth the time and money.
\- do you know what united states attorneys do?
\_ So do you prefer the last 6 years of 0 oversight out of congress?
What you call "gotcha games" is what most people call "Congress's
job".
\_ They were unusual _because_ they were firings singling out very
specific individuals on the basis of "performance issues" after all
8 received good evaluations. The LCD here is suspect. And then
they're unusual in that the AG lied in his testimony on the subject.
\_ We've come full circle, just read from the top for replies to
these posts.
\_ I think that the difference in morality
between two different acts of corruption is
a complicated matter of ethics that has been
wrestled with for thousands of years.
\_ Let's see if the American people agree with you or not. I think
the Democrats obviously think they have a winner here or they
would not be pushing so hard. |
| 2007/3/21-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46040 Activity:low |
3/21 Once again Dems are pussies. Gore first got the Senate to waive the 48
hour rule (receiving written copy of testimony 48 hrs before hearing)
for a 24 hour rule. Then he failed to submit his testimony until this
morning, a few hours before the hearing. Oh, and then the Dems got it
hours before the Repubs.
http://csua.org/u/ia3 (cnsnews.com)
\_ At a time when the President is vowing to fight congressional
subpoenas up to the ussc, it's funny that you hold this up as
"news".
\_ Wow, if only I had a forum for my slanted view of the world; wait,
that's what the Internet is for! And if I call it News, it must be
so!
\_ So are you saying that Gore *did* submit his testimony before
this morning? -op
\_ I'm saying that a gossipy slagfest is not a news source.
\_ So is senate.gov good enough for you? http://csua.org/u/ia4
\_ What you mean is, is Senator Inhofe's blog good enough for
me? And even more to the point, is a staffer on Inhofe's
blog good enough for me? And the answer is, not without
further corroboration. But WAIT! It gets better: Marc
Morano, the source in question, was "previously known as
Rush Limbaugh's 'Man in Washington,' as reporter and
producer for the Rush Limbaugh Television Show."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano
Please, if you're going to post stooges, at least include
Larry, Moe, and Curly.
\_ I'm fascinated by the refusal to accept reporting of fact
simpy because of the name Limbaugh. I can understand your
not accepting his analysis perhaps, but the basic facts?
-emarkp
\_ Much like we trusted the Bush Administration's report
on the "fact" that Saddam had WMD? I can't fault this
guy for not accepting some politico's "facts". --PeterM
\_ Wow, this is such a red herring.
\_ You do know the difference between an intelligence
report and reporting a fact that has occurred in
front of witnesses and will be a part of the senate
record, right? -emarkp
\_ There's reporting of fact and there's stirring shit
up. If the source is a known shit-stirrer, anything
the source reports is automatically suspect, esp. if
it is, on its face, true, because there's plenty of
reason to believe that it's only being reported to
stir up more shit. If I report that the sky is
blue, that's true; if I report that the sky is blue
despite claims that Global Warming is going to
result in smog smog smog, that is also true, but
it's presented in a way that makes GW seem like a
myth. Your professional shit-stirrers, like Mark
Morano, do this for a living, and sifting nuggets of
truth from the shit that they're stirring up is
about as reqarding as actually sifting through
feces for gold.
\_ http://csua.org/u/ia6
LA Times quotes Joe Barton as saying the they
didn't receive his written testimony more than 2
hours before the hearing. Is that a lefty source
enough for you? -emarkp
\_ "lefty enough" is the level of immaturity that
I expect from shit-stirrers, emarkp, not you.
\_ When a dog craps on the floor, you rub his
nose in it. Same for these nutjobs. -emarkp
\_ The only nutjobs I see here are the ones
that think a slagfest from a propaganda
hack constitutes a real news source.
\_ Oh, so a senator's office stating
what's happening in the Senate TODAY
is a nutjob? Go back to your hole
anonymous nutjob. -emarkp
\_ If you're trying to defend someone
from being called a nutjob, Inhofe
is just about the most difficult
defendant.
\_ So you don't like his politics
so he's a nutjob and what his
boy reported on his Senate
blog is suspect? Tin foil and
blinders. Better than plastic.
I'm going to be rich.
\_ Read who posted the account. It's
Mark Morano, a hack. That Inhofe
is letting him use his blog is
simply shameful. --erikred
\- how could you be unaware
inhofe is shameless.
\_ The irony of my shame in
needing to be reminded of
this is not lost on me,
Partha. --erikred
\_ LA Times leans right, now, when it used to
be a neutral reporter of facts, which is
why I cancelled my subscription last year.
\_ Haha. I don't know about now, but 8 years
ago the LA Times could out do the Cron on
lefty bias. I assume what you mean is,
"The LA times used to agree with me."
\_ Perhaps this is a confusion of Pro-
Israel (as LAT seems to be) with either
the right or the left.
\_ Unless reported by dailykos, http://moveon.org, or some other
neutral and unbiased site, it doesn't count. Having to
respond to factual statements is annoying. It is much
easier to just say 'neener! it never happened because
your source is biased! nyah!'
\_ Desperate attempt to change the subject. Won't work, America
has woken up to Roveian tactics and is mostly immune right now. |
| 2007/3/21-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46038 Activity:nil |
3/20 Tom DeLay, moral center of the Republican Party:
http://www.csua.org/u/ia2 |
| 2007/3/19-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Finance/Investment] UID:46015 Activity:low |
3/19 Ben Stein: It's A Good Time To Buy
http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/yourlife/26744
\_ useless article with no analysis. Typical. -tom
\- you should read the BEEN STEIN smackdown from paul krugman.
"i won the john bates clarke medal. you are a game show host."
\_ Ugh, Krugman is an idiot--and Stein isn't a real estate expert.
\_ dont you feel the slightest bit reticent calling a person
well-acknowledged by their peers an idiot? i mean maybe his
comments on march mandness are stupid, but in his area?
\_ Krugman may be a bit gloomy, but could you point me
to where he has been dead wrong? Thanks.
\_ http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/luskin032003.asp
http://www.poorandstupid.com/chronicle.asp
http://www.onthefencefilms.com/commentary/stuart/krugman.html
http://www.thenewsocialsecurity.com/Library/129.html
\_ the first url isn't very convincing, spending the first
three paragraphs on an ideological rant
\_ The third one does not contain any evidence of factual
errors, just a difference of opinion as to how scarce
resources should be allocated. The author thinks that
medical resources should be allocated on the basis of
ability to pay, Krugman thinks they should be socialized.
Just because someone disagrees with you, it doesn't
make them "dead wrong." |
| 2007/3/15-20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:45984 Activity:nil |
3/15 LGFers supporting Muhammed's assasination plots against Carter, Clinton
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald
\_ But... but... Anne Coutler is an entertainer. And MoveOn thinks
Bush is hitler. And... and... it's all Clinton's fault!
Bush is Hitler. And... and... it's all Clinton's fault! |
| 2007/3/14 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45963 Activity:kinda low |
3/14 torture: eh
extraordinary rendition: whatever
illegal wiretapping: yawn
crazy executive signing statements saying 'i dont have to
follow your laws, Congress, piss off': no one cares
HR problems in the Justice Department: THIS WILL NOT STAND
\_ There is one huge differance. There is a democratic congress
and senate willing to actually investigate the issue. That
makes it a lot harder for the administration to wave their arms
about and say "there is nothing to see here".
\- i suspect the OP isnt mystified about the outcome
but is making a comment about priorities. we understand
why monica lewinsky looms larger than say the rwandan
genocide, but it's worth reflecting on that.
\- i actually had a pretty similar reaction to what the OP is
saying. over dinner maybe a week and a half ago when somebody
was gleeful about this being another "front" for BUSHCO to
deal with, I was wondering "well this might also crowd out
the actual really horrible stuff with wide, wide impact ...
like say the iraqi contracting scandals and shutting down any
auditing ... which has cost billions." now i guess i'm glad
i didnt say that. although another way to look at it might be
anything to keep the heat on to make bombing iran less likely.
btw, let's add to the list above: hurricane katerina, osama got
away, taliban is back, and above anything else, there may be
500,000 iraqis who are "dead men walking". re: comment below ...
nobody is trivializing it, but it is smaller than "the loss of
american credibility for a generation". i'd love it if it caused
ALBERTO to get canned, and then we can start scrutinizing
cheney again ... in a sense we've taken our eye off the bald-
headed satan.
\_ Your attempt to trivialize political corruption has been found
wanting. |
| 2007/3/10-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45927 Activity:kinda low |
3/10 "Poll: Character trumps policy for voters"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070310/ap_on_el_pr/ap_poll2008_traits
S Voter: "H Clinton has a bitchy character"
S Voter: "Edwards is a libural"
S Voter: "Obama is a negro"
\_ I find this funny when leading R candidates are Gingrich and
Giuliani
\_ I'm all for Gingrich winning the R nomination, because he
will LOSE.
\_ Gingrinch cheated on his wife, married his lover and is still
with her. Giuliani moved out, and started dating someone else
during the divorce. Is there something else you were talking
about besides their failed marriages? I'm unaware of other
character issues such as $90k in their fridges, stealing
national security documents, having fabulous 'good luck' in
the markets, or lying about their past.
\_ These other issues you mention relate to the D candidates
how? Gingrich divorced his second wife while she was in
the hospital for cancer treatments. He was pulled from the
speakership by his own party while dogged by multiple ethics
charges. Giuliani announced his separation from his second
wife in a press conference before telling her. He's widely
seen as a petulant tantrum thrower in his political life.
And who can forget Bernie Kerik? |
| 2007/3/9-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:45922 Activity:kinda low |
3/9 My memory sucks.
Was there a big debate years ago about whether a special
prosecutor is able to call a sitting president to testify?
How did Kenneth Starr manage to get Clinton on the stand
to testify in his investigation of Whitewater, then ask him
non related Whitewater questions like "Have you inserted
a cigar in the vagina of a woman not your wife?" and "Please
list the names and SSNs of every woman you have had an affair
with in the last 10 years, ok tnx". I would think that if
a special prosecutor tried to get Bush on the stand now
holy hell would break loose.
\_ The original Lewinsky testimony had nothing to do with
Whitewater or Starr. Clinton was testifying in a civil case
for sexual harassment brought by Paula Jones.
\_ Really? Starr was able to force the sitting president,
Clinton, to come on down and testify in a pretty minor
sounding civil case? Not to demean sexual harrasment
cases, ok fine I am demeaning them, who cares right now.
Can you imagine any prosecutor trying to force gwbush
or Cheney to do such a thing? I think Cheney would
blow a valve laughing. I'm not saying you're wrong,
I just don't remember the details anymore.
\_ Read again. Starr (nor any other prosecutor) had nothing
to do with it at that point. It was a civil case.
\_ which, should be noted, was thrown out for lack of merit.
\_ As the Plame leak should have been as well.
\_ I think it became a case of "I am prosecuting
you for lying to various branches of the
government and giving me some bullshit story that
you didn't know Plame was an agent when we are all
adults and we know full well Cheney is sending you out
to tell reporters this little tidbit", instead of
OH NO YOU HAVE REVEALED AN UNDERCOVER AGENT! I
admit it's really hard to keep it all in your head,
a mighty river of bullshit has been spread. I'm more
pissed off about the fact that any undercover ops
that Plame was involved with now had to be dismantled,
and no one seems to care.
\_ Funny, I don't remember that and can't find anything to
verify that.
\_ Are you daft? Google("paula jones" merit)
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/04/06/jones.appeal
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/04/03/jones.opinion
\_ Are YOU daft? She was appealing that decision when
Clinton settled with her.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/jones111498.htm
http://csua.org/u/i7g
\_ FYI, Ken Starr was an Indepedent Counsel and the law that
authorized his appointment was not renewed by Congress in
1999.
\_ FYI, the Indepedent Counsel law that Ken Starr was appointed
under lapsed in 1999. |
| 2007/3/9-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:45913 Activity:nil |
3/9 Newt Gingrich admints extramarital affair during Clinton-Lewinsky
probe:
http://csua.org/u/i7e (hosted.ap.org)
\_ F*cking hypocrite! |
| 2007/3/8-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45905 Activity:low |
3/7 Bush will pardon Libby and am happy to take any bet to the
contrary, since I can just arb it on Tradesports. -ausman
\_ Loyalty is a one way street in that world. He won't do it.
\_ No money down, but I'll take that as a gentleman's bet.
Bush won't pardon Libby. -aspo
\_ Why wouldn't he though? I think he will. Those who don't
already hate him won't care if he does it.
\- any bets the VP will "discover" he can issue pardons too?
anyway, unless the issue is moot for some reason, i will
also bet he gets a "and turn the lights out" pardon, although
if a "i have a pardon in my pocket" scenario is legal,
that is a possibility. --psb
\_ Just not seeing it. Not today, not at light's out. Bush
doesn't care about some dumb jerk like 'Scooter'. Why
would he pardon him?
\_ what?
\_ E,MFDYSI?
\_ sorry i'm not familiar with "and turn the lights out"
pardons or "i have a pardon in my pocket" scenarios
\- lights out pardon: last minute before leaving
office [presidents pardon many people all the
time, but you typically only hear about con-
troversial last minute ones]. this isnt a std
term, it is my term]. clinton's patty hearst
and marc rich pardons are "lights out" pardons.
[the marc rich pardon was one of the worst
things clinton did. other interesting pardons:
reagun:steinbrenner, raygan:deep throat,
nixon: jimmy hoffa]
pardon in my pocket scenario: i am not sure if
a pardon must be announced. it is clear that
a president can give a pardon before you have
been found guilty even [most famously ford's
nixon pardon]. so the question is can he quietly
slip somebody a pardon they can carry around
like an immunity idol or joseph conrad's
secret agent ... and only whip it out if
needed, or never at all. YMWTGF(trust johnson
pecker). |
| 2007/3/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:45887 Activity:nil |
3/5 Bahahahha have you guys checked out the ads on
http://csua.com/24/?incr=1&local=0 ?
"Guaranteed Herpes Cure"
"Herpes healing is here" |
| 2007/3/4-7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45869 Activity:moderate |
3/4 60 Minutes: PSB > TOM (Medicare > Defense)
http://tinyurl.com/yrtors
\_ Synopsis: Clinton=surplus, Bush=deficit, Republican=bad.
We're fucked thanks to fiscal irresponsibility.
\_ A surplus co-oping Republican bills. Who started
the first surplus? Are you one of those "Politics
began with Clinton newbies who's been around
only the last 14 years" to answer that?
\_ Too bad Bush didn't come up with the same brilliant
strategy of co-opting Republican bills! -tom
Political slant: CBS, anti-Republican
Fact check: this is a political smear.
\- The earlier motd discussion was not very partisan or
ideological. It was about 3 things:
\- The earlier motd discussion was about 3 things:
(0. distinguish between liabilities and payments)
1. medicare liability >> SS liability
2. non-discretionary entitlements >> defense liability
3. holub ought not be dismissing other people's writings
when unaware of either the details of the accounting
used or the $numbers involved. While this backs up
my numbers, there was plenty of evidence provided
used or the $numbers involved. While this backs up some
of my numbers, there was plenty of evidence provided
earlier [particlarly the KC Fed study].
BTW, I thought the tuition analogy was pretty good.
The Comptroller General is a Clinton appointee, but is
hardly a communist or a partisan hack.
\- The earlier motd discussion was largely about
a single statistic, the NPV value of medicare
liability >> SS liability >> long range defense costs.
(we didnt discuss debt service ... that highly depends
on future fiscal policy rather than just actuarial
numbers)
It wasnt so much a partisan discussion or one very
involved with interpretation. The CBO fellow, as
well as the pointers I left present plenty of
evidence for this. Holub shouldnt be dissing other
people for being ignorant of facts when he's
wrong about them. BTW, the Comptroller General
is a Clinton appointee, but is hardly a
communist or a partisan hack. BTW, I thought
te tuition analogy was pretty good.
\_ I think there are a number of flawed assumptions here,
a major one being that our health care system could be
completely different even by 2011, let alone by 2040.
Another is to describe military spending as discretionary
and Medicare as long-term liability; military spending
has alwyas grown faster than federal health care spending,
and fundamentally represents a liability due to current
military posture. -tom
\_ Can you stop saying meaningless things like: "military
spending has alwyas grown faster than federal health
care spending".
\_ How is it meaningless? It's verifiably true. What is
meaningless is the distinction between Medicare as
a liability and the military as discretionary spending.
We can choose to change Medicare benefits at any time,
despite the prescription drug bill and other "promises."
And while we theoretically could decide to stop
spending gobs of money on the military, there's no
evidence that we will. -tom
\_ By 2011, no, but 2040 is very far away. Our current
system is very much not like it was 34 years ago. In fact,
I'd say it's completely different.
\- forget 34 yrs. do you know how much the BUSHCO
prescription medicine benefit is considered to have
have added to liabilities. all the reasonable people
doing projections consder maybe 4-5 optimistic to
pessimistic projections. but some of the basic facts
are not in dispute in any scenario short of "the big
asteroid vaporizes half the country". BTW, it is fairly
"standard" to use 75yrs as the "infinite horizon"
projection number. i dont know why, but it is.
it's probably a case of "you have to agree to something
for consistency". i assume somebody has done the
sensitivity analysis around that number. --psb
[By "SA" i mean:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitivity_analysis] |
| 2007/2/22-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45798 Activity:nil |
2/22 Carville to Hollywood: Open your wallet and shut your mouth.
http://csua.org/u/i3i |
| 2007/2/21-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, ERROR, uid:45789, category id '18005#16.7588' has no name! , ] UID:45789 Activity:high |
2/21 http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=1344 http://mediamatters.org/columns/200702200003 Dems begin to eat their own. \_ I would vote for literally any Democrat instead of the Republicans in power now. \_ What if the Governator could run for President? Would you vote for any Democrat over him? \_ Yeah, probably. Arnold has been really centrist lately. The State senate/house is a pit of despair. \_ This being the CSUA, you may not have spent much time studying politics, and this would explain why you think there's a story here. Seasoned political observers will recognized this for what it is. They even have a term for it. It's called a Presidential Primary Campaign. -dans \_ And this is dans's bid for Biggest Soda Asshole. \_ Awesome! I thought signing my posts disqualified me! \_ Awesome! I thought signing my posts disqualified me! -dans \_ Think again, dans. \_ Wow. Oh anonymous motd snark god, teach me your secrets!! -dans \_ That would imply you're willing to listen. \_ Oh snark master, what must I do to be worthy of your wisdom? -dans \_ Where'd you get that idea from? There is no crime to being anonymous or moral high ground to signing. \_ I didn't imply as such. I merely posit that anonymity opens entire avenues of assmastery that attribution cannot hope to traverse. And, actually, yeah, there is a high ground to signing, perhaps not a moral one, but certainly a trust one: I am more likely to believe something from a trusted source, less likely to believe something from an untrusted source, and, mostly neutral, though slightly less likely to trust something from an anonymous source. Of course, wanking is wanking, regardless of the attribution or lack thereof. -dans \_ I don't add/subtract value based on who signed. I use my brains and the net to check on anything posted if it is important to me. If it isn't important, then it doesn't matter who said what. I prefer to judge the message not the messenger. Otherwise, one is doomed to only reading that which only reinforces what one already believes. I see no point to that. \_ That cuts both ways. I'm sure I'm not the only one who rolls his eyes and keeps scrolling anytime he sees "dans" at the end of a post which I might otherwise read. Hell, if I see your name more than once in a thread, I assume the whole thing's noise, and this thread is a perfect example. Had you posted anonymously, I might be fooled into reading more noise. \- while i think it is true "anonymity opens entire avenues of assmastery" for some gaylords, i am dont think you are using the word correctly. maybe you mean assholishness? \_ If you like. I think my meaning is pretty clear, and, evidently, you got it. Besides, assmastery is a far more amusing word than assholishness. -dans \- do you pay words extra to mean what you want them to mean? \_ Yes. Though given that assmaster doesn't even appear in the wiktionary, I think you'd be hard pressed to come up with a dictionary (slang or otherwise) that supports your definition. It's not like I'm trying to argue the definition of `is' -dans \_ humpty-dumpty@soda: dans \_ Why am I not surprised this thread went waaaaaay off topic almost from the beginning? |
| 2007/2/13-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:45726 Activity:low |
2/12 GKEILLOR delivers a beatdown to BHLEVY ... he pretty much shoves
BHL's head up his ass:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/books/review/29keillor.html
The last line is pretty funny.
In the "with friends like these" dept, CHITCHENS follows up
here: http://www.slate.com/id/2136056
\_ Wow, Hitchens might have had something intelligent to say there,
but he's done a pretty good job of covering it up.
\-i havent read the daniel pearl book by BHL but that might have
been a reasonable point about BHL's "seriousness" but of course
CH was largely interested in just his faux-'mercun bloviation.
\_ These projects always have a touch of orientalism about them
that makes them intolerable, but GKEILLOR's response decends
unnecessarily into the same territory: "As always with French
writers, Le'vy is short on the facts..." I'm sure the book is
crap, but do we need to take on the entire history of French
lit here? |
| 2007/2/7-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:45681 Activity:nil |
2/7 http://www.csua.org/u/i0d (The Economist on Hillary Clinton) |
| 2007/1/26-2/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:45596 Activity:kinda low |
1/26 Test 123 123. Yay it works. Time to move all the files out.
Time to move out for good. Good bye soda. You've been good to
me for the past 15 years.
\_ Same here. You've been good to me for about 11.5 years and not
so good for 1 year.
\_ Just curious... how much did you pay for the service? I got
the alum special rate.
\_ Not everyone on here is a freeloader.
\_ You're right. The people who got jobs through me *only*
because of soda being here, my technical postings and
past hardware donations have no value. I've still paid
nothing for the service. What have *you* done for soda?
\_ I've donated $$$.
\_ So? This is a community and a community service.
Your $50 doesn't entitle you to a whole lot of
service. Go talk to any hosting provider and see
what they'll charge you for a lot less than soda
provides.
\_ I think you missed the point here. I said
"Not everyone on here is a freeloader." The
implication was that the "alumni special
rate" is free. For many of us, the "alumni
special rate" was not free, whether it be
in dollars, time, or whathaveyou.
\_ The 'price' paid by almost every soda user is
near zero over time. I've had a soda account
for 18 years. In that time I've helped with
hardware donations (a long time ago), got at
least 1 person a job they still have 2-3 years
later, and provided technical advice several
times. During that time soda has been down a
few times for a total of a few months. Big
deal. The alumni special rate is "I help you
when I can, you do your job to keep the host
up so I can be here". It's a fair trade. The
moment the box goes down it hurts the ugrads
more than it hurts the alumni. Unless you're
one of the itty bitty tiny number of people
who has been physically there helping to
rebuild soda and carefully guiding the org
through these dark and woeful times </sarcasm>
you have little to bitch about.
\_ I would argue that the one year of 'badness' is due to VP
hozage. To misquote Lennon: All we are saying is give
darch a chance.
\_ Uh, didnt "we" give him +3 weeks?
As to the freeloading comments: there are plenty of people
here to have already "served." I think they are entitled
to comment. And the comments about they are not being
paid is silly. If you volunteer, you are on the hook.
Nobody is forcing you to volunteer, but if you accept the
job, you shouldn't be a flake. Additionally, some of
the people in charge now are fools, like putting up a
message like "W00T" when the web server came back rather
than something informative.
\_ 3+ weeks? Have you ever stepped into someone else's mess
and had to clean it up? 3 weeks is nothing. I agree that
more information would have been good though. I didn't
even know anyone was working on it and assumed it was not
coming back.
\_ Not to mention that these were 3 weeks, DURING THE
HOLIDAY, alone, while entirely refactoring the machine
room, fixing someone else's mess, and dealing with the
department -- also on holiday (and you know how gov't
institutions run...). Many all-nighters were pulled.
Respect darch's authori-tay! --michener
\- heh: [n.b. i am laughing at hillary, not with]:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/01/28/america/NA-POL-US-Clinton-2008.php
\_ What did you expect? This is business as usual
stuff.
\_ Commander-In-Chief Hillary Rodham Clinton. Kind of has a nice ring to it.
\_ The first thing she'd do is send troops somewhere to show everyone
she can be "as tough as any man, no wait, tougher! I'll send twice
as many!"
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2z4e28 (iht.com)
\_ Commander-In-Chief Hillary Rodham Clinton. Kind of
has a nice ring to it.
\_ The first thing she'd do is send troops somewhere
to show everyone she can be "as tough as any man,
no wait, tougher! I'll send twice as many!" |
| 2007/1/20-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:45562 Activity:nil |
1/20 "I'm in to win" - Hillary Clinton
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/20/clinton.announcement/index.html
\_ Thank you, Goog^H^H^H^H MOTD News. Now what else do you have to
say about it?
\_ Dang it, I was hoping she was smart enough to stay out of it. Can't
stop that ego I guess.
\_ I'm not running for president. Does that make me smart?
\_ Only as smart as John Kerry:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ywk3g8 (nytimes.com) |
| 2006/12/27-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:45503 Activity:moderate |
12/27 Gerald Ford, Jr. dead (formerly Leslie King Jr.)
http://www.ford.utexas.edu
\_ How history would have fared had he been in power instead of
Carter who sold out the Shah. Sure the Shah was corrupt.
But Ford would not have been forced to sell them out as he
was to the South Vietnamese. Now we get to deal with a nuclear
Iran. I'm glad the 4th estate is so objective vs. how history
ultimately judges. Hopefully it'll still be in English.
\_ You speaky English? How fuck you got into Berkeley?
And next time I catch you responding to your own post
it'll be deleted automatically.
\_ When people die, regardless of what they have and have not
done in the past, do we EVER say anything bad about them?
\- in re: nil nisi bonum, judge for yourself:
http://home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/Articles/Politics/NixonObit-HST.txt |
| 2006/12/21-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:45483 Activity:high |
12/21 Sandy Berger--oops http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/21/ap/politics/mainD8M5AV780.shtml \_ Damn those evil Democrats, you can't trust them! They say they'd do something and the next minute they're having oral sex with the interns! Vote for righteous Republicans and support our glorious War in Iraq! We are good and spread freedom YA BABY! \_ I know it is slow aroudn here but a four line troll should provide more entertainment than this. What I don't understand, Young Troll, is why you think it's ok for *anyone* to steal and destroy national security documents? Clean your own house before looking at your neighbors'. \_ Any reports/rumors on what the stolen documents said? \_ A good guess is something that makes Clinton look bad. \_ Hang 'em -Nader voter. |
| 2006/11/8-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:45260 Activity:moderate |
11/8 FoxNews (cable) keeps showing Schwartzegenner's victory party
and not really covering the rest of the election. What's up?
\_ One red spot in an ocean of blue?
\_ I bet you think politics (or got interested) in politics
after Clinton.
\_ Actually I was interested in politics before Clinton
and then I graduated from high school and grew up.
\_ Bah. The Governator is pretty damned liberal for a republican.
A popular centrist getting elected isn't much of a story.
\_ Yet our politics are so partisan. What the Dems should learn
from this election is that being a far left/right idealoge is
a recipe for failure. Unfortunatly, with Pelosi as speaker of
the house...
\_ I can't stand Pelosi. Why give her and her nutjob status
such power? As you say, someone more moderate would be
better.
\_ Pelosi is not a nutjob, unless you define nutjob as
anyone that Rush Limbaugh doesn't like. She is actually
pretty much in the middle of the Democratic Party:
\_ Pelosi is about in the middle of the Democratic Party.
It says much about you and your extremism, that you
consider her a "nutjob".
http://www.csua.org/u/hen
\- i dont know much about pelosi but so far like her
more than i like hillary, or ALGOR ... but right now
i woudl settle for somebody who didnt torture people,
invade countries on false intelligence, appoint
partisan hacks to formerly technocratic civil
service positions, think religion has equal footing
with science as a way to understand the world,
and has some respect for article 1 and artcile 3 of the
constitution, and doesnt think governing is about
sloganeering [cut and run, change hourse midstream,
"i am a constituional orginalist" etc], drag us toward
plutocracy ... i can live with some differences on
immigration policy or afformative action etc.
\_ "But the Democratic caucus has gone so far to the
left that, hell, she's in the middle." She has a
95 ADA rating. No, she's not a moderate at all.
Maybe compared to a communist.
\_ You aren't paying attention. I did not say that
she is a moderate: there are almost no moderates
left, in either party. I am saying that she is
about in the middle of the Democratic Party.
She is as far left as Frist or Hastert are Right.
Do you call these two gentlemen "nutjobs"?
http://www.csua.org/u/heu
\_ Being in the middle of a bunch of ultra leftists
does make her an ultra leftist nutjob.
\_ So you think anyone who doesn't want to suck
George Bush's dick and lick Bill O'Reilly's
ass is a leftist extremist or "ultra leftist"
or whatever it is you want to call us?
\_ isn't an ultra-leftist a communist?
\_ no. not necessarily.
they are self-evidently not communists.
\_ not in name.
ergo they are not ultra leftists.
\_ no. not necessarily.
ergo ppp is a moron.
\_ work on your logic and reading comp.
\_ I actually feel sorry for Lincon Chaffe...
\_ don't. the senate GOP has been voting like robots, and
chafee was never the difference. |
| 2006/10/31-11/2 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:45062 Activity:nil |
10/31 "Now the government is targeting unmarried adults up to age 29 as part
of its abstinence-only programs, which include millions of dollars in
federal money that will be available to the states under revised
federal grant guidelines for 2007."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-10-30-abstinence-message_x.htm
Goddamn tax-and-spend liberals, always spending money on utopian
social...err, oh.
\_ Well, the government provided subsidised loans for me to be in
Berkeley studying science for four years, which clearly furthered
the abstinence-only agenda--and that was during the Clinton
administration.
\_ As a conservative I no more approve of this than the billions of
dollars of liberal waste in the yearly budget.
\_ There already is a program for astinence for young adults: it\
s called marriage after the first 10 years or second kid.
\_ There already is a program for astinence for young adults: its
called marriage after the first 10 years or second kid.
\_ Abstinence before age 29 isn't the kind of utopia I want to live in. |
| 2006/10/30-11/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:45037 Activity:nil |
10/30 I'm still waiting for the October Surprise. What's up? -GOP #1 fan
\_ Dems win the election, show up at Congress to discover that the
GOP has pried up everything of value and skipped out on the rent.
\_ Ah, so all that'll be left behind is their moral superiority
\_ of the GOP? No, that was sold for crack long ago.
\_ Dem's win the election, show up at congress to find the govt with
taxes slashed, spending levels raised, and a massive debt built
up.
\_ Whereas the Dem plan is to raise taxes, raise spending levels
and build up a massive debt. Vote third party.
\_ Ah, you're describing the platform of legendary Democratic
candidate Dumbshit McDoesntexist.
\_ Is that anything like the Clinton's trashing the Whitehouse
on their way out?
\_ As in, it didn't/won't happen? |
| 2006/10/30-11/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45033 Activity:nil |
10/30 Murdoch NY Post endorses Hillary:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061030/ap_on_el_se/ny_post_clinton
\_ It must be that NY tax surplus
http://news.google.com/news?q=new+york+tax+surplus |
| 2006/10/27-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:45011 Activity:moderate |
10/27 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/27/dixie-chicks-advertisement-nbc Tell us again about how liberal the media is. \_ http://csua.org/u/hbe \_ [URL without comment deleted] \_ http://csua.org/u/hbe (example of liberal media bias) \_ Don't call them Brownshirts. \_ What a progressive blog, sterilize anyone that doesn't agree. Where are all the people that that the freepers are nuts? \_ http://tp.org is run by the Clinton crowd. It has a specific agenda. It is not an independent political site. Think of it as the semi-official organ of the "third way Clintonian Democrats". \_ Umm, do words mean different things to you than other english speakers? Are you insane? What the fuck? \_ "Anyone who still talks about the liberal media should be sterilized. They are clearly too stupid to breed." I'll let everyone decide what that means independently. \_ If you think that's even remotely on the same level of outrageous as the freeper bullshit you, well, are too stupid to breed. \_ Just because the freepers are nuts doesn't make it ok for this site to say someone should be sterilized for having a different belief. Take a step back, a long breath and try to justify a comment like that. It can't be. It certainly isn't a 'progressive' thing to say unless the word now means 'closed minded and vicious'. \_ Take a deep breath, step back, and remember that no one is actually advocating the surgical or chemical sterilization of people who post to the Free Republic's forums. The statement is one of hyperbolic outrage. This is not the same thing as Ann Coulter calling for the the murder of USSC justices, although in a way it is, because no one with an ounce of sense believes anything she says anyway. \_ So when a lefty says something vicious and stupid it is just hyperbolic outrage. When anyone on the right says something they're evil and need to be sterilized. Ok. Got it. Nothing like a double standard to help rationalize away those logical inconsistencies. \_ No, it's still vicious and stupid. It's just that those of us with sense know to take it as what it is: hyperbole. Same with Ann Coulter, really, only it's everything she says, not just those choice little nuggets. \_ Is this a hoax? This would be the first time I've seen any media outlet anywhere (except maybe Fox News) have trouble "disparaging President Bush." \_ They don't want you to know this. Shh. -John |
| 2006/10/27-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:45006 Activity:low |
10/26 I really want to see Al Gore and Hillary run. Al Gore=pres, Hillary=
vice, or the other way around. In either case, the pair would
totally kick some serious ass.
\_ Yeah except they've always hated each other. And oh yeah, neither
of them is electable. And uhm, Hillary would never run as VP.
And Gore's ego couldn't take a second loss and he knows it so he'll
never run again. And Hillary has 40+% negative ratings so the
opposition candidates start at the 40% mark in the race to 50.1%.
And Hillary has pissed off the left, the center and the right over
the years. Now that I think it, I agree with you. I'd like to
see them run together so we never have to see either of them in
front of the camera again after they crash in a giant flaming pit
of electoral failure.
\_ yes, then we could have the second 'jewish' presidency, or would
that be third (or fourth?)
\_ wtf?
\_ Are you trying for the least charismatic ticket possible?
\_ Yes, but we couldn't get permission to dig up the corpse of Adlai
Stevenson.
\_ Hillary has quite high favorable ratings, especially for a
politicians, so obviously a large minority find her charismatic.
She also has quite high unfavorable ratings, but that is
a different story...
\_ No one finds her charismatic. They like her politics (that
week).
\_ ain't no way. hillary was veep when bubba was pres. who wants
that again? hillary is posturing along the m. thatcher model.
\_ Uhhh, are you comparing Hillary Clinton to Margaret Thatcher??
I think Thatcher might just rise from the grave to kick your
ass.
\_ I wish she would rise from the grave so I could kick her ass!
"Dad, you killed zombie Flanders!"
"Flanders was a zombie?" |
| 2006/10/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Finance/Investment] UID:44972 Activity:nil 66%like:44988 |
10/25 http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/10/30/8391806 Revolt of the fairly rich \_ Because they can best see the broken promises of the prior social order where "go to school, work hard = good retirement". |
| 2006/10/24-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:44941 Activity:nil |
10/24 Finally! The Truth Is Out There! http://www.uncoveror.com/index.html |
| 2006/10/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:44933 Activity:nil |
10/23 Daschle predicts Dems will take Senate with seven seats
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1724541/posts
\_ He couldn't predict his own loss. |
| 2006/10/23-25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:44931 Activity:nil |
10/23 Rahm, DNC pitbull, stacks the deck in favor of conservative (D)
candidates:
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/21/AR2006102101049_pf.html |
| 2006/10/21-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:44904 Activity:nil |
10/21 Maybe Clinton should have inhaled:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/health/289205_alzheimer19.html |
| 2006/10/20-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:44888 Activity:nil |
10/20 Economic Hypochondriacs? (George Will)
http://csua.org/u/h9o |
| 2006/10/12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:44798 Activity:very high |
10/12 Give me a reason to not vote NO on every
single Proposition on the ballot.
\_ Because "no" really means "yes." -Mike Tyson, Kobe Bryant, William
Kennedy Smith, Arnold Schwarzeneggar, and John Mark Karr
Kennedy Smith, Arnold Schwarzeneggar, and John Mark Karr (don't
forget Bill Clinton)
\_ Two of them are related. Coincedence?
\_ Mike Tyson is related to John Mark Karr?!?!? |
| 2006/10/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:44698 Activity:nil |
10/5 It is all Bill Clinton's fault:
http://www.csua.org/u/h4e
(But you knew that already, right?) |
| 2006/10/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:44697 Activity:nil |
10/5 http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/three_more_form.html "Three more former congressional pages have come forward ... Foley told [one page] that if he happened to be in Washington, D.C., he could stay at Foley's home if he 'would engage in oral sex'" \_ Now that Foley resigned, why are we still hearing about this? \_ Hastert still hasn't stepped down. \_ Because instead of acting like the conservatives they claim to be the (R) leadership acted like political party hacks instead and ran around covering their own hides instead of doing the right thing (which would've happened when they first found out about it, not a year later). The sooner they're gone the better. \_ Hastert's defense is something like, "All I knew about were about the inappropriate e-mails (asking for the student's pic). Foley was warned and we didn't hear anything more, so that was it. We had no idea he was talking about dick in the e-mails / Internet messages." \_ Hastert has no defense. His term was wasted. Time to go. |
| 2006/10/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:44694 Activity:moderate |
10/6 Oops, looks like the lurid IM messages ABC revealed with Foley were
with an 18-yr old, not a minor:
http://passionateamerica.blogspot.com
\_ First of all, this is yesterday's news. It is also yesterday's
news that the messages occurred both before and after the
kid's 18th birthday. -tom
\_ I've not seen anything with proof that any lurid messages
happened before his 18th birthday. Can you point me there?
Also, the salacious details that are being used as ammo happened
after the 18th birthday AFAICT.
\_ Gee, no one has to prove anything to you. The fact that
Foley resigned is sufficient proof. -tom
\_ Maybe he resigned because he was trying to bang an 18
year old guy? He isn't a Dem from the north east. Where
he's from that sort of thing isn't ok even if legal. You
have no idea why he resigned, just conjecture. There's
also an issue of power here similar to Clinton with his
intern and every exec who has ever banged his secretary.
It really does matter how old the page was and when Foley
said what to him but I'm not surprised that someone looking
for the truth would get brushed off. The truth is just
never as fun as making shit up. --someone else
\_ well I'm sure the attorney general and the congressional
ethics committees will be sure to consult with all
the anonymous MOTD cowards, to be sure we get to the
truth.
Yes, my conjecture is that this is a big deal, or
else a self-righteous twerp like Foley would never
have resigned. Anonymous coward's conjecture is
apparently that no messages to minors exist,
everyone who is saying there are messages to minors
is lying, and Foley resigned because he's a man of
such high moral standing that even the appearance of
impropriety was unacceptable.
Occam's Razor. -tom
\_ Asserting things doesn't make them true. -tom 9/28/06
\_ That's not an assertion, it's a line of reasoning.
\_ If you think this is going to defuse the scandal, I've got an
excellent bridge in Brooklyn for sale.
\_ I don't care about the scandal. I care about figuring out
what really happened. ABC seems to be playing up the lurid
emails for ratings (putting politics aside), and
dishonestly connecting the minor-status of the page to the
IMs.
\_ uh, like yesterday's post, age of consent is 16 in DC. In DC, it's
legal for a 50-year-old to have consensual sex with a 16-year-old,
and it wasn't even real sex, and the cybersex was R-rated at worst.
It should also be noted that the minimum age to become a page is 16.
</troll>
\_ I know people on the motd like to keep age-of-consent lists
for all 50 states, but answer this: why is the FBI investigating?
\_ see newest post at top
\_ That's what I was getting at.
\_ What post? I still don't get it. The biggest deal here
seems to be that this guy is gay. I thought democrats
like gays. |
| 2006/10/4-6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:44678 Activity:nil |
10/4 Bill Clinton endorses ubuntu:
http://tinyurl.com/ky3ep (bbc.co.uk) |
| 2006/10/4-5 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:44673 Activity:kinda low |
10/3 The "Internet" will offer instant verification of claims made
by politicians w/in 5 years according to Google's Schmidt:
http://tinyurl.com/l4hsp (reuters.myway.com)
... "unless you're in China".
\_ http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22the+largest+island+in+china%22&btnG=Search
\_ http://tinyurl.com/jad3z (google.com/search)
\_ The underlying assumption is that those telling you it is
true or false are acting objectively.
\_ Internet: Did Bill Clinton have sexual relations with Monica
Lewinsky?
\_ Internet: Did GWB plead out to a DUI to avoid a drug conviction? |
| 2006/10/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:44657 Activity:high |
10/3 I can't believe there exists gay Republicans. It's like, cows have
wings and can fly.
\_ Hello to David Dreier.
\_ Are you kidding? The hypocrisy of politicians is legendary.
Republicans in particular. The most anti-gay of them are
gay themselves. The most anti-corruption are taking bribes.
The most 'pro family values' are the ones with mistresses.
The anti-substance ones are addicts. And so on, and on, and on.
And even more so if they're religious.
\_ Mmmm mmmm!! I love the smell of a good rant in the morning!
\_ and the former co-chair of the House Caucus on Missing and
Exploited Children regularly engages in cybersex with high school
students
\_ Paging Andrew Sullivan.
\_ Wealthy white males without children. I read somewhere that more
and more gays are turning to the Republican party. It really
represents their interests better than the Dems do. 25% of gays
(lesbians included) voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, and the
numbers are creeping higher: see Log Cabin Republicans.
\_ "Really represents their interests?" Are you insane? Have you
READ the Republican Party platform?
\_ Reclaim the Panama Canal! Woohoo! *bang* *bang*
\_ Their priorities are not what you think they are. Their
priorities are often national defense, small government
(which is *supposed* to be a Republican ideal), lower
taxes, big business, etc. Think Merv Griffin here.
\_ sorry, "keeping my sexual preference legal" trumps all
of that.
\_ is it preference or born like that?
\_ That's your own personal opinion not shared by all
gays and lesbians.
\_ right, and some poor blacks vote Republican, too.
The stupid ones. -tom
\_ Such tolerance from the left. The Republicans
are, after all, the party of Lincoln.
\_ I'm sure blacks voted Republican in 1860.
(To the extent they were allowed to). Let's
try to keep the discussion within the
most recent century. -tom
\_ What makes you think you know what's best
for poor blacks - all poor blacks, in fact?
That's the main problem with liberals.
They always think they know what's best
for you.
\_ Ah, right, and the conservatives are
constantly responding to the needs of
the people. You're a moron. -tom
\_ Conservatives prefer to let people
respond to their own needs and
not call them 'stupid' if they
have different priorities.
\_ URL? -tom
\_ Stupid because... the dems would make them not
poor? Or maybe not black?
\_ Stupid because the dems don't view poor
people as self-evidently lazy, criminal, or
both. Stupid because Republicans constantly
attack social programs intended to help the
poor, because by conservative ideology, the
poor just don't work hard enough, so all they
need to succeed is fewer social programs. -tom
\_ So you actually believe people are poor
because they're lazy? Please look at the
a documentary called Rebels With a Cause
and The Weather Underground. A bunch of
young leftists tried to help out the poor
and for whatever reason (pride, resentment,
etc) the poor simply rejected help from
a bunch of rich yuppie kids. There's a
saying that Republicans are Democrats
that have yet to be robbed, and there's
a lot of truth to that.
\_ uh, no, I think that the conservative
ideology is that the rich are rich
because they worked for it, and the poor
are poor because they don't work hard
enough. That ideology has no connection
to reality. -tom
\_ I think the opposite is true. Democrats
are Republicans that have yet to be
robbed. Once they are robbed then
see how quickly they are against gun
control, light prison sentences, etc.
\_ You got that saying backwards. Carry on.
\_ Like Clinton's welfare reform which kicked
how many people off the lists and put caps
on how much help someone is allowed? Or
like how Dems are opposed to school vouchers
because the fewer crappy public schools
there are the less the teacher's unions can
give to the Dems?
\_ Intended to help them, perhaps. They did
pass that prescription drug plan so they're
not as different as maybe you'd like to
think. Anyway, this would be more useful
if we chose one specific program that
Rs attack and Ds support (or vice versa) and
discuss the merits. I guess school vouchers
is one. I used to be on the fence for that
but now I think they'd be good. I know
enough people who do home-schooling that I
see a lot of potential for innovation in
private education. Maybe you can offer some
other examples. I've grown to be very wary
of giant grabby bureaucracies which is what
large government agencies or school systems
become.
\_ The stupid and poor ones have more to gain from
meager tax cuts, because any amount will
largely affect their lifestyles.
\_ yeah, I'm sure removing the estate tax and
the capital gains tax will have huge impact
in Harlem. -tom
\_ this thread so needs to be jived, but I'm a coward |
| 2006/10/3-5 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:44651 Activity:nil |
10/3 Breaking news on http://abcnews.go.com: "FORMER CONGRESSMAN MARK FOLEY WAS MOLESTED BY A CLERGYMAN AS A TEENAGER AND IS GAY, ACCORDING TO HIS ATTORNEY" \_ And the Clergyman was a hardcore left-wing Democrat who supported evil Clinton so it is Democrats' fault afterall! \_ They're not sticking with the stock-and-trade conservative "alchohol made me do it but we should still be outlawing pot, but I'm checking myself into rehab so we can all forget about it" approach? \_ So, any kind of misconduct is excusable provided the committer was a victim? \_ Nahh, this is likely an attempt to turn this into a "gay" scandal thus getting MORE Republicans to the polls rather than less. \_ Maybe the priest was a Democrat, see it is the fault of the Democrats after all! \_ Actually, they are - but with a twist. |
| 2006/10/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:44637 Activity:nil |
10/2 I knew somehow the Scientologists were involved
in this Foley business:
http://forums.dailyrotten.com/920/00022854/_index.html#287052 |
| 2006/10/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:44634 Activity:kinda low |
10/2 Michael Scheuer (former head of the bin Laden unit) calls Clinton a
flat-out liar.
http://newsbusters.org/node/8034 (transcript and video clip)
Last week, he also criticized Clinton's interview with Wallace (which
Harry Smith of CBS was a bit flustered about):
http://newsbusters.org/node/7871 (transcript and video clip)
\_ i guess scheuer's views of the truth were insufficient to be
included in the 9/11 report. anyway, the report said Clinton had
a "capture or kill" policy, and left it up to CIA (Tenet) to
determine whether "capture" was feasible, and if not, the memo
gave permission to kill.
also note that the first opportunity to kill bin Ladin that Scheuer
cites is one in which well over 200 innocent bystanders were
estimated to have been killed, and that later intelligence appeared
to show that bin Ladin left before the strike would have occurred.
\_ The report was a political product. I'm sure there's a fair
amount of truth in it but you'll never get the whole truth from
a public report like that. Which is not to say that this guy
is in any way honest or truthful. I know nothing about him.
But being included or excluded from the 9/11 commission report
is insufficient to question his credibility. --DA
\_ Maybe he's been hanging out with Orson Scott Card,
Mr. "When Clinton Attempted to Kill Bin Laden, it was
Tryanny, but when Bush attempted it, it was awesome!!!!"
\_ actually, he is in the report, as "Mike". Search for
"wikipedia" in the first newsbusters link. |
| 2006/9/28-29 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:44590 Activity:very high |
9/28 Socialist Republican Gay Giuliani defending Democrat Commie Clinton:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060928/ap_on_re_us/giuliani_clinton
\_ Giuliani is as much of an R as Schwarzenegger -- in other words,
not. However, if his defense were legitimate, I'd accept it (not
because I'm an R, but because the issue needs to be more important
than partisanship). Both Clinton and Bush deserve blame for 9/11,
but Clinton should get the larger share since he had a lot longer
and more opportunites to prevent it.
\_ go read the book by Richard Clark. He worked under Clinton
and yes, he is a Republican.
\_ Riiiight. since clinton has so much support "to prevent it".
\_ Leaders lead. Whiners whine. "Ohn0es! I'm the most
powerful man on the planet but I can't do anything
because people might get upset and it might ruin my
legacy!" Whatever. Clinton as a retired President
would best serve his nation as most previous Presidents
have: go fishing, write a book, take a phone call here
and there and otherwise stop pretending he's still
President. The endless defense of his "legacy" is
tiresome. History will decide his legacy long after
we're all dead and it'll be whatever it is. History is
not so easily spun.
\_ Clinton is (and has been) more productive as a former
president than your darling GW has done as president,
so there's no need even to look back at his legacy.
\_ You assume much. Clinton has done nothing but nail
various women aroudn the planet and ass cover. I'm no
cheer leader for anyone, unlike yourself.
\_ Proof-of-any-type for thatP
\_ Tell us what he's done that's been so productive.
You're not seriously disputing his running all
over nailing various women are you? Or are you
saying he's restricted himself to his Canadian
lover?
saying he's restricted himself to his gya Canadian
Communist lover?
Socialist lover?
\_ From a purely proof-related perspective, this
problem is best approached by defining what
GWB has accomplished and then reviewing
whether Clinton's accomplishment as a former
President have exceeded that measurement.
\_ From a purely proof related perspective
you said Clinton had some sort of
accomplishments in his post Presidency.
Prove it. Name some. Name any. Name one.
Thanks for playing. Play_Again_(y/N)_?_
\_ If the value x of GWB's accomplish-
ments is negative, then Clinton wins by
doing nothing. |
| 2006/9/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:44472 Activity:kinda low |
9/20 http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2465303&page=3 "Brilliant. I think he did a good job as president ... Had a little problem with the fucking honesty deal. And that gave me pause. But his presidency was successful." -O'Reilly on Bill Clinton \_ The invisible hand needs to give O'Reilly a spanking. --the invisible hand \_ What the hell is the invisible hand and why is it post so much? \_ What the fucking hell is the invisible hand and why is it post so much? \_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand Those who pursue their own selfish interests also promote the good of their community through a mechanism called "the invisible hand. For example, Enron execs and the War the fucking good of their community through a mechanism called "the invisible hand. For example, Enron execs and the fucking War in Iraq have helped countless individuals to become millionaires. The invisible hand theory is popular amongst free-market believers like the Reagan and amongst free-market believers like the fucking Reagan and Bush worshippers. \- see URL for berkeley connection to "rigorizing" the invisible hand: the fucking invisible hand: http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/01/05_debreu.shtml \_ It's like a Swiss Army knife. It lest you make fun of the motd's wingnut libertarians, make random mastrubation references, and bizzare threats all at the same time! references, and bizzare threats all at the fucking same time! |
| 2006/9/19-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:44453 Activity:nil |
9/19 http://csua.com/?entry=44444 We broke the fucking 44444 barrier on motd! Horray for all Trollers of CSUA! \_ 4 means death in Chinese. That means the subject of thread # \_ 4 means death in Chinese. That means the fucking subject of thread # 44444 must die die die die die!!! \_ 4444 would be a good name for a Chinese death metal band. |
| 2006/9/19-22 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:44446 Activity:low |
9/19 Coup attempt in Thailand:
http://tinyurl.com/f6bj4 (bbc.co.uk)
\_ Looking more and more like coup accomplished.
\_ Funny thing, when I was there, one of our friends--a former
army officer and the daughter of one of the governor--gave us
the impression that the army wasn't really happy with Thaksin.
Of course she was also an opposition politician, so YMMV. -John
\_ Can our military do the same thing to outst Bush?
\_ Why would they?
\_ I hope not. With Bush out of office, where will John
Stewart and Stephen Colbert get their material?
\_ The comedy sector of the economy recovered after the
great loss of Dan Quayle as VP. There is always a more
clueless leader in our future. Never give up hope.
\_ Can the military do it? Probably. Will the military do it?
Probably not. There are no MacArthurs in today's military.
\_ Whoa there cowboy! Mac was no coup attempting anti-American.
He was a loyal patriot who did his duty and stepped aside
when ordered so. Wth did you get the idea Mac had any ideas
about taking over the US government or was in any way opposed
to the government? He was GI all the way.
\_ There is plenty of evidence that MacArthur wanted to
defy the orders of his President
\_ "wanted to defy" is nothing like "wanted to overthrow"
and in any even it is established historical fact that
when he was essentially 'fired' and called home he
went with no real fuss. he wanted to nuke china but
wasn't allowed to. he wanted to do a lot of things
but followed orders. sheesh, i cant believe this is
subject to debate.
\_ I am not saying that MacArthur had any designs on taking
power extra-constitutionally. I am saying that if a coup
was required, only MacArthur could have pulled it off.
\_ MacArthur could not have. He did not want to. He did
not try. He did not talk in those terms. He would not
have had the support of his generals, his staff, his
officers or his soldiers. The very idea is completely
ludicrous from top to bottom.
\_ Think of the incident of the Bonus March. No one
but MacArthur would have done that.
\_ None of you have served. Your oath is to the Constitution
not to one man.
\_ What do you mean? You're saying the oath is not to Bush, so
the military can outst Bush?
\_ Does the const. give the military the power to
replace the CinC? No, that power rests w/ the
people via the Presidential election.
A more complex question is present if the Pres.
acts unconstitutionally (ie defies a USSC order).
\_ If you want to be really anal about it, the power to
elect the President comes from the states, not the
people. "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as
the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of
electors..." The Constitution does not mandate that
states hold elections to determine their electors.
\_ True. Furthermore, the Constitution does not mandate
that the electors cast their votes for the
Presidental candidate which the majority of the
state's people prefer, or divide their vote
proportionally among candidates, either. -- !PP
\_ Not much. The same thing happens if the USSC or
Congress screws up. Pretty much nothing. Later
courts and congresses and presidents reverse earlier
decisions and life goes on.
\_ The const. in Thailand doesn't give their military the
power to replace their head of govt. either. Yet it
still happens.
\_ "The coup went largely unnoticed in Bangkok's popular tourist
districts, where foreigners packed bars and cabarets, oblivious to
the activity about two miles away. ...... Hundreds of people
gathered at Government House taking pictures of themselves with the
tanks."
\_ Has the navy or the air force taken any side? |
| 2006/9/11-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:44347 Activity:nil |
9/11 "Path to 9/11" tanks.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060911/ap_on_en_tv/aap_sept11_film
'The movie was beaten soundly in the ratings by the regular-season
debut of NBC's "Sunday Night Football," matching Peyton Manning of
the Indianapolis Colts against younger brother Eli of the New York
Giants.'
\_ It's a shame we'll never know how it would have done before removing
every reference to Lewinsky.
\_ See the clips ABC removed because of Clinton's pressure:
http://www.redstate.com/911clips
(You don't have to read the commentary if you don't want to.)
\_ I think this whole episode was just a threat by Clinton's
jew handlers to keep Hillary and Bill in line. |
| 2006/9/8-12 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:44322 Activity:nil |
9/8 Where's the ACLU when you need 'em?
http://reid.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=262624&&year=2006&
\_ I see no traces of censorship. Maybe you need to take off your
blinders.
\_ Agreed.
\_ You don't think it's a bit odd that the senate leadership should
recommend what a TV show should air or not air?
\_ You don't think it's a bit odd that the democrat senate
leadership should recommend what a TV show should air or not air?
\_ You mean like when the republicans urged CBS not to air the
Reagan film? Calling something "Based on the 9/11 Commission
Report" and then putting in crap that directly contradicts
their findings is utter crap, and they're right to call them
out on it. This is walking the line of propoganda (which is
illegal, by the way).
\_ Ever heard of Tipper Gore?
\_ There is a huge difference between saying "I don't think this
is the right thing to do" and saying "You can't do this".
The former happens all the time in politics. The latter is
censorship. If you can't tell the difference, well you've
been living in a cave for what, 200 years?
\_ Oh, I can tell the difference. But I think if Rebpublican
leadership did the same thing, the ACLU would be releasing
out the hounds.
\_ And I think I'm the Emperor of Mars, that doesn't make
me right.
\_ Not unless the GOP leadership actually had the show
banned. There hasn't been any actionable action taken
on this.
\_ Hee hee. http://www.tv.com/story/story.html&story_id=6213
"ABC/Disney acknowledges this show is fiction and in direct
contradiction of the 9/11 commission report and the facts,"
Clinton Foundation spokesman Jay Carson said in a statement.
"No reputable organization should dramatize 9/11 for a profit
at the expense of the truth."
So I guess Michael Moore sitting next to Jimmy Carter at the
DNC was....
\_ I didn't see F9/11. Did it somehow involve dramatizations
of 9/11?
\_ You know, I've heard that the second night hammers the Bush
administration pretty bad. And yet I've heard of no objections from
the right side of the aisle.
\_ Is it accurate? Is it false enough that it could be easily
repudiated without exposing them to further, possibly unwanted,
scrutiny? |
| 2006/9/7-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:44303 Activity:nil |
9/7 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,212743,00.html See, it's Clinton's fault. Clinton was preoccupied with Lewinsky and thus failed to kill Bin Laden. \_ In at least one case, that's true. The Clinton administration did miss several chances to get bin Laden. Not because they wanted to, but because the risks at the time weren't considered worth it, and during the Lewinsky mess Clinton was in fact distracted. Read "Dereliction of Duty" and "The Cell" for some of the details. \_ So Republicans sacrificed national security at the altar of Lewinsky by distracting the president? Nothing new. \_ Wow. Can you actually think for yourself, or are you this bitterly partisan all the time? \_ Have you even read the Constitution? National security falls under the Executive Branch. \_ Yes, playing "gotcha" with Clinton was more important to the Republican Congress than national security. They are still playing this game, it seems. \_ Apparently, the Plame story was more important to the lefties than security. \_ what is the Plame story about if not security? what is the case about? REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION INTENTIONALLY COMPROMISES AGENT. Anyone NOT concerned with this story is the one not interested in security- you can't have it both ways, liar \_ The Plame story was about the left wing media inventing a story, an overzealous special prosecutor who knew the truth persecuting innocent people, and the non-victim and her lying husband finally getting caught and the very very quiet follow up from the media who owe Karl Rove and a lot of other innocent people an apology. What did you think it was about? \_ You know, I actually agree with this assessment and I am a Bush hater. \_ As I understand it, every single time Clinton had a chance to kill bin Laden (other than Infinite Reach), the information was single-sourced or there were other circumstances inhibiting a clean kill. http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch4.htm \_ As well as having a standing order with the CIA to execute kill or capture on actionable intelligence. \_ You mean capture, and if CIA judges this is not feasible, then kill. But it's still a big deal anyway for the President to order killing someone, but that was Osama \_ Two Buddhist monks, one young, one old, were walking when they came to the banks of river. A young woman, too small to ford the river by herself, was waiting for anyone to help her across. Without saying a word, the old monk put the woman on his back and carried her across. After he'd dropped her off, he and the young monk continued walking. Some miles later, the young monk said, "I can't believe you broke your vows and carried that woman." The old monk replied, "I carried her across the river and then I put her down. You've been carrying her in your mind ever since." Clinton got a blowjob and suffered. You're still suffering because you're jealous. \_ Clinton was preoccupied with occupying Lewinsky. |
| 2006/9/7-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:44302 Activity:kinda low |
9/7 http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/07/poll/index.html Clinton is Dem's favorite with virtually no chance of winning, and Gore is Dem's second favorite with Gore virtually no desire of running. This is the story of how Dems fuck it up for the third time. This is the story of '08. \_ As with Bill Clinton and Dubya, it is quite likely that the actual Democratic nominee in 2008 will be someone who is not on the radar screen in 2006. -tom \_ Who is the GOP going to run against her? Rice? Clinton would win. John McCain is not nutty enough for the Religious Right, so he won't get the GOP nomination. Guliani is pro-choice and pro-gay rights, so he is too *gasp* "liberal." Who else does the GOP have? \_ George "Macaca" Allen. Rick "Don't get it on the sheets" Santorum \_ This isn't much, but my picks are: Hillary > Mark Warner, Edwards >> Feingold, in that order. (fyi, it turns out that the first three are tops on tradesports other than Gore, but I came to this independently) I would say Hillary in front with VP Warner; alternatively, Warner with VP Obama. Barbara Boxer is my secret "average American" Democratic candidate \_ If Barbara Boxer wins the Democratic nomination, the Dems should just pack up and disband. Nominating her with her out-of-touch views and shrill personality would be the stupidest thing the Dems have ever done. Boxer is so polarizing that she makes Hilary seem like a quiet reasonable, helpful librarian type. \_ yeah, and the Republicans have succeeded with moderate, collaborative centrists like...uh...tom delay and dubya. -tom \_ Sorry, pops, but recent history has shown that the GOP can get away with ultra-conservatives and still appeal to the unwashed masses of the South, Midwest and Rocky Mountain states. The Dems, however, have to run a centrist candidate to have a shot. Bill Clinton is the only Dem to win the White House in the past 30 years, and he did so as a centrist. Real liberals like Mondale and Dukakis tried to succeed...and were completely humiliated. I foresee something even more drastic if a born loser like Barbara Boxer gets the nomination. \_ To suceed in the long run, the Democrats need to articulate and pursue their own agenda, not become Republicans. -tom \_ Of course, but if that agenda only appeals to 1% of the population, they will still lose, no matter how well the pursue it. lose, no matter how well they pursue it. I'm sorry, but comprimising and coming to the middle to form a consensus is what democracy is all about. If you represent many Dems in beliving that means "becoming Republicans", then the party is truly hopeless. \_ How many people do you think support raising the minimum wage? National Health care? Keeping Social Security as it is? Ending the war? Take your 1% and shove it. \_ Comprimising and coming to the middle is not how the Republicans got into power, and it won't be how the Democrats reclaim it. I do not think it should be difficult to come up with a platform which is both truly distinct from the current Republican platform, and attractive to a large number of Americans. -tom \_ That's exactly what they did, they didn't compromise with YOU, but they compromised with > 50% of the population. \_ No, that's not what they did at all. Republican policies do not serve the interests of most of the people who vote Republican. Republicans did a lot of work on getting people to identify with their agenda; that's not compromising. -tom \_ You're confusing what's going on now (when the Republicans are losing) with what was going on when they came to power. Remember the Contract with America? The Rs are failing now because they aren't finding the issues that the majority people care about. The Ds can't capitialize on it because they're even worse. \_ Voters *identified* with the rhetoric around the Contract With America--they didn't *care about* the Contract With America. It's an important distinction. -tom \_ I guess you're going to have to explain this more carefully, because I have no idea what you're talking about. \_ Most people don't vote on the issues; they vote for the person they identify with most closely. A typical red-state hick doesn't really *care* about flag burning, or gay marriage, or welfare moms. When you survey people and ask what their most important issues are, those are not the things that come up. But conservatives use those kinds of issues to project an *identity* for themselves which red-state hicks comprehend and identify with. The liberal challenge is to come up with an identity; right now there is no clear liberal identity which voters can align with. -tom \_ What I can't understand is how they did that with an Ivy league cheerleader rich boy from Connecticut who used his dad's infulence to avoid military service. who knows exactly what's going on and deserves a chance Definite no's: Biden, Clark, Daschle, Kerry, Richardson \_ These guys are each superior by 10 times over the opinionated, self-absorbed dunderdead that is Barbara Boxer. \_ I think the key word here is your opinion that she is a "dunderhead". All those guys you mentioned are opinionated and self-absorbed, except maybe not Daschle on the self-abosrbed part. Gore isn't going to run. \_ I disagree. Gore is starting at running back for the 49ers this season. That's why they traded away Kevin Barlow to the Jets. |
| 2006/8/25-29 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:44151 Activity:nil |
8/25 http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0609.dreyfuss.html Very interesting article on the Iraq Study (!Survey) Group "if the Democrats win back one or both houses of Congress in November, they would unleash a series of investigative hearings on Iraq, the war on terrorism, and civil liberties that could fatally weaken the administration and remove the last props of political support for the war, setting the stage for a potential Republican electoral disaster" (I came to the above conclusion some time ago, as well) \_ On the other hand, it could totally backfire on the Democrats as the Clinton impeachment did on the Republicans. \_ Dubya doesn't have Clinton's general popularity, but then again Bubba didn't have Dubya's mushroom cloud. \_ you mean the type of general popularity that got Clinton a whopping 43% of the popular vote in 1992? Or the type that got him 49.2% of the popular vote in the lowest voter turnouts in decades? At least Dubya got >50% once. \_ your first example is stupid. you don't need me to tell you why. \_ ob stronger 3rd party candidates and pre-9/11 world ob "general popularity" == approval rating ob http://csua.org/u/grk (crooksandliars.com) \_ Why do the Democrats hate America? \_ Please explain to me how the Clinton impeachment backfired on the GOP. Although it did not achieve the stated goal of removing him from office, it sure did distract from his attempts to get his policies pushed through. -confused (and bitter) libdem \_ Well the GOP came across looking mean and spiteful and then proceeded to take over all 3 branches of government for six years. That'll learn em! |
| 2006/8/17-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:44062 Activity:nil |
8/17 George Bush loves pigs
http://youtube.com/watch?v=yBxbuweRFQQ
\_ I think Merkel was having a flashback of when he molested her
during this press conference.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-wvX5tdVDc
\_ I'm sure Clinton would have shown his 'staff' |
| 2006/8/1-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:43861 Activity:nil |
8/1 Bush successfully destroys the Army's readiness even more than
Clinton was able to:
http://www.csua.org/u/gl7
\_ There was an article a little while back where a major (Marine?)
base was unable to pay its electric bill because their funding had
either been redirected, or not been approved. Go go Republican
Congress!
\_ Yes. Mission accomplished! -proud American |
| 2006/8/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:43857 Activity:nil 66%like:43880 |
8/1 Is Mel Gibson a NeoCon?
\_ That depends on wheather you like him or not.
\_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocon
But don't forget, Neocon also == Jew according to some. So Mel
probably isn't a Neocon. I doubt he thinks about politics much.
\_ The only people who claim neocon == jew are people who are
trying too hard to paint anti-neoconers as anti-semites.
\_ I think there are also some members of the extreme right
who associate both the neocon project and Jews with the
New World Order, and so probably equate them. That particular
breed of right wing nut does not appear on the motd, though.
\_ Mel Gibson is an Aussie. Foreigners out! -proud American |
| 2006/6/29-7/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:43526 Activity:kinda low |
6/29 Supreme Court rules 5-3 that Dubya-installed GTMO military tribunals
violate Geneva Conventions and U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice
http://tinyurl.com/fmkxg (findlaw.com)
\_ Sure, the court interprets laws, but... our new government,
a different type of executive and the legislature will make
the law.
\_ John Yoo must be having a bad day....
\_ Christopher Yoo is ready to bat
http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=1969&wit_id=5481
"First, I believe that the use of Presidential signing statements
as legislative history is inherent in the system of checks and
balances embodied in our Constitution. Second, I believe that
Presidential statutory interpretation is also inherent in the
President's role as Chief Executive. Third, I suggest that
recognizing Presidential signing statements as legislative
history would better promote the democratic process."
http://law.vanderbilt.edu/faculty/yoo.html
"A History of the Unitary Executive: Executive Branch Practice
from 1789 to 2005" (Yale University Press, forthcoming 2007)
\_ This would put an inordinate amount of power to ignore two
branches of goverment in the hands of the Executive Branch.
I agree that the Pres. needs power to make commentary on
legislation passed by Legislative, but to go beyond this
to dictating law is dangerous.
\_ Note also that the Executive is obliged to execute
faithfully the laws of the land. His signing statements
have stated explicitely that he has no intention to do so.
People should be fucking pissed. Some are. Not enough.
\_ Don't worry. This will all be corrected forthwith as
soon as a Democrat is elected as head of the Executive
Branch of govt.
\_ go look up the phrase, "stroke of the pen, law of the
land. cool!" then come back and tell us how dems are
morally superior and the great protectors of the
constitution. power corrupts. period.
\_ go look up the phrase, "stroke of the pen, law of the
land. cool!"
\_ Why do you hate Paul Begala?
\_ Go look up Washington Times, UPI, Moonies.
The quote is solid, yes; the implication that what Bush
has done through Exec Orders and signing statements is
somehow mitigated by Clinton's use of same is asinine.
\_ Bullshit. You're putting words in my mouth. Go
see all of 3 lines up where I made it perfectly
clear that "power corrupts". The implication is
that this crap has been going on and will always go
on so long as there is power to be had. If you don't
want abuses of power then there has to be less power
to abuse which means smaller government with less
federal control. Having a Dem in office will change
absolutely nothing regarding power abuses. What is
asinine is believing that members of the one party
are somehow saintly while the other party is full
of devils out to kill and eat people's children.
\_ While I will gladly apologize for mischaracter-
izing your use of a quote oft-used by GOP flacks
to demonize Clinton as an attempt to do just that,
I think your solution to shrink government is
short-sighted and will cause more problems than
it will fix. My original point (the one you
replied to with your quote) was that Bush has
used Exec Orders and signing statements to
place himself above the ability of the other
two branches to contradict him. This is much more
dangerous than what previous presidents have
done.
\_ Corruption builds upon itself over time. One
guy gets away with X because we like him or we
like X that makes it ok, so the next guy does
X+1. I don't think any one branch should be
put above any other beyond what the const. says
about checks and balances. Thus, one abuse of
power is no 'better' or worse than any other.
It is an abuse of power. As far as a large or
small government goes, the less there is to
abuse the less abuse there will be. That seems
obvious to me. If you're saying that there are
other problems a weak federal system would
cause, maybe so, that would have to be weighed
against the harm a strong federal system
causes.
\_ The problem with absolutes is that they're
absolutely fallible. While I would agree
with you that 99.9% of power abuses are bad,
I think it's simplistic to say that there
are no degrees of better and worse in
regards to abuses of power. But better and
worse are utterly subjective, so here's a
clarification: Bush's abuses of power have
done more to weaken oversight of the Exec
Branch by the other two Branches than prev.
abuses of power. In my mind, this is worse
than prev. Admins' abuses of power because
it robs the citizenry of a mechanism to
ensure that such abuses are stopped; YMMV.
\_ As for smaller/no government (new thread),
sure, the current fed system has problems,
but I don't think those problems outweigh
its benefits. I have yet to see an alterna-
tive suggested that wouldn't lead to either
anarchy, plutocracy, or corporate robber
barons; if you have one that benefits all,
I would be very receptive.
\_ He will get spanked by the USSC, too. |
| 2006/6/26-28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:43505 Activity:nil |
6/26 Austrian Writer Peter Handke: Send my award to the Serbs
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1655863/posts
\_ Please tell me why do you change it to an IP? Are you
embarrassed about the source?
\_ I sure as heck would be. |
| 2006/6/23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:43488 Activity:nil |
6/23 Khobar Towers
http://www.iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2006&m=06&d=23&a=5 |
| 2006/5/30-31 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:43226 Activity:nil 80%like:43211 |
5/28 http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/11718.html Carter and Clinton the worst administration ever! \_ Well one guy started an illegal, unwinnable war, but... but... BLOWJOBS! \_ Yeah, we left Kosovo long ago. Such a cheery speech, National Malaise. \_ With full NATO involvement and cooperation. \_ And a humanitarian goal that was actually achieved. \_ By this you mean entrenching Iran and other Islamicists in Albania's government and Montenegro? Humanitarian indeed. \_ had a bad day at the golf range, jblack? \_ I was thinking more along the lines of stopping ethnic cleansing. \_ Wow, Carter and Clinton on one ticket? I'd vote for that! --erikred \_ Wow, Carter and Clinton on one ticket? I'd vote for that! Also, I can understand IP addresses for freerepublic, but http://www.theconservativevoice.com Have some pride, child. --erikred [Posted because someone originally posted an IP address instead of the FQDN. Don't steal words from my mouth.] |
| 2006/5/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:43211 Activity:high 80%like:43226 |
5/28 http://65.111.28.94/article/11718.html Carter and Clinton the worst administration ever! \_ Well one guy started an illegal, unwinnable war, but... but... BLOWJOBS! \_ Yeah, we left Kosovo long ago. Such a cheery speech, National Malaise. \_ With full NATO involvement and cooperation. \_ And a humanitarian goal that was actually achieved. \_ By this you mean entrenching Iran and other Islamicists in Albania's government and Montenegro? Humanitarian indeed. \_ had a bad day at the golf range, jblack? \_ I was thinking more along the lines of stopping ethnic cleansing. \_ We took the wrong side, if that isn't clear by now. \_ Wow, Carter and Clinton on one ticket? I'd vote for that! Also, I can understand IP addresses for freerepublic, but http://www.theconservativevoice.com Have some pride, child. --erikred |
| 2006/5/23-25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:43163 Activity:nil |
5/23 RIP Lloyd Bentsen:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5009840.stm |
| 2006/5/22-28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:43146 Activity:nil |
5/22 Ebert's amusing, positive, Da Vinci code review. (spoilers)
http://csua.org/u/fya
\_ I watch ALL of Hanks' films. Why? Because Hanks is a Democrat and
has supported many candidates, including Hillary Clinton, Dianne
Feinstein, Al Gore, and John Kerry. Hanks is also a noted
environmentalist who drives a hybrid car and is a member of the
Nature Conservancy. He has appeared in radio and television public
service announcements for the organization and even serves on the
board of trustees in Idaho, where he has a home.
\_ So you'd watch a Hanks film even if it sucked because you like
his politics? Why not just send a check to your favorite
candidates?
\_ that movie blew chunks, although the cut scenes to the past were
cool. |
| 2006/5/22-25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:43139 Activity:nil 80%like:43135 |
5/20 Say it ain't so! A Democratic bribery scheme?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12903856/?GT1=8199
\_ Of course it's so. However, note that no one is covering for him,
helping his defense fund, etc. a la Delay/Cunningham/Ney.
\_ When was Delay caught taking $100k cash bribes and taking money
from both sides in multi national scams through shell companies?
\_ When did WJC plead out to driving under the influence to
avoid a possible possession charge? Never.
\_ What's Clinton have to do with it? Red herring. The guy
got busted with $100k bribe cash in his house broken up
into $10k chunks hidden in his freezer. How does that
compare to Delay, etc? If you're going to compare someone
like Delay to this guy, please be prepared to make a case
for it.
\_ PP posted that this is different because no one's
trying to cover for him. You replied with a non
sequitur concerning whether DeLay was caught with
$100k in cash bribes. I'm pointing out that your
point is a non sequitur by posting a further non
sequitur.
\_ I wasn't non sequitur at all. OP made a statement.
Followup was non sequitur mentioning Delay, etc. I
pointed that out. Clinton? Non sequitur.
\_ OP posted about a Democratic bribery scheme,
which in the charged environment of the motd is
tantamount to saying, "See? It's not just the
GOP." Followup pointed out that noone was saying
this was a uni-partisan issue, just that the
GOP has an outstanding track record of covering
for each other when their dirty laundry comes out,
which in this case the Dems demonstratively were
not doing. You then compared particulars of the
crimes rather than the cover-ups, which is a
non-sequitur. I then successfully diverted you on
this inane argument about non sequiturs.
Mission Accomplished.
\_ I skipped straight down to your last sentence.
If you spent more than ten seconds of your
life on this you already lost.
\_ When will your brain develop beyond a 3rd grader's level?
Never.
\_ This made me laugh. Going off like a 3rd grader was
ironic. Were you going for satire or something or really
meant this?
\_ 1) You're not worth the effort of satire, and 2) what
you said was truly idiotic, as pointed out above.
\_ 3) Profit!!! See above about the 10 second rule.
\_ "All but $10,000 was recovered on Aug. 3 when the FBI searched
Jefferson.s home in Washington. The money was stuffed in his
freezer, wrapped in $10,000 packs and concealed in food
containers and aluminum foil."
C'mon, people, surely you can do better than "hiding" it in your
freezer!
\_cold hard cash? |
| 2006/5/13-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:43045 Activity:low |
5/12 http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/12/bush.clinton.poll Clinton vs. Bush. Most recognize that Bush is a lousier president than Clinton, but there are a few that still prefer Bush because he doesn't let interns suck his dick. \_ It's a shame prefer bush just for that reason. I can't believe they'd rather have the countrier in poorer shape than to have a president who got it on with an intern. \_ I prefer Bush because he doesn't allow his main campaign contributors to steal all of the US's nuclear weapons secrets, but I'm eccentric like that. \_ So do you believe that if nuclear secrets were kept tight, no one else outside the US would ever be able to develop their own nuclear programs because everyone else is stupid? \_ This has got to be a troll. No one on soda is really this stupid, are they? \_ jblack is not stupid. jblack is resolute. firm. believes in virtues and stuff like that, yet does not have the capacity to think from the other person's perspective. unable to socialize with the people around him, yes, but dumb, he is not, for he solves difficult engineering problems. \_ Actually, I was refering to "no one else would ever develop their own nuclear programs" strawman guy. That strawman was posted by a moron. Why does everyone think the "sold nuke secrets" guy is jblack? \_ Because according to the write log files, he editted a file called "abortion". Then at 21:00:32 he editted /etc/motd.public using vi and pasted exactly 3 lines starting with "I prefer Bush...", and did so within 4 seconds. -Motd CIA \_ You're not eccentric. You're a fucking jblack. \_ Yeah, you "let" people set up espionage rings to steal nuclear secrets. Moron. -John \_ What John Says: "Yeah, you "let" people set up espionage rings to steal nuclear secrets. Moron. -John" What jblack hears: "blah blah blah blah KLINTON espionage rings blah blah nuclear secrets. blah blah blah. -John "blah blah blah blah Clinton espionage rings blah blah nuclear secrets. blah blah. -John" "blah blah blah blah Clinton espionage rings blah steal nuclear secrets. bhlah. -blah" |
| 2006/5/11-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:43016 Activity:nil |
5/10 NSA Has Massive Database of American's Phone Calls
http://csua.org/u/ftd (Yahoo! News)
\_ Need the phone records for a terror suspect? No need to present
evidence to the phone company to get 'em -- you already got it!
The last thing we need is a mushroom cloud over a major American
city.
\_ What, you're willing to trade any freedom, tolerate any
oppression, just so that someone can't nuke a US city? Guess
what: they'll still be able to nuke the city, but politicos
will be able to use the information for personal purposes.
Just look at the antics of the FBI under Hoover.
\_ I like how Al Franken put it this morning:
"What President Bush doesn't realize is that the next guy in
office might not be as trustworthy as him ..."
\_ he's right. it's gonna be Hillary.. we are all screwed
\_ Man, berkeley's standards seem to get lower every year.
\_ Seriously, pp doesn't even remember history from
8 years ago.
\_ obTrollbait.
\_ http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/11/105237.shtml?s=ic
Carl Limbacher of http://newsmax.com says, "USA Today NSA Scoop Not News".
Now tell me what's wrong with this article.
\_ OMG!!!11! it's all CLINTON'S FAULT!!! WHY DIDN"T I THINK OF THAT?
Fuck off and die.
\_ I'm replying to myself, but key problems with the article are:
(1) The Clinton-era program had FISA approval and focused on
international surveillance
(2) The program under dispute is ALL domestic.
(3) Qwest asked for a FISA review before turning over records,
but the NSA didn't want to ask FISA.
(4) Dubya is trying very hard not to let this undergo judicial
scrutiny, perhaps not until a Democrat takes power, to
decide the issue of whether the "unitary executive" theory
enables Dubya to break laws as commander-in-chief in a time
of war ("interpret differently via signing statement")
\- have you read the standard article on signing statements?
http://csua.org/u/ftr
i had not really heard of them until last year. these
seem crazy to me ... consdered in light of say
CLINTON v CITY OF NEW YORK. --psb
\_ yep. the interesting aspect to me is the different
ways they've been keeping it from judicial review.
\- the new view of limited govt: no judicial review.
\_ We'll just limit the government part that
keeps the other government part from
becoming unlimited. |
| 2006/5/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42967 Activity:nil |
5/7 AN APOLOGY FROM A BUSH VOTER
By Doug McIntyre -
Host, McIntyre in the Morning
Talk Radio 790 KABC
There's nothing harder in public life than admitting
you're wrong. By the way, admitting you're wrong can be even tougher
in private life. If you don't believe me, just ask Bill Clinton or
Charlie Sheen. But when you go out on the limb in public, it's out
there where everyone can see it, or in my case, hear it.
So, I'm saying today, I was wrong to have voted for George W. Bush.
In historic terms, I believe George W. Bush is the worst two-term
President in the history of the country. Worse than Grant. I also
believe a case can be made that he's the worst President, period.
http://csua.org/u/fqr
If the Right Wing talk radio blowhards have turned against him,
is impeachment really that far feched a possibility?
\_ You obviously have been paying attention politics only as far
as Clinton. The constituents of talk show hosts (left or right)
are not the same as the members of Congress. Things move slower. |
| 2006/3/17-20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:42290 Activity:kinda low |
3/17 Conservatives use "starve the beast" logic when they want to cut taxes,
But if they really want to starve the beast, than, why raise the
debt limit?
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/17/news/budget.php
\_ its pretty clear they just want to cut taxes, and keep spending up
(just redirect it to Bechtel/Halliburton, and other 'contributors').
This is perfectly in line with raising the debt limit.
\_ That brings the per-capita federal debt to what, $30,000 per person.
(note thats not per taxpayer)
\_ They just used the fiscal conservative strategy to get elected,
they don't actually believe it.
\_ Duh, the strategy is to fuck it up so bad, that when the Dems assume
power the economy will be all fucked up AND they'll have to raise
taxes, which sets up the Republicans for the next election.
\_ Sounds like what Clinton did to his successor.
\_ You seem to be forgetting the gigantic surplus which seemed
to dissapear so quickly after 9/11.
\_ Yeah, you mean when the bubble popped.
\_ With the tech bubble, 9/11, and post-9/11 security
overhead as excuses, I can give tax cuts to my biggest
political donors and run horribly executed projects both
foreign and domestic, and I'm still completely covered
as far as my base is concerned! Go dubya!
\_ ^Clinton^Bush Sr.
\_ Maybe in your reality. According to the National Bureau
of Economic Research, the Bush Sr. recession was from
7/1990 to 3/1991, so it ended way before the Clinton
presidency. The Bush Jr. past recession was from 3/2001
to 11/2001, so it started right after the Clinton
presidency. http://www.nber.org/cycles.html
presidency. The Bush Jr. recession was from 3/2001 to
11/2001, so it started right after the Clinton presidency.
http://www.nber.org/cycles.html
\_ Because they're not conservatives. They're Republicans.
\_ http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385518277
Impostor : How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the
Reagan Legacy |
| 2006/3/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:42185 Activity:nil |
3/10 The Clinton National Security Scandal and Coverup
by Sen. James N. Inhofe - Senate Floor Statement
June 23, 1999
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1580901/posts?page=39#39 |
| 2006/2/27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:42022 Activity:nil |
2/27 Al Haig, Bill Clinton and the COSCO deal
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1586548/posts |
| 2006/2/25-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42006 Activity:high |
2/24 Only their bumper stickers remain, like cockroaches after a
nuclear holocaust.
http://csua.org/u/f3a (BBC)
\_ Hi! I'm a lazy English journalist who doesn't know shit about America
but wants to keep getting paid to tell whacky stories about whacky
Americans! There are a lot of important things that could be said
by a real journalist about how fucked the Democratic party is right
now, but this ain't it. Thanks for wasting my time.
\_ Anytime, humorless motd guy!
\_ Hey, jblack, I found a great new site for white people like you
and me: http://www.natall.com
\_ Hey, idiot, the above was not posted by jblack.
\_ That's right, it's posted by our other conservative
friend, jrleek the good Mormon. |
| 2006/2/24-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41996 Activity:high |
2/24 http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2006/financesurvey.pdf Income gap continues to widen. Check out the huge difference between median and mean incomes and net worths. Average (mean) family income dropped 2.3% from 2001-2004 after inflation adjustment. \_ So what is wrong with that? The rich got richer through Reagon's new tax cut initiatives in the 80s. Money trickled down to the poor, stimulating an economic boom never been seen in the history of US. Unfortunately the Clinton administration unfairly took credit for it all. Why do you hate rich people? Are you a communist? \_ if history is any guidance, the poor will eventually rise up and overthrow the rich. Do you want that to happen? \_ When did you stop beating your wife? \_ the political slant of motd today is: ultra socialist left. Why do you guys encourages lazy people to be even lazier? A great man once said, self-reliance, lower tax, free-market, family values, small government, and fiscal rectitude will save America. The fact of the matter is, commu-socialist programs don't work. Never has, never will. \_ unfortunately the current administration is fiscally irresponsible, corrupt, expanding government, cutting taxes for the rich mainly and taking away assistance for those who want to get an education. Clinton was the one who cut welfare and forced lazy people to \_ Yeah that was in his agenda from the get-go, he also secretly wrote the Contract With America. \_ Was that before or after he invented the blowjob? \_ congress can make a lot of noise. \_ exactly. congress can make a lot of noise. but the president gets the job done. get jobs. And he kept government spending in check: http://tinyurl.com/nuo8b The average American is self reliant and not lazy, \- in what countries are people lazy "on average"? \_ are you implying that peoples of different countries all work equally hard? yet his income has been falling. As for good ole' Christian family values, sorry, but lying, giving money to Halliburton, torturing people, and eagerness to go to war doesn't cut it. eagerness to go to war don't cut it. \_ The fact of the matter is, the average American are some of the most hardworking and self reliant people in the world, yet their income is falling. \_ Average income going down... why do you hate average people? \_ BUSHNOMICS WORKS!!!!!! I JUST REFI'D MY MCMANSION TO BUY A PORSCHE!!! FUK OFF COMMMIE!!!!!!11!!!! |
| 2006/2/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:41896 Activity:high |
2/16 The China Connection
A chart of Chinese front companies operating within the United States
http://www.fas.org/news/china/1999/chinaconnect.pdf
Why Able Danger Was Scrapped: The China Connection
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1579772/posts
\_ hello jblack |
| 2006/2/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:41877 Activity:nil |
2/15 'Able Danger' Identified 9/11 Hijacker 13 times
http://csua.org/u/ezw
\_ Why do they keep saying "Clinton era" lawyers? Why didn't the
Able Danger guys try to get permission to contact the FBI after
Bush was sworn in? Or did they and the "Bush era" Justice Dept
lawyers denied them, too? If so, why isn't that being reported?
\_ jblack posted this. |
| 2006/2/15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:41855 Activity:low |
2/15 What if Gore had won in 2000?
http://csua.org/u/ezj [Editorial by founder of the John Locke Society]
\_ He's probably right that divided gov't works better historically,
but I wonder if everything would be gridlock right now? At any
rate, this quote is damned statistics:
"He observed that from 1993 to 2001, federal spending on defense,
entitlements, and domestic discretionary programs all fell as a
share of GDP."
GDP did crazy things during the tech boom.
\_ Government is supposed to be gridlocked. Haste in changing
laws should require a mass consensus.
\_ The GDP growth rate since 2003 has been the same as it was
from 1995-2000. The actual number of federal government employees
dropped during the Clinton Administration, too. This is not
a damned statistic, but a rare event.
\_ Starting with the White House Travel Office. ;-) |
| 2006/2/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:41811 Activity:moderate |
2/11 "Oh, and the President was arrested for murder. More on that
tomorrow night, or you can turn to another channel." -Kent
\_ Truth stranger than fiction:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4707354.stm
\_ It can't be a murder. It gotta be a suicide, by two control
shots in the back of his head.
\_ He fell down an elevator shaft and landed on some bullets.
\_ I don't know much about hunting, but I thought it's standard bird-
hunting procedure to never point your shotgun near level or lower
when you're aiming, let alone when pulling the trigger.
\_ Pretty much. But they were Quayle hunting, and I think
Quayle tend to stay fairly low to the ground.
\_ Pretty much. But they were quail hunting, and I think
quail tend to stay fairly low to the ground. |
| 2006/2/8-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:41762 Activity:kinda low |
2/8 Coretta King's funeral was attended by four presidents. Was there
anyone else, beside incumbent or ex- presidents, who ever had such
honor in his/her funeral?
\_ did you watch the CNN commentary? did you hear the broadcaster
making snide comments about hillary clinton running
for president? couldn't they have waited till after
the funeral? bleah.
\_ I read the Yahoo news article and most speakers were trying to
make their political points in the funeral.
\_ "most"? Do you know who Coretta King is? What she did? What
her friends who spoke there do? Do you even know why you're
upset that any of them brought up politics? You're extrapo-
lating a few seconds in a multi-hour service into a molehill
lating a few seconds in a multi-hour service into a scandal
because you've been told that's what happened.
\_ Of course I know. Coretta is Rodney King's wife. (Geez.)
\_ Oh my god, the funeral of someone who spent their life
fighting political battles had eulogies that we about
those exact same battles. How DARE they!
\_ And yet they won't let me piss on Reagan's grave...
\_ Four Presidents and a Funeral.
\_ Four Presidents and a Funeral. Where's Monica?
\_ I'm not 100% but I think several world leaders and presidents
attended MacArthur's and Patton's funerals. |
| 2006/2/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41745 Activity:nil |
2/7 http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm "She extended Martin's message against poverty, racism and war. She deplored the terror inflicted by our smart bombs on missions way afar. We know now that there were no weapons of mass destruction over there," Lowery said. The mostly black crowd applauded, then rose to its feet and cheered in a two-minute-long standing ovation. A closed-circuit television in the mega-church outside Atlanta showed the president smiling uncomfortably. ... \_ fyi, for posterity, according to the CNN video, the applause lasted for ~ 15 seconds, and the reverend didn't appear to expect it. also, it appears the applause was much greater for Bill Clinton. -op \_ This is precisely why Drudge is useless. Did he "nod his head toward the row of presidents..." on the "misdirection" line in your viewing? |
| 2006/2/2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:41675 Activity:nil |
2/2 http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/02/02/obit.clinton Clinton is dead! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaa |
| 2006/2/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:41650 Activity:nil |
2/1 "I think the speech was wonderful. I am so thankful that the president
always remembers to thank our troops and our fallen heroes. I met
the president at Ft. Bragg and he promised me that we would not pull
out of Iraq until the job is done, so that my son would have not lost
his life in vain. He always continues to keep that promise. He had
me in tears. It amazes me how the democrats can make such fools of
themselves. There was one shot of Hillary Clinton rolling her eyes.
What a wonderful president she would be!" Pat |
| 2006/2/1-3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:41633 Activity:nil |
2/1 So, when is the gubmint gonna give me my "direction and love"?
I'm tired of getting romance advice from motd. I want it straight
from Laura's mouth.
\_ that's what mr. clinton said
\_ Mr. Clinton wants it straight from Laura Bush's mouth?
\_ Hot interpartisan sex! |
| 2006/1/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41511 Activity:nil |
1/24 Culture of life!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060124/ap_on_he_me/epa_human_testing |
| 2006/1/21-24 [Politics/Domestic/President, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:41473 Activity:low |
1/21 It's a GOP scandal, even the National Review admits:
http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200601100816.asp
\_ I'd be perfectly happy if all the corrupt garbage from both
parties got banned from public office and lobbying forever.
Most of Congress wouldn't be there and we could get a fresh
start. Anyone there for more than 1 or 2 terms is dirty but
due to the way the two party system is designed and controls
election districts and voters being morons, nothing will change.
Who said the line about democracy being great until the people
figure out they can vote themselves goodies? That's where we
are now and this Abramoff thing is just the tip. I am shocked
not that this is going on but that anyone is actually taking it
seriously. Where do you all think a ton of ex-politicians and
ex-staffers go when they're not in power? They become rich
lobbyists. What do you think lobbyists do? They "buy influence"
which is also known as "bribing politicians". Is anyone else
here honestly surprised this is going on? Does anyone here
honestly believe Abramoff is the only one bribing politicians
or that only one party is guilty of taking bribes? This is how
Washington is run. Every few years someone gets busted, they
make a few new ethics rules for everyone to ignore and a few
people return a tiny bit of their dirty money and life goes on.
This is all bullshit and going nowhere. Nothing is going to
change, just the names.
\_ I don't think anyone is genuinely surprised. This may turn out
to be a way to tone down the usual corruption, or it may just
be a hiccup in the status quo. Either way, it's not enough to
simply recognize that this is the was it's been and then shrug
our shoulders and live with it. Opportunities like this are a
way for the few clean people to finally shake out the rug. Please
don't let your politics-weary cynicism blind you to the few
chances we have to make it right, or it will never get there.
\_ Too late. This turned into a political point score fest
on day one. Maybe the *next* corruption scandal will be
different.
\_ "political point score fest" and cleaning up corruption are
not mutually exclusive.
\_ and the Washington Post peevishly agrees: http://csua.org/u/eqc
\_ The article fails at the end with its argument where it argues
politicians shouldn't justify bribes because they make less
money compared to their private counterparts. If government
wants politicians to not take bribes, then government really
needs to compensate them adequately.
\_ Cops get paid much less than politicians, but there are still
very very honest and hardworking cops. I used to work out at
a place that was mostly cops, and I was very impressed by the
work ethic and sense of duty and porfessionalism some of these
people have. They really don't get paid all that much, and unlike
politicians, they put their lives on the line every day, yet
somehow our society comes up with some decent hardworking, honest
ones who aren't on the take. Why is it that cops can do this, but
politicians can't? Maybe it's because people like you have
decided it's ok.
\_ I couldn't help but rape that woman your honor! Look what
the slut was wearing!
\_ If you can't argue with the statement that it's a Republican
scandal, attack the article on some other grounds. It's an
opinion piece. TNR articles are. The point of the motd post is
that even a conservative editorial admits the fact that
Abramgate is a Republican scandal.
\_ Ignoring that your post is a red herring, our argument puts the
horse (or rather, horses' asses) before the cart. If people
want to become politicians, they should learn to accept that
their rank and power more than make up for a lack of monetary
recompense. If they can't live up to the perhaps superhuman
responsibility of living by a strict code of ethics, they
should quit. Really, it's not as if they're not getting paid
more than enough to live on already. |
| 2006/1/18-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41424 Activity:moderate |
1/18 "I predict to you that this administration will go down in history as
one of the worst that has ever governed our country."
-Hillary Clinton (Jan 18, 2006)
\_ I predict to you that Hillary Clinton will foolishly run for
the president and fail, setting up for another four years of
GOP incompetence that will go down in history as the worst
platform that has ever controlled our country.
\_ I predict that she will not even come in second in the primary.
\_ President Hillary Clinton. Get used to saying it, because
you will be saying it for eight long years.
\_ Just because someone *really* wants power *really* badly
doesn't mean we should give it to them. Quite the opposite.
It'll be interesting if she does run and some how gets
nominated for the (D) party. She has never gone through the
journalist gauntlet. Never been in a public debate of any
note. Never really had to do any of the things experienced
politicians normally have to go through to get into the top
levels of politics. No polish. The (R) would have to find
a child raping axe murderer to lose to someone so poorly
prepared for a brutal Presidential bid. I'm not sure why
you'd want a President who didn't earn it but whatever.
\_ As opposed to Dubya? What would "we" need to do, have
millionaires give Hillary an oil company, a baseball
team, and a magazine to run into the ground first? -tom
\_ What "we" are you talking about? If the (D) party had
put up a human being instead of a self righteous "I'm
owed the Presidency" plank of wood, Bush would've been
crushed. They put up the proverbial axe murdering
child rapist and lost. Big deal. Kerry was even
worse. He only happened through Dean's "Yeaaarrrggh!"
fluke, and the idea that "Even though we think he's
an idiot we think he's got the creds to beat W so let's
nominate this guy we don't otherwise believe in". He
was the only available candidate in 04 worse than Gore
was in 00. Going back a bit we can see Dole was also
only running because "it was his turn" just like Gore
and he got crushed and rightly so. Bush I was busted
on stage looking at his watch during a debate. Clearly
not interested and out of touch. Crushed. Rightly so.
Attacking a former candidate or President doesn't make
Hillary a better candidate or more Presidential for the
future.
\_ I realize that this puts me in a small minority, but
I genuinely liked and believed in Kerry.
\_ I'm not saying he had zero real supporters just
that the typical noise at the time (on the motd
and other places) was "We don't like him but we
think his war record can win enough middle ground
people to beat W". Very cynical and not a very
good way to choose a candidate.
\_ If we ever managed to uncover all of the backroom bullshit
corporate and private selling out that's going on? That might be
true. Will history reveal all that? Probably not.
\_ Why do you hate America?
\_ Why do you think any of this is somehow a new thing? You think
politics was clean and money free until January 2001 when it
suddenly all magically changed? Status quo.
\_ BUSHCO is worse than Nixon, Hover and Grant? WOW.
\_ Nixon was embarassing. Hoover probably was swamped by
inexorable market forces. Grant allowed all kinds of
corruption and failed to win the Reconstruction, but those
racist southern bastards were probably gonna do all that shit
one way or another anyway. BUSHCO has mushroomed our national
debt and deficit in addition to discarding our civil rights,
making "USA" synonymous with "torture", alienated most of
our allies.... It'll take two generations to undo the damage
BUSHCO has caused.
\_ Well this is an improvement. Weren't you saying last year
it would take "many" generations? So things are better
now. All we need to do now is stay the course.
\_ Because clearly motd consists of only two people, so
naturally....
now. All we need to do now is stay the course.
\_ Same phrasing. Likely the same person. And certainly
coming off the same DNC talking points memo either way.
\_ I never weighed in on BUSHco before. I wrote the
above. I read google news and don't watch much TV,
that is how my opinions are formed. If I echo DNC,
then maybe the liberal media conspiracy is true,
OR maybe I came to my conclusion above independently.
\_ Nixon was embarrassing? Do you even remember watergate? Nixon
ran roughshod over the constitution to cover the asses of his
campaign staffers, &c. He directed the intelligence services
to cover up these crimes.
In contrast, BUSHCO has been overtly working for the defense
of the REPUBLIC. Even if this effort has enriched them pers-
\_ Plame? Halliburton? Misleading us about WMD?
\_ I'm not PP. With that in mind:
Plame: stupid but not the first time someone in
government outted an agent.
\_ Not the last either for BushCO (see Khan)
Halliburton: what about it?
Misleading: this is so beaten to death. Every
western government and spy agency in the world
believed it at the time. Let the horse die.
onally, the primary focus has been on the safety and security
of Americans. Arguably they have used poor judgment in many
situations, but their motivation is not overly criminal as
Nixon's was.
\_ Blameworthy as Nixon was and non-criminal as this
administration is, BUSHCO has done more real harm
to our international image (torture, lies about WMD)
and to our long-term finances than Nixon did.
I stand by what I say: Nixon was embarassing,
BUSHCO has done massive harm.
\_ I find it curious that people seem to think the
US had some sort of golden image around the
world pre-Bush. The US not only had a history of
but an active and intentional policy throughout
the Cold War of supporting thugs, dictators and
drug dealers as long as they were OUR thugs. I
don't see any change for the worse in terms of
how the US deals with the rest of the world. At
least we now give lip service and sometimes
actually do something to push better ideals than
we have in the past.
\_ So says you. I suspect that when we really find out the
extent of the NSA wiretapping, it will turn out to be
much worse than anything Nixon did. Using the NSA to
spy on your political opponents, things like that...
And the Valerie Plame coverup is pretty criminal as well.
Not like the Watergate coverup, but pretty bad.
By most stds, the Grant admin was the epitome of poor mgmt.
His VP had accepted bribes (let's see some proof that Cheney
has been bribed), his brother-in law was taking bribes and
giving him bad advice, the Treasury Dept. was taking bribes,
the Sec. of War was taking bribes, &c. You are willing to
write this all off as southern bastards acting normally, but
you won't write off BUSHCO as southern bastards? Sounds like
a double std to me.
I noticed that you didn't include Hoover. Why? Perhaps the
Depression and his failure to deal w/ that were maybe just a
BIT worse than ANYTHING BUSHCO has done?
BTW, I completely left out any reference to the Alien and
Sedition acts, which were at least as bad as the Patriot Act.
\_ Are people too young to remember living under Carter?
\_ Much better to flush $2-$3 trillion down the toilet instead of
spending it on switching on renewables. God will provide more
spending it on switching to renewables. God will provide more
magic oil!
\_ Apparently, yes, you're too young to remember Carter.
\_ Nope, I'm not. He may not have managed things well,
but he was the last President to tell the truth on
energy.
\_ You win this week's Motd Blue Ribbon For Understatement!
Carter "may not have managed things well, but...". How
old were you when that loser gave the infamous "malaise
speech"? How old during that little itty bitty
"Hostage Crisis" thing? How badly were you hurt from
double digit inflation? You may have been alive but
you don't remember.
\_ Get ready for more maliase, and this time the
energy crisis is a permanent one.
\_ Is this the Peak Oil thing again? So if Carter
"told us the truth about energy" back in 76-80,
what did Reagan x2, Bush I, Clinton x2 do about
it differently that saves them from your scorn
yet Bush II is deserving of it? Actually, since
we're here, what did Carter do about it?
\_ Carter put programs in place to start moving
the nation away from oil dependency, which
Reagan quickly abandoned. Fortunately for
Reagan, the oil bonanza that followed saved
our asses. That oil bonanza is rapidly
fading ... Like I said, none of the
Presidents after Carter dealt with the
problem or admitted to it. I blame all
them for the position we are in. However,
Bush's wasteful spending is using money
that could be used to get us out of the
situation, that's all. Hence the flushing
of money down the toilet.
\_ Ok, I looked this up. Carter's plan was
essentially: conserve/reduce usage, burn
a lot of coal, insulate homes, create a
strategic oil reserve, put solar on 2.5
million homes by 1985. Today: cars burn
less gas, we tried to not burn coal until
more recently when cleaner burning tech
could be put in place, homes and all new
construction are insulated, we have a
strategic oil reserve. I have no idea
how many homes have solar but people can
get it if they want to. Which parts of
the plan got ditched?
I found several sources but it was all
nicely summed up here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/filmmore/ps_energy.html
So, where were we? Oh yes, Peak Oil and
Carter's energy policy. What about it?
What did Carter do besides depress
everyone and lead poorly? Check out
some of the quotes in this classic:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/filmmore/ps_crisis.html
Jimmy, where are you now? We need you!
Oh yeah, you're out there putting your
stamp of approval on stolen elections in
South America.
\_ If the GOP hadn't gutted the Carter
CAFE standards and written an exemption
literally large enough to drive an
SUV through, Americans would be using
1/2 the gasoline we do today. Gasoline
is 1/2 of our total energy consumption
so we would be using 25% less oil.
This is most of our imported oil.
We would be in much better shape if
we hadn't catered to the oil and
car interests.
\_ I gave you a detailed summary of
his energy plan and 2 URLs straight
from Carter's speeches which you
couldn't bother to post in the
first place so I looked it up for
you. Now you give more
unreferenced noise and
speculation. Put up for shut up.
If you're going to defend a useless
wanker like Carter, you need to
prove your statements. I'm not
doing any more of your research
for you.
[Actually, I lied. I looked up
CAFE and it predated Carter]
http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/auto/cafe.html
So, Carter didn't even do CAFE.
What did Carter do?
\_ See above. He implemented
stringent CAFE standards, just
like I said. Do you really have
this tough a problem with the
English language?
\_ Stringent is a relative
term. Go find us the actual
standard and we can then
all decide how stringent
they are. The concept
sure as hell wasn't his and
if his only claim to fame
in 4 years in office was to
pick highish CAFE numbers
in 1978 after being in office
~2 years then we sure as hell
didn't need him. Any random
beaurocrat could've picked a
number.
\_ "When you look at the way the House of Representatives has been
run, it has been run like a plantation, and you know that I'm
talking about."
\_ It's spin unless you include the second half of that
thought.
\_ The second half?
\ "It has been run in a way so that nobody with a
contrary view has had a chance to present
legislation, to make an argument, to be heard."
\_ Gosh! Imagine that! When you have a government
system with 2 major parties, the party out of
power can't get their agenda through! Shocking!
Were you equally upset about the 50 years the
Democrat party ran the show while Republicans
got sidelined? Sheesh, read a civics book.
Hillary said a stupid thing and barely got
called on it. This time. All this idiocy will
come back later though. Always does.
\_ Of course, but the media is "enraged" about
the plantation bit, not the whining that
the Democrats can't get their agenda
through.
\_ President Hillary Rodham Clinton. Get used to saying it
because we will be saying it for eight long years.
\_ Good news for Republicans ... Osama bin Laden is saying
new attacks are planned for the United States. Voters
will be scared and vote in more right wingers promising
to take away our liberty for security!
\_ The rest of the Osama tape saying essentially, "we offer
you a truce to rebuild Afghanistan and Iraq" which sure
sounds like weakness and surrender. This is much more
likely to be played as "See? We're winning, now we just
need to stay the course and finish them off" than "OMG!
We're going to get hit again eeeek!" But, yes, anytime
Osama spews forth it is bad for the Democrat party.
\_ He's always offering compromises that sound
"reasonable".
But of course if we meet offer #1 then immediately
there will be offer #2 until offer #n which is "the
whole world is a Muslim theocracy ruled by me"
\_ Of course. I don't think it'll be portrayed like
that by either party or anyone in the media,
though. Dealing with someone like Osama just isn't
an option. So the discussion will be on what it
means that he said it. I'm surprised he's still
alive, simply due to age, stress, and poor living
conditions but that's another story. I don't
think he's in a position to negotiate anything
even if he was a reliable treaty partner and we
actually wanted to talk with him.
\_ It's "Democratic" party. Not "Democrat" party.
\_ I have a term paper due in a few months. Will you
spell check that for me, too? Thanks!
\_ If you post it to MOTD, I'm sure we'd have a
blast editing your term paper for you.
\_ Holy crap! This could be really entertaining!
Why not let the motd collectively write
your paper?
\_ Meh, I've generally found that MOTD has
the collective creativity of a kumquat.
We're quite creative provided we have
something to start working on, though.... |
| 2005/12/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:41037 Activity:high |
12/15 Clinton vs. Giuliani 2008
\_ Clinton vs. Rice
\_ Pepsi vs. Coke.
\_ Yermom vs. Todo el Mundo
\_ Tastes great vs...
\_ Kirk vs. Khaaaan!!!!
\_ Bring back Powell!!!
\_ He was never interested. |
| 2005/12/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41032 Activity:high |
12/15 Yeah, Congress has the same access to intelligence as the President...
Except for the fact that they don't.
http://feinstein.senate.gov/crs-intel.htm
\_ Why would you expect them to have the same access? The
intelligence agencies are part of the executive branch, which
has a responsibility at very least to restrict access to primary
material which may identify the source of that material. I can
understand arguing about whether the President restricts access
to intelligence too much or too little, but asserting that
Congress should have exactly the same level of access as the
President seems misguided.
\_ I wouldn't "expect them to have the same access". But that's
exactly what the president has used recently to defend his war.
He said that they had the same information on Iraq that he did
for their debate on authorizing war in some highly misguided
effort to create some large scale mea culpa. It's what he's
hinged every speech this week on. He's a liar.
\_ Did he hinge that on congress *always* having the same access
or having the same access before the war?
\_ "One of the blessings of our free society is
that we can debate these issues openly, even in a
time of war. Most of the debate has been a credit
to our democracy, but some have launched irresponsible
charges. They say that we act because of oil, that
we act in Iraq because of Israel, or because we
misled the American people. Some of the most
irresponsible comments about manipulating intelligence
have come from politicians who saw the same
intelligence we saw, and then voted to authorize
the use of force against Saddam Hussein. These
charges are pure politics."
\_ Right, so we're talking about pre-war intelligence
there, not current intelligence.
\_ I don't see what you're getting at. Do you?
\_ Which we know was not distributed equally before
the war.
\_ We do?
\_ Of course. We know now, therfore we must have
known before.
\_ Not to mention that Bush is personally
knowledgeable of everything known and done
by people in the executive branch.
\_ He may not be knowlegable, but, whether
he likes it or not, he is responsible.
it's his fucking administration.
\_ No no no it's Clinton's fault somehow.
\_ No, I agree completely. Bush should
be held accountable for the actions
of his administration. However, I am
a little confused. I thought here
we're taking him to task for claiming
Congress had the same access to
intelligence. So is he at fault for
making a claim when he didn't know
the facts, making a claim when he
should have known otherwise, or making
a claim when he did know otherwise.
And how do we decide which one that is
from the available information?
\_ No no no it's Clinton's fault somehow.
\_ Ah, the old "is he a liar, or is
he just incompetent" question. I
posit it REALLY DOESN'T MATTER.
And How do we decide? We tell
Congress (who is the only party
with the ability, not to mention
the DUTY to do so) to find out.
\_ You mean we shouldn't just hang
him first? I'm pretty sure
we're going to hang him first
and determine the facts later.
\_ He's not a carjacker, son.
He's the president, and the
only body qualified to
investigate is sitting on
their hands. In such an
event, saying "wait for
the facts" is unpatriotic.
\_ Wow. Maybe the truth *is*
out there! Have you been
talking to jblack about
the black helicopters
circling overhead? You
think that's part of the
Congressional plot to
sit on the impeachment too?
\_ Yes we do. The PDB for example, is not
shared with Congress. Are you really this
ignorant or are you playing faux naif?
The President knows he has access to
information that Congress does not have,
too, so he just lying his ass off now.
\_ You know, I'm pretty sure Bush isn't
telling the Congress what he's getting
the wife and family for Christmas too.
So the question is not whether Bush knows
something the Congress doesn't, it's
1. whether Bush knows something material
that the Congress doesn't, and 2. whether
Bush knows that the Congress doesn't
have access to that material information.
In the case of the daily briefing that
you specifically mentioned, you will
have to show that the relevant bits in
the briefing do not eventually reach
the Congress.
\_ http://tinyurl.com/94otb
\_ So you have one website quoting
another website plus some
conjecture. Wow. You have me
totally convinced now. Do you
information reguarding black
helicopters that are equally
helicopters that is equally
persuasive?
\_ http://csua.org/u/eco
Second paragraph. Look this is
shooting fish in a barrel.
\_ OK, by abandoning your first
website I assume you agree
that your first reference is
silly. Great. We're making
progress. Now let's look
at this one. On 9/5/02,
Graham & Co demanded to
see the National Intelligence
Estimate. 3 weeks later
(I assume that's 9/26/02),
Tenet produced one. One
10/10/02, Congress voted
to approve the use of force.
What's your point again?
\_ There is overwhelming
evidence that you are
wrong. I am just posting
it as fast as I can
google it:
http://csua.org/u/ecp
\_ To quote your reference,
"The report does not
cite examples of
intelligence Bush
reviewed that differed
from what Congress saw.
If such information is
available, it would not
be accessible to the
report's authors."
That Bush had
information unavailable
to Congress is a given.
The question is whether
the information was
material, and you
have yet shown nothing
to substantiate that
claim.
\_ You are trying to
use the fact that
the White House
classifies any
information that
proves that it is
lying as evidence
in *favor* of their
claim? Bizarre.
\_ At least you are
admitting that Bush
lied about this.
Now we are getting
somewhere.
\_ I think I agreed
half a page up
that Bush must
know something
the Congress
doesn't. The
question is
whether it's
material, and so
far claims of
"overwhelming
evidence" have
been under-
whelming. All
you have shown
are unreferenced
claims and
innuendoes.
\_ Did you even bother to
read the second paragraph
in the above cite?
"However, this
declassified version was
more like a marketing
brochure: 20 pages in
length, slickly produced
with splashy grahics and
maps, and with none of
the caveats contained in
the original...The
intelligence material
Congress had was what the
administration was willing
to give them, namely a
promotional piece whose
lies of omission outweighed\
what was included."
\_ [Sorry, broke up your
post to respond to
your points separately.
Hope you don't mind.]
The full classified
version was available
to House and Senate
intelligence committee
members.
\_ Right, but that
is not Bush's claim.
He claims "all 100
Democratic members
of Congress" had
He claims "more than
100 Democrats"
in Congress had
access to the same
material he did.
http://csua.org/u/ecq
\_ Boy, do you even
read your own
references?
1. Your quote
is completely
misleading and
*invented*.
Please use
quotations
correctly.
2. I assume
you mean "more
than 100 Democrats
in the House and
Senate". OBTW,
*that* is a
correct and non-
misleading quote.
3. Next
paragraph from
that quote, the
article article
specifically
mentioned the
daily briefing,
but it's not
clear if relevant
info from that
made it into
reports in other
forms, and the
National Intel
Estimate, which
even the artcile
agreed were
available to
the Congress
before the vote.
4. Given that
you have proven
to be dishonest
by inventing
quotes on the fly,
why should I even
waste my time with
you? Please addr
point 4 before
more arguments.
5. I see that
you've now gone
back to "fix"
your quote. Again
why should I waste
my time with some-
one shown to be
dishonest and
without honor?
\_ Blow it out
your ass. I
was trying
to quickly
summarize my
points. I did
not sub-
stantially
change any
meaning
(Congressmen
for members of
The House and
Senate). Why
should I waste
my time with
a crybaby?
\_ Right. You
made up a
quote (and
there is a
substantive
difference
between
"all 100"
and "more
than 100"),
got caught.
You went
back to fix
it without
admitting
responsi-
bility, and
got caught
again. Now
you're
indignant.
Do you have
*any* honor?
That was a typo that I corrected _/
before you even finished with
your counter to it. Your argument
on the facts has failed, so you
have resorted to ad hominem, I
understand. Another nail in the
coffin of your claims that the
Congress had all the same intel
as the White House:
http://feinstein.senate.gov/crs-intel.htm
\_ This is getting *so* tiresome.
I agreed a page up that Bush has
info the Congress doesn't. Now
show that this info is material.
You still have nothing. How about
a quote from Feinstein's website?
Have you learned how to quote now?
Something like "Bush knew X, but
this was not known to the Congress
at the time. If this were known,
the vote might have been
different." That would show that
the info was material. You picked
the Feinstein site. Don't you
have *anything*?
\_ The "material" bit is your
trip, not mine. I don't know
if it would have changed enough
votes to stop the war or not.
But I do know Bush lied when
he claimed that Congress had
access to the same info (on
Iraq, to be pedantic) as he did.
\_ I take it that this means you
*can't* find a reference
that Congress is missing
material information. If
you don't limit yourself
to material information, then
the statement is silly. Of
course Bush knows stuff the
Congress does not. I mean,
did Bush tell the Congreess
when or with whom he lost
his virginity? So you are
limiting the info to info
on Iraq. Isn't that a
material test? Should Bush
tell Congress what his fav.
Bagdhad restaurant is? If
he didn't, would you hang
him for lying? You keep
saying you know Bush lied.
How? On what? You made a
specific claim. Now please
make specific charges. Some-
thing like "Bush knew X, but
Congress didn't or didn't in
time".
\_ Reread the Washington
Post article. Basically
anything that contradicted
the case that the WH
was trying to make was
withheld. There is
literally hundreds of
pages of it (far too
much to try and post
here). One example
noted in the WaPo article:
"For example, the NIE view that
Hussein would not use weapons of mass
destruction against the United States
or turn them over to terrorists unless
backed into a corner was cleared for
public use only a day before the
Senate vote."
\_ To address your quote
specifically, note
that NIE info was not
available for "public
use". Meaning the
info was available to
the Congress, but the
Congressman was not
allowed to release
it to the public. Now
how does that prove
your point? Re the
rest of the article,
it was either the
Congress did not have
enough time to review
the NIE (from your
earlier time line I
would guess the
Congress had 2 weeks),
or there must have
been *something*
missing. What
something? Specific
charges please. I'll
keep trying to help
you. Something like
"Bush knew X, but the
Congress didn't or
didn't in time." When
you have X, then you
have something. Until
then, your claim is
worthless.
\_ Bush didn't say "something material"
he said Congress had the same
information we did. We know the PDB
had information on Iraq. Q.E.D.
\_ Now you're being silly. Yes, I
am certain Bush isn't telling
the Congress what he's getting
the family for Christmas. I bet
he didn't even tell the Congress
when and with whom he lost his
virginity! Impeach the bum. How
are those black helicopters coming?
\_ You are grasping at straws here
and I think you know it. We
are talking about Iraq here,
not Christmas lists.
\_ Hey, you're the one who said
"Bush didn't say 'something
material'". I was just
follwing your when I started
on Christmas lists and
virginity. Now show me
that the daily briefing
information didn't eventually
reach Congress.
\_ Believe it or not, I do
not have the security
clearance to track this
kind of thing. Your blind
faith in the White House
is kind of touching.
\_ No, not blind faith in
the white house at all.
If I am guilty, I am
guilty of blind faith
that you could not
possibly prove what you
are trying to claim.
\_ I think you are
saying the opposite
of what you intend.
\_ You know, you're
right. Mea culpa. |
| 2005/12/1-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:40805 Activity:kinda low |
12/1 The gropenator chooses a Dem for his new chief of staff:
http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/13923851p-14760887c.html
The quotes in the article, however, make her sound like a DINO, tho
her bio reads very liberal.
\_ She was the executive director of CA NARAL. That's about as liberal
as you get.
\_ on one issue. She also voted for all 4 of Arnold's amendments.
\_ Which were endorsed by every liberal paper in
the state.
\_ which is, perhaps, a hint that they're not
all that liberal...
\_ especially considering all 4 failed.
\_ That's a nice definition that might keep
you happy (if they support those 4 props,
then they're not liberal). But the Chron
and LA Times are far left.
\_ No, they aren't. Try the Manchester
\_ Your claims of "far left" are fatuous.
You don't seem to know what it actually
means.
\_ No, they aren't. Try the SF Bay
Guardian if you really want the loony
left.
left. [thanks for the edit, asshole]
\_ Should have said left, not far
left. And I didn't edit your post.
-pp
\_ Yeah, but it's the PETA of that issue.
\_ It hardly matters who the governor is, who they appoint or anything
else in CA. This state is gridlocked. The course is set and the
boat is too big to turn. |
| 2005/11/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:40748 Activity:nil |
11/26 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176728,00.html Clinton lied too. Bosnia took 9 years, not 1. \_ Really? And how many sucide bombers killed Bosnians in that time? \_ Cf. Korean War: 55 years of American troops presence. |
| 2005/11/16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:40617 Activity:nil 80%like:40570 |
11/15 http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/8/93515.shtml Bill Clinton: Immigration Crackdown Hurting U.S. |
| 2005/11/13-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:40570 Activity:nil 80%like:40617 |
11/8 http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/8/93515.shtml Bill Clinton: Immigration Crackdown Hurting U.S. -jblack |
| 2005/11/13-18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, ERROR, uid:40568, category id '18005#13' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40568 Activity:nil |
11/11 http://nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200511110833.asp If Bush lied, it stands to reason that Democrats who followed are all naifs, foolishly drawn to the seductions of a charlatan. -jblack |
| 2005/11/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:40472 Activity:low 50%like:40463 |
11/6 Anyone else watch the live West Wing debate? Pretty amazing.
I've been checking some of the facts they mentioned in the debate
and it seems to be mostly true. Although Mexico sometimes imports
more oil to the US than Canada.
\_ I watched it, it was very cool. My roommate and I were actually
fairly suprised that they incorporated some contemprary issues
into the debate and it seemed to live in our world and not so much
the artificial world of the west wing. -mrauser
\_ Which party is the ruling party in West Wing? Who plays the
liberal and who plays the conservative? I don't watch the show.
\_ Well, it up to this point in the show has parralleled the
Clinton presidency (Democratic president, dual republican houses
in congress). Just look on http://nbc.com if you want the cast.
-mrauser |
| 2005/11/4-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40446 Activity:low |
11/4 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1515823/posts New Republic article condemning Libby indictment (compare this with the http://findlaw.com article) Rosen: "In fact, there's strong reason to conclude that no underlying crime was committed." Dean: "In short, because Libby has lied, and apparently stuck to his lie, Fitzgerald is unable to build a case against him or anyone else under Section 793 [the Espionage Act]" \_ While that's the analysis of many conservatives, Fitzgerald believes he was obstructed in his investigation (and he was the one charged to the the real analysis). And last I checked, that /is/ a crime. -emarkp \_ yah, not disagreeing with you, Rosen's point was there was no "underlying crime", besides the crime of perjury/etc., which he pretty much discounts to support his dubious thesis: "... [Fitzgerald] succumbed to the old temptation to indict otherwise innocent officials for misleading him and his investigators reminds us, once again, that the entire apparatus of special prosecutors is a menace." Of course, Dean's point is that there may have been an underlying crime, which is violation of the Espionage Act, and that it looks like Libby is protecting Cheney. \_ yah, not disagreeing with you, but Rosen's argument can be summed up as: (1) "Strong reason" to think there was no underlying crime. (2) Perjury/etc. is not really serious. (3) Therefore, eliminate special prosecutors. Dean's argument is: (a) By reading the indictment, Fitzgerald thinks there may be an underlying crime of violating the Espionage Act. (b) Perjury/etc. prevents this determination. (c) It looks like Libby is protecting Cheney from (a). \_ On another front, Larry Wilkerson, Powell's former CoS, said today that he has a paper trail that links Cheney directly to the prisoner treatment guidelines. \_ I read that. He said he "had" a paper trail. He got it when he was trying to figure out this mess with Powell when he was still Sec State. Wilkerson says he no longer has access to those documents. \_ Right, and I desagree with (2). Dean seems to be completely nuts--do you mean the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982?). The text of that act says the agent must be "serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States." From what I've seen Plame doesn't qualify. That means that the spirit of the law may have been violated but no crime under that act could have been committed. -emarkp \_ From the findlaw article: "Count One, paragraph 1b ... 'As a person with such clearances, LIBBY was obligated by applicable laws and regulations, including Title 18, United States Code, Section 793, and Executive Order 12958 (as modified by Executive Order 13292), not to disclose classified information to persons not authorized to receive such information, and otherwise to exercise proper care to safeguard classified information against unauthorized disclosure.' ... What is Title 18, United States Code, Section 793? It's the Espionage Act -- a broad, longstanding part of the criminal code." != Intelligence Identities Protection Act. (it's good that you asked!) \_ Thanks for clarifying. I'll have to read the findlaw article more carefully. -emarkp \_ yeah, I'm confused why everyone was talking about the 1982 act (which would be hard to prove a violation of) when there should clearly be a broad, all-encompassing law covering release of classified information. \_ That confusion is by design. That's how this administrations' propaganda machine operates. \_ So David Corn (author of "The Lies of George W. Bush") is an administrative lackey? He apparently was the first to raise the question of the 1982 act. \_ So, soda user, now you see that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb. |
| 2005/11/4-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40437 Activity:high |
11/4 New Poll Shows Majority of Americans Support Impeachment;
ImpeachPAC is Launched to Support Pro-Impeachment Candidates
By a margin of 53% to 42%, Americans want Congress to impeach
President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq, according to a
new poll commissioned by http://AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots
coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President
Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.
The poll was conducted by Zogby International, the highly-regarded
non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,200 U.S.
adults October 29 through November 2.
The poll found that 53% agreed with the statement:
"If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for
going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him
accountable through impeachment."
\_ My copy of the constitution seems to require "treason, bribery,
or other high crimes and misdemeanors" for impeachment. Unless
you have proof that haliburton (or whoever) bribed the chimp
into going to war, I fail to see how the threshold for removal
from office has been met. He is no worse than many who have
held the office. [I think that the threshold for removal was
not met wrt Clinton either, I do not know enough re Johnson
to comment]
\_ I'm with Bill Maher on this one: We need a California-style
recall election on Dubya, complete with Arnold Schwarzenegger,
Gary Coleman, and Mary Carey as candidates.
\_ You don't consider it a high crime to send troops into
battle for your own personal agenda?
\_ What personal agenda is that?
\_ http://www.newamericancentury.org -tom
\_ "I really don't like Saddam, so I'm itching to find a
reason to invade his country."
\_ "He tried to kill my daddy!"
\_ That didn't happen, and your repeated assertions don't make it
true. -emarkp
\_ emarkp, I've always wondered how the strict war
mongering Republican saddam toppling sending home
thousands of US soldiers with missing limbs just
so George W Bush has some sort of legacy side Right
Side of your brain coexists with the Left Side we
will bring the miracle of eternal progression to
all of god's children one love Mormon side of your brain.
\_ Hi anonymous troll! For one thing, I'm not R. When did
you stop beating your wife by the way? -emarkp
\_ If the anonymous troll is also a mormon, you might
need to specify which wife.
\_ Ah, but then he'd be a member of a splinter group,
not the SLC-based church. So your "also" is
wrong. -emarkp
\_ OTOH, there are plenty of religions that allow
polygamy besides these mormon splinter groups.
It's not at all clear to me that any religion
based on the Bible should prohibit polygamy.
\_ Your assertion that it didn't happen doesn't make it so
either. However, I wasn't asserting it, as in fact I don't
know. I suggest only that it is impeachable if true. But
what is being investigated now if you're so sure this is
untrue?
\_ Apologies. I didn't connect the logic to the parent
posts. However, "If President Bush did not tell the
truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq" is
not the same as "send troops into battle for your own
personal agenda". -emarkp
\_ Unless "the truth about his reasons for going to war
with Iraq" is the same as "his own personal agenda",
aren't the two accusations the same? -gm
\_ Okay, I amend my comments to "not /necessesarily/
the same". -emarkp
\_ No. I do not. Art 2 Sec 1 cl 1 gives the Pres. sole executive
pwr of the entire US. Art 2 Sec 2 cl 1 gives the Pres. complete
control of the Army and Navy (Yes, I know Congress has to give
the Pres. the pwr under Art 1 Sec 8, but they did give him the
pwr in this case - a sufficient showing of false pretenses has
not yet been made; please make one if you believe otherwise -
M. Moore video inanity is insufficient, I'm asking for real
proof).
The Pres. can use his discretion in deploying these forces into
action under the authority conferred by Congress.
I am even willing to say that the principle of "what is good
for GM is good for America" could be applied even it was shown
\_ Works for me. -gm
that he was motivated by a purely personal economic interest
(other than a direct bribe) as many US companies and thier
employees have prospered as a result of this engagement.
[I do not believe that the decision to depoly in Iraq was
correct, nor do I believe that the civilians have handled
the operation properly. But I do not consider the admin.
failures to be impeachable.]
\_ Treason is, by secondary and tertiary definition, a betrayal
of trust or disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior. The
standard can be as high or as low as one wishes to put it.
That said, if Clinton is the bar, I fear Bush has cleared it.
\_ Treason is a legal term. You can make up any definition
you want but it means nothing. And Clinton was not convicted
of anything. Impeachment is just a trial phase. He was
found 'not guilty' by the Senate so there is no 'Clinton bar
for treason' since he didn't get convicted of it and wasn't
on trial for it in the first place. WTF are you talking
about?
\_ Exactly. Bush should be put on trial: impeachment.
\_ Please point out an offense committed by the Pres.
which qualifies under Art 2 Sec 4.
\_ He violated the Geneva Convention by authorizing
torture and other War Crimes against the detainees
in Gitmo and elsewhere. That is a high crime and
a bunch of people at Nurenberg were hung for it.
\_ As much as you would like the Geneva Convention
to apply, it most likely doesn't therefore no
"high crime" has been committed by the Pres.
[For the present purposes I will ignore the
fact that Geneva is not self-executing thus
cannot be used directly to gain relief or
indict.]
The 3d convention applies to the treatment of
prisoners of war and you are correct that as
a contracting party the US is bound to follow
the convention wrt pows even though the
terrorist do not (Art 2).
But, Art 4 specifies prerequisites for prot-
ection and arguably no terrorist qualifies.
Furthermore, Art 5 only provides protection
to those whose status is in question until a
competent tribunal, such as a US military
tribunal, makes a determination re status.
Once a non-protection determination is made
by the tribunal any means may be used.
If a non-citizen is held outside of the jx
of a fed dist ct, then that person would not
have standing for habeas or 8th amend. relief
either so they could be treated in any manner.
[I think that is is stupid to authorize
torture, &c. but in relation to non-
citizens who are non-state actors and
are held beyond the reach of fed dist
cts, there is no legal bar to the Pres.
authorizing any and all means be used.
If you can point to authorization to use
torture, &c. PRIOR to the Art 5 status
determination I will agree that the Pres.
has acted beyond his authority; however
you will need to show an actual instance
of torture, &c. being used PRIOR to an
Art 5 determination under authorization
of the Pres. to make out an indictable
"high crime"]
\_ Almost none of the detainees have had
their military tribunals yet. Are you
talking about the hearings where they
determine the detainees guilt or in-
nocence, or some other hearing where
they determine their POW status? I do
not know about the latter. In any case,
I am sure there are some violations in
the sense that some people were tortured
before their hearings. I do not know of
any specific cases, but could find some
easily. The point being, there are ple-
nty of crimes out there that Bush has
committed that he could be impeached
for if he became politically unpopular
enough. I think we learned during the
Whitewater investigation, impeachment
is not really a legal process, it is a
political one.
\_ I am specifically talking about a
process to determine Art 4 status.
Until the cessation of hostilities,
a trial on the merits is not requ-
ired (for non-US citizens) only a
process to determine Art 4 status
is required. Given the realities
of war, almost any determination
(even a 5 min summary process by
a jag officer) will satisfy this
requirement.
In order to find a "high crime"
you need to show (1) that someone
was tortured PRIOR to an Art 4
determination and (2) this was
authorized. I'm almost certain
you will not find proof of (2)
b/c any memos/eo/er written by
the Pres., &c. will have enough
ambiguity to suggest that torture
was authorized ONLY if the person
was not protected under Art 4.
Please also note that the conven-
tion may not cover the practice
of handing pows over to non-sig-
natories.
\_ well said, many posters don't understand
that impeachment is purely a political process
the Senate can impeach the president on
whatever reason (see def. of "high crime").
and unlike a criminal process, there's no
appeal.
\_ Given that "high crime" are
specified in context of treason
and bribery, if the "crime" is
not of that magnitude, there may
be a separation of pwrs argument
to enjoin use of the impeachment
pwr. [If a "war crime" can be
shown, I think the Pres. has no
leg to stand on.]
\_ You honestly think that the USSC would
step in and tell the House that they
did not have the authority to impeach?
It would precipitate a Constitutional
crises. I think the USSC would step back
from that.
\_ Given that they interfered
in FL, I'm not entirely sure
that the USSC would stay out
wrt the current Pres.
\_ http://csua.org/u/dy7
\_ Please see above, one
can adhere to Geneva
and torture terrorists
b/c Geneva does not
cover them.
\_ http://www.answers.com/topic/high-crime
\_ Maybe they cut out Art 3 Sec 3 cl 1 in your copy of the
the const. but my copy says "Treason against the US shall
consist of levying war against them, or in adhering to
their enemies, or giving them aid and comfort."
Unless you can point out to me how Bush II conducted war
against the US or gave aid/comfort to the enemies of the
US, the threshold has not been met. (The argument that
Bush united the Islamic world against the US and thus
gave aid/comfort to the enemies of the US is far too
strained.)
[Note, I said that I do not think the bar was met w/
Clinton. This is one reason I chose not to vote for
Tom Campbell when he ran for re-election. As a law
prof. he should have known better than to vote for
impeachment regardless of the political pressure.]
\_ Outing of 2 undercover agents gave aid & comfort to our
enemies, especially KHAN.
\_ Outing of 2 undercover agents gave aid & comfort
to our enemies, especially KHAN.
\_ Can you prove that this was done under either
explict or implicit approval of the Pres.? |
| 2005/11/3-4 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:40416 Activity:moderate |
11/3 http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/reynolds.asp Claim: An ex-congressman who had sex with a subordinate won clemency from a president who had sex with a subordinate, then was hired by a clergyman who had sex with a subordinate. Status: True. \_ If they were the same subordinate, this would be funny. \_ It might even qualify as interesting. Hmm... No, I'm wrong. \_ I like the insuation that having sex with a subordinate makes you a pedeophile. \_ huh, who ever suggested kids? \_ read the link \_ I read it--do you mean the guy's conviction for sleeping with an underage girl? \_ Lewinskying is not sex! \_ That depends on what your definition of 'is' is. \_ ^'is'^'sex' \_ I disagree, blowjobs are included in "had sex with". However, blowjobs are not included in "sexual relations". \_ "A U.S. federal court decided that calling a woman 'Monica Lewinsky' amounted to sexual harassment" http://www.indbazaar.com/spade/punchbag.asp?id=6 |
| 2005/11/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:40413 Activity:nil |
11/2 Amusing Fark post arguing politics with Magic The Gathering cards:
http://csua.org/u/dwv |
| 2005/10/29-31 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40333 Activity:high |
10/29 BTW, the right-wing spin is going to be very, very easy to predict:
There may have been an unintentional outing of Plame, but the goal was
always to protect America, and Wilson was wrong anyway.
There will be no specific mention of Libby committing perjury, etc.,
other than the "unintentional outing" - we thought everyone knew.
\_ Hold on, what was Wilsong wrong about? - danh
\_ You mean the partisan spin. I'm right wing and my opinion is that
perjury is a crime and should be treated as such. If Libby purjored
himself, I want him out of there. Same as with Clinton. When will
politicians learn that the coverup is almost always worse than the
crime? -emarkp
\_ Nice to see something we can agree on, that perjury is a
serious crime and should be treated as such. I can't
follow you all the way as to saying that the coverup is
worse than the crime. That may have been true with Nixon
and Clinton, but these felons comitted TREASON, not burglary
or adultery. I know that word (treason) gets thrown around
by pundits inappropriately, but it literally applies here.
\_ Nice to see something we can agree on, that perjury is a serious
crime and should be treated as such. I can't follow you all the
way as to saying that the coverup is worse than the crime. That
may have been true with Nixon and Clinton, but these felons
comitted TREASON, not burglary or adultery. I know that word
(treason) gets thrown around by pundits inappropriately, but it
literally applies here.
\_ No, I don't think treason applies here. Especially since that
would be in the indictment. -emarkp
\_ I love this. "not indicted, therefore, innocent of guilt."
Based upon your logic, no one in the whitehouse ever
leaked the identity of CIA agent neither.
\_ I love this. My saying treason doesn't apply gets
twisted pretty fast. I said I didn't think treason
applied here, not that there was no guilt. Furthermore,
given the resources Fitzgerald has had, I think he'd
charge treason if he found it. Some random anonymous
wanker on motd claiming treason has roughly zero value
IMO compared to a special prosecutor who's been pursuing
this for two years. -emarkp
\_ that is my problem with the conservatives. it is not
ok to lie about sex, but it's perfectlly ok to lie
about war and leak of classified information.
\_ Precisely where did I say it was okay? I specifically
said perjory is serious. If Libby perjured himself he
should be in prison. -emarkp
\_ Have you really not noticed that your view is in the
very small minority among American conservatives?
Wake up! The former party of small government
conservatism has become a proto-fascist organization.
\_ I disagree with the second part of your sentence,
but the first part (i.e. "former party of small
government") is one of the reasons I'm an I and
not an R now. -emarkp
\_ emarkp, why do you play the catch-22 game? no matter
what you say it is going to be twisted, taken out of
context or as we see here, "you dont represent the
rest of conservatives even though i have no link to
prove that".
\_ Never. Because it works far more often than it doesn't.
\_ I disagree. This spin will take two forks. First, they will
repeat the perjury in suggesting the Valerie isn't a "real"
operative and therefore can't be outed (example below). Second,
they will suggest that obstruction of justice isn't a real
crime unless you can prove the underlying crime (example to
follow since there are enough twits on soda they won't be able
to help themselves).
\_ How can you "out" someone that had not been "in" for 10+ years? -jblack
\_ How can you "out" someone that had not been "in" for 10+ years?
\_ yeah, you're doing it right. The funny thing is that the
"outing" part isn't what the indictments were for. -op
\_ Comments like this are the reason that Fitzgerald specifically
mentioned in his indictment that Valarie Plame-Wilson's status
was NOT well known at the time of the initial crime. Not only
was her status classified, but her cover was still required
as MANY operatives were posing as working for the same cover
energy company she supposedly worked for. By blowing her
cover, they ruined a number of other covers as well. Try
reading the indictment and associated report before you
condemn it.
\_ I read it. The indictment pertains to different
accounts given by Libby, Russert, and Miller, and
has nothing to do with Plame's status or revealing
her name. Libby is being accused of misleading the
FBI during questioning because his accounts differ
from the reporters.
has nothing to do with revealing Plame's name.
has nothing to do with Plame's status.
In his news conference Fitz himself absolved Libby of
any guilt related to Plame "outing". You are the
one who needs to (re)read the indictment, which BTW is
one who need to (re)read the indictment, which BTW is
poorly written and self-inconsistent. |
| 2005/10/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/SIG] UID:40284 Activity:nil |
10/26 Rosa Parks died on Monday:
http://tinyurl.com/8a9br
\_ apple has a nice tribute to her on their web page.
\_ http://www.apple.com/hotnews/articles/2005/10/rosaparks
\_ "What are you staring at, Mr. President?"
http://news.yahoo.com/photo/051025/480/ny13710250245 |
| 2005/10/21-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:40219 Activity:high |
10/21 jblack hasn't posted for a few weeks. I want to congratulate
all the conservative haters who successfully got rid of
conservative sympathizing trollers like amckee and jblack.
-not the guy who threatened jblack but supports him 100%
\_ Motd would be rendered almost completely useless as a place for
political discussion if all of the conservative thinkers leave
so only extremist liberal thinkers are left to echo the same
ideas back forth to each other. "getting rid" of people because
they have different ideas that challenge you is at best
cowardly, and at worst destructive of the entire notion of
liberty and free speech. If you can't handle the strain of being
forced to re-evaluate your ideas, perhaps it would be better for
everyone if you left and looked for the little ideolgical womb
that will challenge you the least -- at least that's less
destructive, since you can always come back at a later date.
\_ "Conservative Thinker" is an oxymoron. It makes as much
sense as Brilliant Bush or Justified Iraq War.
\_ So George Will and William F. Buckley don't think?
\- serious question: can you give and example of a
WFB's brilliance? other than his fondness for
words like "debouche". i think WJC is probably
50x smarter than WFB.
\_ I used to watch WFB on Firing Line(?) debates
on pbs. He seemed very knowledgeable. Those
two were just examples. I'd also list Friedman,
Posner, Scalia, &c. as other examples.
One may not agree w/ them but they certainly
are intelligent thoughtful people.
\_ [idiocy deleted by poster out of deep shame]
\_ Thomas Friedman is a conservative? I think not.
If he's a conservative, then so am I, and I am
*not* a conservative.
\_ Milton not Thomas. I'm talking about
intelligent people not NY Times col-
umnists.
\- aside from scalia, i think some of your
\- aside from SCALIA, i think some of your
conservative thinkers are either 1. not thinkers
or 2. not conservative. you might looks at people
like L STRAUSS (dead) H MANSFIELD R KAGAN
M MALIA (ucb, dead ... he is the "the the stalin
like L STRAUSS (dead) H MANSFIELD D KAGAN
M MALIA (ucb, dead ... he is the "to the stalin
mausoleum" fellow). i do not list economists.
i think somebody like C HITCHENS would eat
W BUCKLEY alive in a live debate. you can google
for "chicago school". i think libertarians take
"theory and thinking" more seriously than
conservatives. oh i suppose M P CATO is also
conservative and maybe MICAHEL OAKSHOTT (dead).
conservative and maybe MICHAEL OAKSHOTT (dead).
\_ What about Greenspan?
\_ Are you sure you don't mean GREENSPAN?
\_ Are you sure you don't mean A GREENSPAN?
\- i am not sure what to make of GREENSPAN.
on the one hand, i think FED HEAD is one of
the toughest jobs in government [sic]
and he has done a pretty good job, on the
othe hand he is a (former?) RANDROID which
is an infanitile and obviously not serious
philosophy. BTW, there are plenty of smart
people who arent "broad thinkers"
... FREIDMAN's Beiruit To Jerusalem is
really good and is in his core competencey
area. when he writes on econ, i think he
latches on to interesting issues but i
dont think he is a deep thinker in the
area [like his flat earth book]. on the
other hand CHITCHEN has some whacky views
on the war but he is also able to write at
a fairly scholarly level about
ORWELL. POSNER writes on lots on things
[although an associate of mine says he LAW
and LIT stuff is leem]. i suppose even
GEROGE WILL writes about baseball,
although i am not able to evaluate his
comments in that area and i am not sure
whether sports writing is really fertile
for deep commentary ... PAULINE KAEL and
MFK FISCHER may be among the best in their
repective fields of film and food
commentary but i dontthink they are among
the towering thinkers of our time ... so
i'm not dissing sports in particular.
\_ I have read Kagan (Paradise and Power) and
would add him to the list. Personally I
agree that most conservatives don't spend
as much time sitting around thinking about
useless crap b/c they would much rather be
out in the real world doing something.
Maybe liberals do think more better deeper.
I wasn't disputing that, only pointing out
that there are some people who are conser-
vative and engage in thinking. I think that
the people I've listed generally fall w/in
the popular conception of conservative.
\- oh sorry, i meant KAGAN pere ... DKAGAN
not RKAGAN. fixed above. i am not taking a
postion on whether there are more
conservative thinkers etc. although i
think it may be a case of theoretical
parisomony not being as important to
results oritented conservatives. so dont
oversubscribe my comments as an attack.
i have to go out in teh real world now
rather than motd'ing about useless crap.
[has "to motd" been used as a verb before?]
i have put my tutleneck on backwards.
in the legal field maybe conservatives are
more interested in parsimony than liberals.
\_ Who here, in your mind, are the "extremist" liberals?
For that matter, who are the conservative "thinkers"?
\_ The guys "getting rid" of vocal conservative thinkers, for
starters.
\_ I assume you are being sarcastic. Running off people who
disagree with you, instead of responding to their ideas,
is a really crappy way of debating. The motd is a lot more
boring without the few beleaguered Conservatives. -ausman
\_ Ideas? Debate? Are we talking about the same guy? There are
several, probably about half a dozen or more conservatives who
actually post ideas and debate on the motd, and as far as I can
tell, the troll in question is not one of them. I don't see
how posting the same urls over and over again constitutes either
"ideas" or "debate". Fuck him, good riddance. The conservatives
who post actual thoughts to the motd have much tougher skin
than that anyway, as evidenced by the fact that they're still
here.
\_ Huh. I recall alot of those url's generating very long
threads of discussion (which sometimes crossed the line into
troll and countertroll), quite a lot of which was elucidating
in terms of non-rabidly left ideas. Maybe it's not the url
guy that has the thin skin, here....
\_ Do you really think that his posting of Freeper links
was pursuading anyone of anything? "Never interrupt your
opponent when he is making a mistake."
opponent when he is making a mistake." -ausman
\_ Uhm, who are you responding to? I suspect your indentation
is wrong.
\_ No my indentation was correct. I should have signed
my post. I think that letting jblack make his case
actually helped do the opposite. -ausman
\_ Ah, okay -- sorry, my bad. Well, no jblack himself
\_ Ah, okay -- sorry, my bad. Well, no jblack
probably didn't convince anybody, but some of his
links generated discussion which may have forced
some people to refine or rethink their positions.
The point isn't about jblack, but about promoting
a place where you can have strong opinions and not
worry about getting physically, financially, or
in any way injured. It speaks poorly of motd that
we're just as tolerant of differing opinions as
the deplorable freepers in the freeper links.
a place where you can have strong opinions and
not worry about getting physically, financially,
or in any way injured. It speaks poorly of motd
that we're just as tolerant of differing opinions
as the deplorable freepers in the freeper links.
*shrug* --!"Ideas? Debate?" guy
\_ "Ideas? Debate?" guy here. For the record I think
the threats were stupid and wrong and far more
offensive than any freeper link. I don't
*support* threats, and I'm not the op--I just have
a hard time shedding a tear over this particular
change even if it happened for stupid reasons.
\_ If you can't take the heat, blame Clinton and whine incessantly. |
| 2005/10/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40193 Activity:nil |
10/19 Freepers pile on Dubya
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1505696/posts
\_ Naahhh, looks like the usual ass-licking of the GOP power brokers
to me. Sometimes this stuff is so over the top it almost reads
like parody, or even Bush slashfic:
"Whether it's the mass media or the obstructionist Democrat
Senators, the Islamic terrorists or natural disasters, the leaders
of the various 'minority' groups or the homosexual lobby, the
abortionist fanatics or the RINOs, even leftover Clintonites in the
Pentagon, FBI and CIA, there is always something standing there,
furiously attacking or opposing the President at every turn. Yet he
stands up and faces it all with courage and tenacity. Where will
anyone find a better man out there?"
\_ I hate the freeper whining so much. "We only control TWO branches
of the government. Daddy promised us THREEEEE." Internally I
translate everything that "stands in their way" (liberals,
democrats, Clinton, etc.) to variations of "the Man" just so I
can listen to it without slapping them upside the head. The
above quote slightly translated for my sanity: "Whether it's the
corporate Man or the obstructionist Man, the Bible thumping Man,
or natural disasters, the leaders of the various 'majority'
groups or the Missionary Position Only lobby, the anti-abortion-
ist or the Oreos, even the leftover Man in the Pentagon, FBI and
CIA, there is always something standing there, furiously attack-
ing or opposing the President at every turn. Yet he stands up
and faces it all with courage and tenacity. Where will anyone
find a better brother out there? Slap mah fro!" Yeah it doesn't
work. I still wanna slap a freeper around.
groups or the Missionary Position Only lobby, the anti-abortionist
or the Oreos, even the leftover Man in the Pentagon, FBI and CIA,
there is always something standing there, furiously attacking or
opposing the President at every turn. Yet he stands up and faces
it all with courage and tenacity. Where will anyone find a better
brother out there? Slap mah fro!" Yeah it doesn't work. I still
wanna slap a freeper around.
\_ They will only be happy once we live in the Christian
feudal corporate state, with 90% of the population slaving
away in vast polluting factories or off fighting in endless
wars, while they enjoy the most sinful pleasures on top.
We're not there yet, so they whine.
\_ Not slaving away in factories. Serving the upperclass
on their enormous estates/ranches, and in their shopping
centers. And those that serve the rich will be the
lucky ones. The rest will live in 3rd world conditions
without health care, public services, police protection,
public education, or hope, in places where the
upperclass never has to see or deal with them. And the
upperclass will say: "They deserve that, because they
don't work hard enough. They're stupid and lazy. In
this country, Under God, you get what you deserve!"
That is when the freepers will be happy.
\_ I don't know why you put no healthcare in the future
tense. Most of the people I know from highschool have
no health insurance now, and I went to an upper middle
no healthe insurance now, and I went to an upper middle
class highschool. |
| 2005/9/22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:39824 Activity:high |
9/22 Clinton dodged the draft, hid FBI files, smoked dope, flipped
Whitewater property, set up a new Korean wing in the White House,
fired the travel staff, paid hush money to Hubbell, sold the
Lincoln bedroom like an upscale Motel 6, and grabbed
every ass that entered the Oval Office. Got it? Good.
\_ What is this in relation to? Do you really want us to list all
the bad stuff about Dubya? BTW: Clinton never inhaled.
\_ Clinton didn't inhale. Dubya snorted coke.
\_ huh?
\_ How many thousand people died because of Clinton's scandals?
\_ How many people died during Desert Storm under Clinton?
\_ Desert Storm was a Clinton scandal? WTF?
\_ tons.. mogadishu.. kosovo..
\_ 0, Desert Storm was under Bush I. Exactly!
\_ It started under Bush I and continued in Clinton's
time.
\_ Are you stupid or just stupid? Or are you thinking
that the no fly zone enforcement was part of Desert
Storm. What would BUD DAY think?
\_ I imagine more people died under Lincoln or FDR. How many
died under Bush I? I wouldn't be surprised if Bush I & II
have the least blood on their hands of any war-time president.
\_ It's this type of thinking that gets America screwed up in
the head about what the military is used for. While
casulties are an important consideration, War is an extension
of Politics. Comparing the number of dead is rather pointless.
\_ I didn't start the comparison of number dead. However,
if you want to run numerical comparisons, then Bush II is
relatively clean. Personally, I think 1 dead in an
unnecessary war is too many and a million dead in a
necessary war is not.
\_ ~100,000 dead Iraqis in a war of choice is too many.
\_ not to the Christian zealots
\_ And if that were the number, it might be worth
quoting.
\_ Clinton's wars were not scandals, neither were Lincoln's
or Bush I's or FDR's. They didn't lie to invade countries
unilaterally that posed no threat to us.
\_ You mean the Nazi's actually did bomb Pearl Harbor? And
the Civil War was actually fought to free the slaves?
\_ So how many died under LBJ?
\_ Who cares? This is about how Clinton's scandals
are meaningless compared to our current President.
\_ IOW, LBJ is worse, but let's not talk about him.
\_ You forget to mention that he assassinated anyone who threatened to
reveal his financial crimes, that he gave away the Panama Canal to
his Chinese masters, and that he had Waco stormed because he was
jealous of Korresh's harem. Oh, and black helicopters, black
helicopters, black helicopters! Quick, borrow my tinfoil hat!
\_ And the embarrassment in Somalia to our elite forces. |
| 2005/9/21-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:39805 Activity:moderate |
9/21 Hurricanes? Cut taxes on the rich!
http://tinyurl.com/df76d (news.yahoo.com)
\_ You could cut/raise taxes on the poor, but what would it
matter? Any meaningful change in tax rates/revenues comes at
the expense of/for the benefit of the rich. It's redundant to
mention it.
\_ Nobody would mention it when it's at the exepnse of the rich.
\_ and nobody would mention it when it's banckrolled by China.
\_ People seem to think that the Republicans are cutting taxes to
do X Y and Z when it's just because they like cutting taxes.
War in Iraq? Cut taxes. Record deficit? Cut taxes. Hurricanes?
cut taxes. Energy crisis? Cut taxes!
\_ Republicans are cutting taxes because they get most of their
campaign contribution via the riches and corporations.
\_ Maybe you youngins don't remember this but Reaganomics was the
reason why the US economy boomed and kicked ass. The money from
the rich are funneled down to the poor and everyone benefits.
You guys want to go back to the fiscal irresponsible
European, Clinton, Democrat, and whatever socialist programs
that prove to be inefficient? Be my guest.
\_ are you serious about this? How about FDR's New Deal?
\_ Yeah SS worked out real well.
\_ Do you like your little dream world?
\_ SS is working so well now is because your
"reaganomics" used the SS surplus on starwars, my friend
\_ 70 years and counting of no more retirees in the
poor house or forced to eat cat food. I think it has
been the best anti-poverty program ever.
\_ are you talking about the fiscally irresponsible clinton
programs that resulted in a budget surplus? fuckwit.
\_ The surplus was due to George H Bush's tax raise but for some
odd reason you Democrats keep taking credit for it. I can't
believe you guys are so blind that you actually praise
the duplicitious cock sucker even as Clintongate unfolds.
the duplicitious cock suckee even as Clintongate unfolds.
You say bad things about Bush yet you totally ignored
I'm believe you guys are so blind that you actually praise
with ------> the duplicitious cock suckee even as Clintongate unfolds.
stupid You say bad things about Bush yet you totally ignored
Whitewater, Cattlegate, Nannygate, Helicoptergate, Travelgate,
Gennifer Flowersgate, Vince Fostergate, Buddhist Templegate,
Chinese commiegate, Lewinskygate, Willeygate, Pardongate,
and what not. Clinton has been nothing but a great
embarrasement to our nation.
\_ That's cock suckee, not cock sucker. Get it right!
\_ I can't tell if this is a troll or is coming out
from a real believer. What do you guys think?
\_ It's distractingate thatgate you usegate 'gate' on
every othergate wordgate. It kind of undergatemines any
hopegate of taking yougate seriouslygate. What, you some
kind of politicalgate smurf?
\_ Funny. His approval rating was never as low as Bush's..
Also funny, the rest of the world liked us under Clinton.
And, really, pardongate? Do you know who Bush I pardoned?
Your side persecuted Clinton for inconsequential mini-
scandals, mostly of your own making. Bush is running us
into the fucking ground and all you do is wonder to your
navel how clinton made him do it.
p.s. Since you always seem to need the reminder, Clinton
ain't presnit no more.
p.p.s Are you so threatened in your philosophy that you
feel you must nuke other people's statements?
\_ I can see it now. It's 2014, and Jeb Bush is in his
second term. The U.S. has just defaulted on it's
loans, the dollar is worth less than the paper it's
printed on, people are walking down ruined highways
in mass exodous from unsustainable suburban
developements, a couple major cities have been taken out
by nukes Bush didn't want to help the Russians secure,
and jblack will be posting to the motd about how it's
STILL Clinton's fault.
\_ Stop the denial. It IS Clinton's fault. !jblack
\_ Not to mention jblackgate.
\_ Thanks a lot for making me pine for the days when scandals
were just silly little embarassments unlike Bush's which
result in the deaths of thousands ... Vince Fostergate?
Someone commits suicide and it's a scandal? Or do you
believe like Rush Limbaugh if anyone dies within a radius
of 100 miles of either Clinton it's automatically their
fault unless proven otherwise?
\_ Yes, our standing in the world community was greatly
raised when we exchanged Clinton for Bush. We used to
\_ BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahaha hehheh heh. *ahem*
Thanks, man, I needed that.
get no respect at all.
\_ Standing in the world community? Who cares what
a bunch of 2 bit cheese eating surrender monkeys
think? If we weren't around bombing the heathens
and keeping the peace the "world community" would
be praying to allah to keep their pansy asses from
getting burned at the stake.
\_ Troopergate? Didn't those guys admit they made the
whole thing up for $30k each from Scaife? It is pretty
funny and kind of sad that all you have left to keep
you going is hate for a guy who has been retired and
out of office for 5 years now. Let it go, man.
\_ Most of the Clinton scandals were either lies or
small potatoes dressed up by rightwing haters who
couldn't stand that Clinton was taking a lot of
conservative ideas (the good ones) and implementing
them properly. |
| 2005/9/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:39778 Activity:nil |
9/20 Able Danger, if true, is the biggest story of the year.
Pentagon Blocks Testimony at Senate Hearing on Terrorist
More collective ass covering by Washington elite....
http://csua.org/u/dg7 -jblack
\_ OF COURSE! HOW COULD I HAVE BEEN SO BLIND! CLINTON PROBABLY WAS
CRANK CALLING NORAD ON SEP 11 AS WELL!!1
\_ I agree insofar as "why bury it if it's that harmless/irrelevant/
in the past". Weird. Anyway, Karl Rove (a political strategist)
supervising Katrina reconstruction is the biggest story of the
year. -moderate/liberal
\_ Yeah, Katrina is SO yesterday. But Able Danger will pale next to
rumors that that Hillary likes the occasional dirty Sanchez.
\_ Why didn't Bush do anything about the Able Danger information?
I have actually decided that the 9/11 Commission was probably
mostly a coverup. The Democrats covered Clinton's ass and the
GOP covered Bush's and neither side wanted to rock the boat. -ausman
\_ Did you read the 911 comission report? I think there was the
potential for plenty of boat rocking in the report, but that
few people read it, and most people don't have the attention
span to get worked up about it. I did read the 911CR, and I
certainly felt there was plenty of blame placed on both Bush
and Clinton there--people really just don't care or notice.
\_ If it's a flash of a tit, people notice!
\_ I read it selectively. Chapter 8 "The System Was
Bliking Red" is pretty damning, I have to admit. -ausman |
| 2005/9/18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:39745 Activity:nil |
9/18 Able Danger - Gorelick called Weldon to say she did
nothing wrong.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1486678/posts?page=42#42 -jblack |
| 2005/9/9-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:39607 Activity:nil |
9/9 Monica Lewinsky is going to grad skool at the LSE:
http://www.breitbart.com/news/na/D8CFHL582.html
\_ I guess she quit trying to suck Republican dicks.
\- her interview with BARBARA WAWA was one of the more
amazing things i have seen on network TV. |
| 2005/9/7-10 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:39563 Activity:nil |
9/7 National Guard preventing media coverage of New Orleans aftermath.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8045532/#050907c
\_ The National Guard is under the control of the LA Governor. Take
this kind of story to freerepublic.
\_ And I'll bet somehow, it's Clinton's fault. |
| 2005/9/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39517 Activity:nil |
9/6 "At one point, there were a load of girls on the roof of the hotel
saying 'Can you help us?' and the policemen said 'Show us what you've
got' and made signs for them to lift their T-shirts. When the girls
refused, they said 'Fine' and motored off down the road in their boat."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4217022.stm
\_ Oh no! The horror! Men being scum! Cops acting corrupt!
We must outlaw this with an amendment!
\_ Please state for the record which party most recently tried
to amend the constitution for purely political reasons.
\_ I'm sure those cops, and their unions, were 100% GOP.
As if that had anything to do with the above.
\_ Sounds good to me. Where's the petition? -non-scum man
\_ If you victims are dead, how will you know who to
press charges against? |
| 2005/8/31-9/2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39401 Activity:nil |
8/31 http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/31/233427.shtml Dems blaming Bush for Katrina. \_ In other news, statue of elvis found on Mars! |
| 2005/8/17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Foreign] UID:39153 Activity:nil |
8/17 "President Clinton is once again releasing American military
might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no
exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this
operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed
forces about how long they will be away from home. These
strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX) |
| 2005/8/14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Reference/Military] UID:39121 Activity:nil |
8/14 Compare and contrast Cindy Sheehan with James Smith
Media Bias: The Press, the Prez and the Parent
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1462436/posts |
| 2005/8/13-15 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:39109 Activity:nil |
8/13 How Chinagate Led to 9/11
http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13516
Gorelick 'MemoGate': It Just Got Worse
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=16201
\_ From CHRONWATCH? Wtf? I despise the Chron for having an utterly
loathsome editorial style, but this guy is beyond the pale even
for all that. Man, I wish I had all the time in the world.... |
| 2005/8/12-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:39103 Activity:low |
8/12 I'm surprised this hasn't already been posted, but:
A military intelligence unit (Able Danger) identified a cell of the
9/11 highjackers a year before 9/11, but was blocked from passing
the info on to the FBI by Clinton Administration attorneys. Even
more surprising, the 9/11 commision was apparently never briefed on
this, although their staff was informed.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165268,00.html
http://csua.org/u/d0a (NYTimes)
\_ You know, this really isn't a partisan issue. It's probably a CYA
issue. Gorelick was criticized for conflict of interest because of
the "wall" memo during the commission, but stayed on.
\_ Canadian Yachting Association?
\_ Cover Your Ass
\_ Doesn't that seem like it would cast more doubt on the value
of the commision report?
\_ Absolutely. And that was the reason people objected to
Gorelick's remaining on the commission. It seems like they
should have another commission to investigate the first one.
\_ Who cares? Yeah Clinton messed up, but BUSHCO didn't do a bang
up job either.
\_ Who cares? The commision set up to fully investigate the
circumstances leading up to the greatest terrorist attack on
American soil ever completely misses the single failure that
could have prevented the attack, and your response is, "Who
cares?" Perhaps you'd rather talk about Mrs. Sheehan?
\_ What difference does it make NOW? So Clinton didn't
take action to prevent 9/11. So what? We already
knew that Clinton didn't care, otherwise he would
have acted after USS Cole.
If this info was SO important, why didn't they give
it to BUSHCO? There was a 6-8 mo window.
We need to get past the blame game and start dealing
w/ the real problem which is that a large portion of
the world is out to bring down democratic civilization.
\_ 12 October 2000, USS Cole. A Yemeni court charged
six people with carrying
out the October 2000 bombing.(The USS
Cole bombing occurred one month
before the 2000 presidential election,
so even under the best of
circumstances it was unlikely
that the investigation could have been
completed before the end of President
Clinton's term of office three months
later.)
six people with carrying out the October 2000
bombing. The USS Cole bombing occurred one month before
the 2000 presidential election, so even under the best of
circumstances it was unlikely that the investigation
could have been completed before the end of President
Clinton's term of office three months later.
\_ http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/12/01/uss.cole
They moved _quickly_. PP is a dumbfuck.
\_ I'm not talking about lame prosecutions.
They should have struck AQ and struck them
hard worldwide. But they didn't.
\_ While people should care, I don't think it's realistic
for the FBI to be briefed on every possible threat that
the U.S. as a whole comes across. In 20/20 hindsight it's
always easy to blame someone, but let's face it, during
the Clinton administration terrorism wasn't a real big
priority for either the public or the government. Should
it have been? Probably, given that the WTC had been
unsuccessfully attacked before and muslim terrorists
blew a big hole in the side of one of our military ships,
but since the collapse of the USSR we just didn't really
care all that much. I mean, for crying out loud, we
half-heartedly gave our tacit approval to the Taliban
government even when it was obvious that it was extremist,
backwards, and violated human rights left and right.
So the whole thing is like crying over spilt milk. No
administration is going to be able to prevent all future
threats to this country because essentially we're always
fighting yesterday's wars.
\_ While it's true that the FBI cannot take all threats
seriously, Able Danger knew that these guys were real
terrorists, and tried 3 times(!) to get the the
info to the FBI with a request to break up the cell.
\_ Pentagon lawyers != Clinton administration attorneys
\_ Read farther in the Fox article. I'm a little wary of the
quote myself, but that's what the guy says. -op
\_ It's pretty clear to me it's Pentagon lawyers, and his logic
is, since they were there at the time Clinton was in charge,
ergo Clinton administration lawyers
cares?" Don't you think you're taking partisan cynicism a
little far? I never said Bush was great, but that's a big
deal.
\_ I'm disinclined to believe that Pentagon lawyers would be
concerned "about the political fallout that occurred after
Waco ... and the Branch Davidians." That sounds more like
administration than Pentagon.
\_ Yeah, even if administration lawyers weren't involved,
I'll go along with it being consistent with the
pre-9/11 philosophy of having a wall in regards to
passing intelligence between the military and domestic
security.
pre-9/11 philosophy of making it difficult to pass
intelligence between military and domestic security
services.
\_ Any bet that Weldon will die within the year?
\_ Well, you know suicide is very common in these sorts of high
stress situations....
\_ Sure. I will bet you any amount you care to wager. -ausman
\_ Right wing column claiming Gorelick was warned that 'the Wall'
would cost lives:
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/51737.htm
\_ Good article. Clinton-appointee Mary Jo White was right:
Not having a wall when it comes to terrorism was the better
policy.
username postyuck@mailinator.com
password postyuck |
| 2005/8/8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:39047 Activity:nil |
8/8 http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/08/pirro.clinton.ap Down with Pirro the Republican BITCH! Someone please publish The Truth About Pirro \_ Huh? |
| 2005/8/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38943 Activity:nil |
8/2 You gotta love the more...direct qualities of international news
outlets. For instance, Hong Kong's Standard on Bolton nomination:
http://www.thestandard.com.hk/stdn/std/Focus/GH03Dh02.html |
| 2005/8/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:38932 Activity:nil |
8/2 Go Hillary Go!
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0507.cannon.html
\_ Well, the article does lay down all the reasons for !Hillary
pretty well.
\_ I'd do her.
\_ Yup, considering how hot she is.
http://www.bigcheesepress.com/jones/hillary.jpg
\_ All the chicks Bill sleeps with on the side are less hot than
Hillary, maybe she's really bad in the sack. |
| 2005/8/1-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38918 Activity:low |
8/2 "When the left attacks kids, you know it's in bad shape."
http://tinyurl.com/9ldmy
\_ A Fox News link! Thank you sir, may I have another?
\_ Here's the editorial that the above link is criticizing.
http://csua.org/u/cvx (Washington Post)
The FOX link is pretty dumb, but I have to admit, this
editorial is pretty stupid too, and deserves criticism.
\_ Do you know what makes an editorial, an editorial?
\_ Stupidity and pettiness?
\_ Wrong and wrong.
\_ The Wash Post editoritial is moronic. Would they have been happy
if the girl was dressed up as a little hooker and the
boy as a gangsta? Could we please concentrate on the abuses
of power going on the administration and not the dress code
of family members of nominees?
\_ You people have no sense of humour.
\_ At least they didn't call anyone The White House dog, like
Limbaugh did back when Chelsea was in her awkward phase.
Limbaugh did back when Chelsea was in her dog phase. |
| 2005/8/1-3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:38914 Activity:moderate |
8/1 I'm surprised there has been no Bolton discussion yet. Any bets on
how China will react when our UN Ambassador is taken out in handcuffs
for his part in the Plame matter?
\_ Let me get this straight, if the Congress doesn't want to approve
a nominee under any circumstances, the president can just say, "oh
well, we'll just wait until those pesky lawmakers go home" and
appoint him anyway? Am I the only one whom this strikes as a
bit, oh, I dunno, REALLY FUCKING DEFECTIVE? -John
\_ Yeah, I was wondering about that myself. -jrleek
\_ Yeah, it's part of the legacy of the constant give-and-take
between Executive and Legislative branches; the correct
response of a responsible congress would be to block all
nominations made by the President until he withdraws Bolton
as Ambassador; this would send a clear message reminding the
President that he is, in fact, a President and not a King.
Odds of this happening? Zero to none.
\_ Because Bush is the first prez evar to use a recess
appointment.
\_ But he _is_ on target to use it the most. Also, Clinton
did 140 or so. Can you name any of them other than
the gay Ambassador to Luxembourg? I can name a number
of Bush's..
\_ I remember Bill Lann Lee's appointment by Clinton.
Here's an old article on recess appointments
http://slate.msn.com/id/1002994 . Interesting
recess appointments include Thurgood Marshall,
Earl Warren, William Brennan, and Potter Stewart.
\_ You mean you got this slate article on your
first google hit (rather than "remembering BLL").
If you had just said "Bill Lee" you wouldn't
sound so phony.
\_ Bill Lann Lee has always been referred to with
his full name. I'd be the phony *if* I called
him "Bill Lee" (and, indeed, I probably would
not have remembered his name were he plain old
Bill Lee). Try googling "Bill Lann Lee"
him "Bill Lee". Try googling "Bill Lann Lee"
if you wish. I take it you were unaware of
his confirmation drama.
\_ Comparing the ambassador to Luxemborg with the
ambassador to the UN really only demonstrates how silly
you are.
\_ Now, if only we can decide which post is the more
important...
\_ Burn. -- ilyas
\_ There is no real evidence that Bolton has anything to do with
the Plame investigation, just a lot of speculation.
\_ Okay then, how 'bout when he's cuffed for perjuring himself
in his confirmation hearing by saying he wasn't interviewed
by Fitzgerald
\_ No no no. Perjury is ONLY bad when a D POTUS does it.
\_ And then only if it's about something that has zero
to do with running the country, say, hypothetically,
consensual oral sex between two adults.
\_ You know, people always make this remark. But I think
it's fairly natural to think the POTUS, in some sense,
'represents America.' In particular, the POTUS ought to
conform to American cultural norms, which involves
avoiding things like infidelity and borderline perjury.
-- ilyas
\_ See, this is where I'm always surprised at your
idealism, ilya. I have never expected personal
perfection from a politician. This remark does
color the validity of impeachment. He did not
misuse the office to perform his bad act. He did
it all on his own. It tarnishes _his_ presidency,
but not _the_ presidency. I agree with your choice
of "ought". Yes, the president ought to behave,
but Clinton was wrongly impeached and rightly not
removed.
\_ I don't expect personal perfection from a
politician -- far from it. But it is surprising
that the bar is set so low that those Bad Things
I mentioned 'get a pass' so to speak. I mean does
it really take so much character to avoid
compulsively lying and sleeping around outside
your marriage? -- ilyas
\_ Who said to give him a pass? A more
appropriate action would have been censure.
I bet they could even have worded it to get
it to pass unanimously.
\_ I don't understand. Tarnishing 'his
Presidency' deserves censure, but
tarnishing 'the Presidency' deserves
impeachment? Are these things written down
somewhere, or is this just your personal
opinion on what should be done? -- ilyas
\_ Of course it's just my opinion.
\_ You know, there sure as heck was a lot
of criticism of the EVIL REPUBLICAN
WITCHHUNT at the time, and even now,
for a matter that reduces, ultimately,
to a matter of opinion. Thanks for
discussing this civilly, Ben.
-- ilyas
\_ Stop harassing that nice man from the oatmeal commercial!
\_ Appoint Bolton as ambassador. It's the right thing to do. |
| 2005/8/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38902 Activity:kinda low |
7/31 Btw, how are those charges against Rove coming along? I haven't been
following the news lately.
\_ Everything is speculation at this point, with no big revelations
after the story about the Air Force One memo and so forth. Either
Fitzgerald and the Grand Jury are much better at controlling leaks
than Kenneth Starr was, or there isn't much going on.
\_ Reporters covering it say the former.
\_ Bush bashers are failing. Democrats are fucked and Republicans
are winning: http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/bushbashingfizzles
are winning: http://lin.kz/?vprls
are winning: http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/bushbashingfizzles
\_ is US News a conservative news source?
\_ Duhhh...
\_ Strength through Purity! Purity through Faith!
\_ Stupidity through Partisanship!
\_ Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Partei!
\_ Yeah, that 43% approval rating is just knockin' em dead!
\_ Faith Based Politics. Actual results don't matter, just
faith in your leader.
\_ Commodisation of news-- if Rove reports are not selling, move on.
http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/fellows/papers02-03/shaw.pdf
http://lin.kz/?i3myr
http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/fellows/papers02-03/shaw.pdf |
| 2005/7/28-29 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:38858 Activity:nil |
7/28 Worship the mighty Clinton
http://media.orkut.com/articles/0231.html
\_ I thought this was a joke, until I started to do some googling.
People sure are gullible. |
| 2005/7/22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38772 Activity:insanely high |
7/22 Best 2 articles describing Plame Rove treason I've read so far, since
it is a confusing story. One political, one from inside ... One from
a Democrat, one from a Republican.
http://tinyurl.com/7qmra
\_ This falls to pieces with: "Another false claim is that Valerie sent
her husband on the mission to Niger." No one is claiming that Plame
sent him. The claim is that she **RECOMMENDED** him. The Senate
Intelligence Committee has a memo in her handwriting proving this.
And of course this: "The President has flip flopped and backed away
from his promise to fire anyone at the White House implicated in a
leak." What a putz.
\_ From above URL:
"The Senate Intelligence Report is frequently cited by
Republican partisans as 'proof' that Valerie sent her husband to
Niger because she sent a memo describing her husband's
qualifications to the Deputy Division Chief. Several news
personalities, such as Chris Matthews and Bill O'Reilly continue
\_ Neither of which are R's AFAIK (but I
don't watch either of them). Show me
the quotes from R partisans.
\_ To paraphrase someone else on the
motd, you've provided a great
demonstration of "being obtuse."
\_ Nah, it's just hard to read
something which sounds
intelligent yet disputes a key
point which you thought was
100% true.
\_ Read carefully, dude, it's ALL
THERE: The addendum in the Senate
report was Republican, the
spinmeisters (not necessarily
Republican) quote the addendum.
\_ I DON'T BELIEVE THIS. Is that
too hard to understand? I think
this guy is spinning, and I want
to see what he claims to be
quoting. This whole issue has
been more heat than light and
everytime I get claims like this
I ask for source documents.
EVERY FUCKING TIME THE RESPONSE
HAS BEEN SILENCE. So if he can't
back up his claim, or you can't,
then SHUT THE FUCK UP.
\_ Is "SHUT THE FUCK UP",
"EVERY FUCKING TIME", and
"I DON'T BELIEVE THIS"
supposed to be more light
than heat?
Besides, your post, "Neither
of which are R's AFAIK ...
Show me the quotes from R
partisans" was completely
answered by the the
"Read carefully, dude"
response.
Your emotional response seems
to be on another topic
entirely.
\_ Repeating what's in the
quote sure isn't. If you
have a source, let us know.
\_ All caps boy deleted my
question, but I'll ask him
again. Do you think typing
in all caps helps your case?
\_ No, I didn't delete your
question.
to repeat this nonsense as proof. What the Senate Intelligence
Committee does not include in the report is the fact that
Valerie's boss had asked her to write a memo outlining her
husband's qualifications for the job. She did what any good
employee does; she gave her boss what he asked for."
\_ Show me the statement from Plame's boss that confirms this.
From danh's link:
Seven months after the appointment of the special counsel, in
July 2004, the Republican-dominated Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence issued its report on flawed intelligence leading to
the Iraq war. The blame for failure was squarely put on the CIA
for "groupthink." (The Republicans quashed a promised second
report on political pressure on the intelligence process.) The
three-page addendum by the ranking Republicans followed the now
well-worn attack lines: "The plan to send the former ambassador
to Niger was suggested by the former ambassador's wife, a CIA
employee." The CIA subsequently issued a statement, as reported
by New York Newsday and CNN, that the Republican senators'
conclusion about Plame's role was wholly inaccurate. But the
Washington Post's Susan Schmidt reported only the Republican
senators' version, writing that Wilson was "specifically
recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee,
contrary to what he has said publicly," in a memo she wrote.
Schmidt quoted a CIA official in the senators' account saying
that Plame had "offered up" Wilson's name. Plame's memo, in
fact, was written at the express directive of her superiors two
days before Wilson was to come to Langley for his meeting to
describe his qualifications in a standard protocol to receive
"country clearance." Unfortunately, Schmidt's article did not
reflect this understanding of routine CIA procedure. The CIA
officer who wrote the memo that originally recommended Wilson
for the mission--who was cited anonymously by the senators as
the only source who said that Plame was responsible--was deeply
upset at the twisting of his testimony, which was not public,
and told Plame he had said no such thing. CIA spokesman Bill
Harlow told Wilson that the Republican Senate staff never
contacted him for the agency's information on the matter.
Key words:
(partisan) "addendum by the ranking Republicans",
"CIA subsequently issued a statement ... Republican senators'
conclusion about Plame's role was wholly inaccurate", "CIA
officer ... that originally recommended Wilson for the mission
... was deeply upset at the twisting of his testimony ... told
Plame he had said no such thing"
\_ Show me the statement from Plame's boss that confirms this.
\_ Show me the statement from Plame's boss that disputes this.
\_ He makes the claim about Plame's boss. Show me the
claim or SHUT THE FUCK UP.
\_ Why so angry?
\_ Unfortunately, her boss is probably covert as well.
How CONVENIIEENT ... I know ... but we do have:
http://csua.org/u/ctc (Newsday)
"A senior intelligence official ... said [Plame] did not
recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment."
LA Times (7/15/04, article archived):
"A senior intelligence official said the CIA supports
Wilson's version: 'Her bosses say she did not initiate the
idea of her husband going. They asked her if he'd be
willing to go, and she said yes,' the official said."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A30842-2003Dec25
"CIA officials have challenged the accuracy of the INR
document [used to claim that Plame suggested Joe Wilson's
name], the official said, because the [CIA] agency officer
identified as talking about Plame's alleged role in
arranging Wilson's trip could not have attended the
meeting."
\_ And the White House has flip flopped on whether they would
fire anyone who leaked Plame's name to a reporter. First they
said they would, now Bush says only if they have broken
the law.
\_ fyi, an old friend of mine who's a loyal Republican voter
wrote in his blog that, after the flip-flop on Rove, he
has decided that his vote for Dubya in 2004 was a mistake.
\_ The article falls apart? Try reading it again!
http://tinyurl.com/dx3ok
\_ I really like the first story, where the author also says that he
voted for Dubya in 2000.
\_ Countdown to someone mentioning Clinton in 5, 4, 3...
\_ Author of first story also said he voted for Dubya because he
understood what the meaning of "is" was
\_ Obviously you've never served.
\_ Are you a troll? Do you have any understanding of the
effect of the methamphetamine trade on southern Michigan?
\_ obviously you think your trolls aren't that stupid
\_ I bet BUD DAY makes _excellent_ trolls.
\_ BUD DAY! |
| 2005/7/19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:38713 Activity:nil |
7/19 Rove _should_ be punished even if he is legally found innocent,
because what he did was unethical, foolish, and dangerous. If he
didn't know better, he should have. Bush came into office saying
he would restore integrity. He has an opportunity to do this by
firing Rove. He hasn't. He's backed further and further from his
"I will fire anyone involved" because he knows it was a definitive
statement. He's hoping for people not to notice.
This is on par with the house eviscerating its ethics committee and
rescinding the "get indicted, lose your leadership position" rules.
Once upon a time the bar was "appearance of impropriety" but that's
apparently too hard these days.
In short, as soon as his lawyer said "by the way, yeah he did tell
her name to these guys" his desk should have been packed and his
WH badge pulled. Anything less is pure hypocrisy. --scotsman
\_ well said. -nivra
\_ Ok, I haven't been following this very carefully, does someone want
to summarize what was found for me? -- ilyas
\_ I'm speaking to the thread below. All this discussion is moot
until Fitzgerald reports. But the WH's statements that "anyone
involved would be fired" should have been honored.
\_ What if Rove was actually innocent (in the ethical sense as well as
the legal sense)? How do we decide if he were ethically innocent?
\_ I'm tempted to say "doesn't matter". The president said he
would fire him. He hasn't. If Rove was ethically pure, then
in terms of being entrusted with any sort of security clearance
he was utterly incompetent. I don't know which is worse.
Actually, strike all of the above. Do you know just how FUCKING
STUPID you sound?
\_ Why? Because I'm still waiting for all the evidence to come
out before I pass judgement?
\_ unethical how? If he didn't know she was covert (or she wasn't even
covert) how is that unethical?
foolish how?
dangerous how?
\_ eg. "I come across the information that X works at the CIA. Prior
to revealing this information, it might behoove me to check _if_
X's status is sensitive information." The Jun 10 memo shows that
Plame's status was sensitive. Given your conditional, Rove
apparently had been too _foolish_ to check. This type of
foolishness from an official privy to sensitive information is
dangerous.
\_ Oh give me a fucking break. It's dangerous for the president
of the United States to lie under oath. Why weren't you
calling for Clinton's head? -- ilyas
\_ Actually, I didn't support Clinton over the perjury charge.
I presume you or the op were calling for Clinton's head.
If so, why aren't you calling for Rove's head? Revealing
the status of non official cover CIA assets is at least
as dangerous as the Clenis.
\_ The above wasn't me, but for me it's the same reason that
R's joined D's in voting not to remove him: because the
case brought wasn't weighty enough to warrant his removal.
(Okay, yes it's silly for me to suggest i know the
senators' reasoning) --scotsman
\_ So let me get this straight. If Rove didn't do anything
legally wrong, he should still resign because he did
something 'unethical.' Clinton, on the other hand,
despite not getting nailed on legal grounds, should
nevertheless have stayed despite doin something
clearly 'unethical.'
\_ No, Ilya. Rove should resign or be fired because
the President said that's what would happen. Clinton
isn't President right now, btw.
\_ I don't know how you managed to shout over my
response without waiting for me to finish,
_ON THE FUCKING MOTD_ but you did it. Thanks for
pointing out Clinton isn't president now. I rely
on hard working folks like you to keep me up to date
on world events. You started your first post
talking about Rove doing something unethical and
foolish. If you want to rag on Bush for not
following through on what you think Bush said,
that's fine, but if you want to rag on _Rove_, you
will have to explain why leaving Billy alone with
his foolishness and lack of ethics was ok. -- ilyas
\_ heh. you saved half your response (ending at
the second sentence), which Ben responded to
while you were constructing your last sentence.
He had no idea you were formulating a 3rd
sentence. -nivra
\_ The purpose for his revealing this information to
the public is to discredit a 3rd party, and advance an agenda.
That is unethical.
\_ Not necessarily. Wilson still insists that his wife had
nothing to do with getting the trip, when she was the one who
recommended him. Wilson looks pretty dirty to me.
\_ Every time you bring this up it sounds dumber and dumber.
You're FUD slinging. Wilson has been a diplomat for
us for decades, has served in Iraq and African countries.
It doesn't matter that his wife may have recommended him.
You're asking us to believe that he and his wife, along
with the CIA, conspired to get sent over there just so he
could prove Bush wrong a couple years down the line. You
need help.
\_ No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that Rove
was trying to discredit Wilson. I don't think that Rove
offered a compelling reason ("don't believe him, he just
got the job because his wife recommended him"). And yet
he denies that she recommended him, even though the
Senate intelligence committee has a memo in her
handwriting recommending him.
\_ And to discredit him, he simply _had_ to reveal
a CIA agent's identity...
\_ danh's link says that this memo was a formality and
CIA folks are pretty pissed this memo is being
twisted. Anyways, go back to what the other guy was
saying about it not mattering even if Plame
recommended Wilson. |
| 2005/7/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:38621 Activity:moderate |
7/14 Why do politicians I want to like keep trying to alienate me?
http://csua.org/u/cpl (c|net)
\_ A) Because you're part of a block the doesn't vote much.
B) Hillary has been trying to pretend she has religious right
opinions.
C) Because politicians rarely know what they're talking about.
D) All of the Above
\_ The party of social liberalism, eh? -- ilyas
\_ as a libertarian, wouldn't you agree with op in this case?
\_ What, that Hillary is being venal and betraying the
\_ What, that Hillary is being unprincipled by betraying the
'principles' of her party and trying to
appeal to religious conservatives in a calculated attempt
which also involved Rvt. Graham? You don't need to be a
libertarian to agree. -- ilyas
\_ forget the politics. I was asking about policy. That
less legislation of business and markets the better. In
this case, the legislation is targetting morality.
\_ Of course I agree. I rarely agree with the democrats,
this is just one of the first times I disagreed on
social issues. -- ilyas
\_ huh? I can't parse that. You rarely agree, yet
this is one of the first times you've disagreed?
\_ Well, it could conceivably make sense as a claim
that social issues don't come up much, but that
would also be an odd assertion.
\_ It makes sense because economic issues are more
important to me than social issues. -- ilyas
\_ First times? Ilyas, you need to google Tipper Gore
and the PMRC. Democrats are definitely not new to
playing the morality-police game.
\_ "Rockstar, like many video game developers, usually encourages
so-called mod amateur programmers who create modifications for
popular games, which often give players access to special areas,
missions or abilities." Like many? Say what? |
| 2005/7/12-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:38577 Activity:nil |
7/12 The Democrats Fight Against Democracy and the Constitution:
http://tinyurl.com/7gghk (freeper link)
\_ *sniff* I don't know whether to spew because of the content of the
post or because our own little freeper troll has finally figured
out how to use tinyurl.
\_ Proof that not all Conservatives are as stupid as the ones
you meet in Fresno. |
| 2005/7/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:38545 Activity:nil |
7/11 http://tinyurl.com/de4fu Check out reader's comments on The Truth about Hillary, and how people vote for "Was this useful? \_ Atticus' comments were the most poignant. \_ Boo Radley's comments were the most poignant. |
| 2005/7/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:38530 Activity:nil |
7/11 Truth about Hillary:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1440782/posts [jblack] |
| 2005/7/11-13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:38525 Activity:low |
7/11 "The Truth About Hillary" has made the New York Times best-seller
list for the second week in a row - a development that has the Times
book review spitting mad.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1440701/posts
\_ Micheal Moore's books were also best sellers, and were also retarded.
I think spending money on stupid books with some political axe to
grind that we agree with has become a major way Americans express
our political beliefs. It's stupid, but true. Now if only I
could find the right axe, I'd never have to work again.
\_ 1. write axe-grind book
2. buy up enough of your own book to make it a bestseller
3. since it's a bestseller, people will buy it to see what the
deal is
4. profit!
\_ have you read the book? even most conservatives think
ed klein is a piece of shit.
\_ Conservatives also said the same thing about Kitty Kelley's
laughable "The Family" book. Yet the NYTimes gave that one a
favorable review. link:csua.org/u/cof
\_ no but seriously, the book sucks, i read most of it but
i couldn't take it anymore. here is what your dark overlord
John Podhoretz has to say about it:
http://www.rightnation.us/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t80745.html
here is my dark overlord Al Franken interviewing Ed Klein
http://mediamatters.org/items/200506240007
Just bringing up this book makes you look silly. - danh
\_ you don't look like such an ass in person, what happened?
http://www-bsac.eecs.berkeley.edu/~jblack/eau.jpg
\_ maybe you need a cruise to unwind.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/banman/ads/Cruise2006a.300x250.jpg
\_ I think 2 and 3 can be simplified to: 2. enrage those who
disagree with you enough that they start to emit bile and
spittle in their favorite media. 3. Just to stick it to
those who disagree with you, those who agree will buy the
book. And of course no one will argue with 4. It's sure made
Michael Moore rich.
\_ Skip step one, and you've described the $cientology strategy
to a tee. |
| 2005/7/8-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38491 Activity:nil |
7/8 Mann Report on "liberalism" of PBS is a joke:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050718&s=blumenthal |
| 2005/6/30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38369 Activity:nil |
6/29 The Daily Show and The Last Throes
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/06/27.html#a3668
\_ This is excellent. Thanks.
The guy playing the conservative commentator wasn't funny at all
though. |
| 2005/6/21-22 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:38240 Activity:moderate |
6/21 DeLay is just a good honest Republican:
http://csua.org/u/cgt (Yahoo news)
\_ Dan Rostenkowski, and Jim Wright, are good
honest Democrats too. Please! Both sides cheat,
the trick is not to get caught. If you don't know
who those two are, you are yet another person
who thinks politics extends back only to Clinton.
\_ The point is that he's the GOP House leader, and GOP folks
are more hypocritical / much less apologetic about corruption,
politicking, and screw-ups.
\_ Heh. -- ilyas
\_ Dan Rostenkowski, Jim Wright, and Jim Traficant are good
honest Democrats too. Please! Both sides cheat, the trick
is not to get caught. If you don't know who those three are
you are yet another person who thinks politics extends back
Clinton.
\_ Rostenkowski was what? Wright was what? Talk about less
apologetic - look at Traficant.
\_ Shock! Surprise! Politicians are all scummy! "Your politicians
are scummier than my politicians! nyah!" Whatever on all of you.
These sorts of "your guys are more corrupt and hypocritical than
my guys are corrupt and hypocritical" noise is sheer idiocy from
both parties. I vote for people who believe in what I believe in
not for a party.
\_ delay is much more powerful than rostenkowski or traficant
ever were. my memory doesn't go back far enough to comment
on wright. it is funny that the 5th in command
republican is such a slimeball. - danh |
| 2005/6/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:38214 Activity:kinda low |
6/20 Adelphia Founder gets 15 years in jail. His son gets 20.
Hooray for justice, and DOWN WITH RAMPANT CORPORATE FRAUD!!!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160147,00.html
\_ Hey man, he didn't mean to do any harm, he was just trying to
improve conditions when he stole that $100 million.
\_ Hahaha that's his claim and the judge didn't buy it
\_ What I don't understand is, if you catch 20 years in the clink, and
the judge orders you to show up in 3 months, wouldn't you just try
as hard as you could to salvage some cash and then get the hell
out of dodge? -John
\_ This is why they often confiscate your passport. Not that
anyone checks these things at the TJ crossing.
\- 1. because they will probably end up at a not super awful
prison. if they were facing the likelyhood of being
sodomized they probably would have taken off
2. let's see how long they actually serve ... when do they
actually get incarcerated?
3. they may not want to live anywhere that we dont have
extradition treaties ... once you flee, you are sort
of burning your bridges (*) so they may be betting on
of burning your bridges (*) so they may be counting on
being able to reddeem themselves like say michael milken.
* = of course as we learn from the Clinton-Marc Rich
episode, you can buy your way out of that too.
clinton lovers really should not try and defend that
one.
episode. |
| 2005/6/8-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:38047 Activity:nil |
6/8 George Bush's approval rating is now twenty points lower than that
of Bill Clinton's on the day that he was impeached.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8118278/#050607
"Your work sucks and everyone hates you, but I'd hire you all over
again if given the chance."
\_ I must have been asleep for a while...when was Clinton
impeached?
\_ iirc, the house voted to impeach Clinton but the senate
didn't agree.
\_ Uhm, no. The House impeaches the president. The Senate
has the trial. Clinton is the 2nd president to be impeached
after Johnson in the history of the U.S..
\_ You are correct, but pp's error is in terminology.
The House did vote to Impeach. The Senate vote on
the first article of impeachment (perjury) was 45-55;
on the second (obstruction) it was 50-50. Clinton
was acquitted of both articles of impeachment.
http://csua.org/u/cb2 (rutgers.edu)
\_ To impeach is basically to indict.
http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Clintonimpeach.htm
\_ Correct. The House votes to impeach/indict;
the Senate convicts or acquites. This time,
they acquitted. |
| 2005/6/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll/Jblack] UID:37998 Activity:high |
6/7 Los Alamos Whistleblower Beaten
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1417842/posts
Similar to the whisteblower on Loral / Clinton
\_ Wow, freepers are blaming it on Clinton... amazing...
\_ Obligatory snort of derision at use of freeper link.
\_ The photos at top were worth it.
Do the Liberal Elite always snort with derision at freeper links?
\_ The photos are available elsewhere as well. Any sane person
should snort with derision at freeper links.
\_ Wow, the Bush goons will stop at nothing to cover up evidence
of their wrongdoing. I love how the Freeper all try to pin
it on the "unions." Are there even unions at Los Alamos?
\_ Are you a dumb liberal? You sound like one.
The likely culprit is one or two specific Los Alamos employees
-- identities unknown.
Remember Los Alamos was the place where two workers were put on
investigative leave for misusing government credit cards (one
had spent $30K on a customized Ford Mustang) to a total of $900K.
\_ Go check your facts. This was how it was reported but is
not the truth. Of course your media won't report the truth.
Later in 2002 two other people in LANL bldg maintenance were
accused by 5 co-workers for using LANL funds to buy camping
equipment, GPS tools, a picnic table and lawn chairs, etc. for
their own use.
University of California oversees LANL, so possesses blame for
allowing the situation to get to the point where someone hires
thugs to fuck up the whistleblower.
Whether or not a union is involved, well, that's just freeper
talk.
\_ Which is exactly why it's really lame to post a freeper link
when the info is available just about everywhere else.
\_ This is a Federal Lab, therefore funded and under control
of Federal authorities. When did "The Buck Stops Here"
go out of fashion?
go out of fashion? Are you a brainwashed Bushbot?
You sure sound like one.
\_ Step back Troll! I have a +5 Flaming Sword & Oil Flasks!!1
\_ Hey, I am giving an eye for an eye.
\_ Hey, I am just giving an eye for an eye. |
| 2005/6/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:37954 Activity:high |
6/2 Wow, Ben Stein has a... different view of Nixon.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8242
\_ Ben Stein has always quite proudly been a Republican
tool. G Gordon Liddy's views on Nixon are funnier. - danh
\_ No, the funniest was probably the recent Peggy Noonan column,
where she called W. Mark Felt a bringer of death and then
claimed that the most honorable man in the Nixon administration
was Chuck Colson.
\_ Mark Felt is actually Pol Pot's father.
\_ Not just a republican tool. He was a speechwriter and lawyer
for Nixon.
\_ Not really, if you saw Nixon it has a lot of the points
made by Stein, and I doubt Stone is a fan of the RNC.
As for the Khmer Rouge allegation, I highly doubt that
though. Would the KR have ever existed if we had gotten
out of Vietnam earlier? It's an interesting point because
\_ Or if we had stayed out of cambodia, period.
it was the Vietnamese who finally overthrew KR. Also,
would the KR have ever existed without the Vietnamese
conflict? Most likely not. It's really tricky to determine
geopolitics like this. Nixon also probably would have let
KR happen, Nam was a lost cause, and getting China was much
more important than protecting southeast asia.
\_ Stein is correct. Nixon was a good president and a
decent human being who was unfairly attacked by the
left wing nut-cases in this country. He got overly
involved in a minor crime which was his ONLY fault.
\_ "Only"... If you can't find faults in a leader, you're following
a little too blindly.
\_ "Now there are some who would like to rewrite history:
revisionist historians is what I like to call them." --GWB
\_ "I don't want to see this country to go that way. You
know what happened to the Greeks. Homosexuality
destroyed them. Sure, Aristotle was a homo, we all know
that, so was Socrates." -RMN
\_ "They're not like us. They smell different, they look
different, they act different. The trouble is, you
can't find one that's honest." -Nixon on Italians
\_ "You know, it's a funny thing, every one of the bastards
that are out for legalizing marijuana is Jewish. What
the Christ is the matter with the Jews, Bob? What is the
matter with them? I suppose it is because most of them
are psychiatrists." -RMN
\_ "Do you know what happened to the Romans? The last six
Roman emperors were fags. . . . You know what happened
to the popes? It's all right that popes were laying
the nuns." -RMN
\_ "You have to face the fact that whole problem is really
the blacks. The key is to divise a system that reconizes
this while not appearing to..." -RMN
\_ I guess it makes sense that Nixon is a hero to the
anonymous troll wingnuts. -tom
\_ ... and to Ben Stein!
\_ Am I naive to think that a President doesn't
have to massively abuse his power to be President? |
| 2005/5/27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/SIG] UID:37862 Activity:nil |
5/27 Republicanism at work. Rick Santorum takes political donation from
AccuWeather, pushes bill that would prevent National Weather Service
from offerring for free the data that AccuWeather (amongst many others)
tries to sell to people.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050527/ap_on_go_co/santorum_s_storm
Very nice NWS site:
http://www.nws.noaa.gov
Compare with, for instance:
http://weather.com
\_ Nice troll. If you actually read the article you would note that
there had been an existing standard for the past 14 years that would
not allow the NWS to compete with private weather forecasting.
Last I heard the Dems were still in power in congress in 1991.
In addition, this rule survived through 8 years of Clinton.
\_ Nice troll. There was a rule change last year that allowed
NWS to cover areas covered by industry, making this the new
status quo.
Santorum's bill would again restrict NWS services.
\_ No shit sherlock. The point isn't that the rule expired,
dimwit, the point is that it isn't a "Republican plot"
as described by OP. If the rule was changed last year,
then it was changed under a Republican congress with a
Republican president at the helm, which again is completely
opposite of what the OP is saying.
\_ Not Republicanism--scumbag politician bought by special interest at
work. R's and D's both have them.
\_ That's funny, because when the Republicans were the minority, we
kept hearing about how they were going to put an end to special
interest politics. Now it seems they've just replaced the
Democratic interests with their own.
\_ No argument there, and it pisses me off just as much as
it does you. Probably more.
\_ I found what looked like santorum in hotel room once. Yuck.
\_ If it's run by a business it must be more efficient!
Down with the socialist National Weather Service! |
| 2005/5/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37809 Activity:kinda low |
5/23 http://csua.org/u/c5y (Post) A certain and clear pattern has emerged when a damaging accusation or claim against the Bush administration or the Republican-led Congress is publicized: Bush supporters laser in on a weakness, fallacy or inaccuracy in the story's sourcing while diverting all attention from the issue at hand to the source or the accuser in the story. ... Some will argue that such questions are irrelevant or miss the point because Bush's bold action in Iraq got rid of a tyrant who was abusing his own people and because it will eventually lead to the spread of democracy in the area. Both may be true. But the case for war was built neither on humanitarianism nor on spreading democracy. Those arguments were, at most, used to bolster the main case, which was that Iraq was building weapons of mass destruction and presented an imminent threat to America and its allies. \_ Bud Day doesn't appreciate your tone of voice. \_ If you really respected BUD DAY you would always capitalize His name. \_ You've obviously never served. \_ If he did, it would destablize the middle east for generations! \_ Are you Chinese? Do you understand the effect BUD DAY had on the American War effort in China? \_ Heh, I missed this one. |
| 2005/5/19 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:37764 Activity:kinda low |
5/19 Irony is Dead: The Republicans are trying to use a bogus interpretation
of the Constitution to force the confirmation of judges they believe
will return us to an "originalist" interpretation of the Constitution.
\_ Remember, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. -John
\_ News flash! Partisans redefine terms to look good! Yeah, it's
pathetic. But then, I think all procedures which prevent the
majority from passing legislation/etc. which aren't explicitly in
the Constitution should be eliminated. -conservative
\_ And to hell with that whole "protection of the minority" idea.
\_ There are constitutional supermajorities required for some
things.
\_ And the constitution also says the senate runs by its own
rules. Those rules require a 2/3 vote to change. If they
can be changed by a majority vote "because dick says so",
watch the fuck out.
\_ I was under the impression that only 50%+1 was necessary
to change rules. Where did you find 2/3 to change
senate rules?
\_ Answering myself.
http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/standingrules.txt
seems to say two-thirds. But there are so many
run-on sentences it's hard to read.
\_ Since you view yourself as such a strident
Constitutional purist you might like to know
the aforementioned document specifies five
instances where a supermajority is required.
Guess what, appellate judge nominations is not
one of them. The Founders were afraid of
judicial tyranny for a reason. What is wrong
with a simple yes or no vote on the Senate floor?
\_ What is wrong with hypocrisy?
\_ did you feel the same way when Clinton
was President?
\_ none of Clinton's judge nominations
were filibustered. What precisely
am I expected to "feel".
\_ But they were not given a simple up
and down vote in the Senate, were they?
I would expect you to be consistent,
or just admit you are only interested
in power for its own sake, not in any
notion of fair play.
\_ An appointee should die in committee
if the committee thinks he won't come
close to an up vote. That's the point
of a committee. Alternatively, the
committee could just send the vote to
the floor with a recommendation (which
seems reasonable to me).
\_ Is that what happened to Clinton?\
All 60 of his nominees that were
blocked in committee had no chance
in an up and down vote? Is that
what you believe?
\_ FATALITY!!1!
(ob follow-up about false
dichotomies that ignores that
he just got slammed)
\_ How old are you? |
| 2005/5/18 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:37727 Activity:high |
5/17 The L.A. Times editorial board sure is weird on the filibuster issue
http://csua.org/u/c3q
\_ "Because the filibuster is at heart a conservative's weapon"
!?!?
\_ When you filibuster, you are by definition, blocking change
and preserving the status quo. It comes from the older
definition of Conservative, one who tends to resist change
and prefers to keep tradition.
\_ It's an interesting argument. They're arguing that the demise of
the filibuster promotes a liberal agenda in the long term. That,
throughout history, the filibuster has been used primarily by
conservatives to block liberal legislation. They do have a point.
Republicans blocked more of Clinton's nominees via filibuster than
Democrats have blocked of Bush's nominees. The LA editorial board
is actually pushing the argument that the filibuster should be
disallowed on all Senatorial bills, and that the filibuster causes
a 51% majority requirement on bills to become a 61% super-majority.
\_ The cloture rules, as written, make it obvious that you need
61% to pass bills in the Senate. It is reasonable to assume
that the people who wrote the rules wanted it that way for a
reason. -tom
\_ I see your point, but I wonder if a 51% majority is really a
healthy number for passing laws that affect our entire nation.
\_ That's another debate altogether. The founding fathers
thought that it was. Otoh, some interpret the founding
fathers' wishes as wanting the Constitution to be a much
more fluid, living document of laws, and thus, perhaps
the present acrimony means that a comfortable majority of 51%
is no longer enough. But this is all speculation.
\_ None of Clinton's judges were blocked by filibuster.
\_ Now now. No fair actually using facts. These people redefine
filibuster to support their argument. They can have their
reality.
\_ And the R's don't redefine terms constantly? The over-
riding story they've been pitching is that nominees deserve
an up or down vote. As many of them participated in deny-
ing such votes in the past when the balance of power was
reversed, they are hypocrits, pure and simple. I believe
that it's excellent to have the filibuster available for
appointments because it encourages compromise. You want
your people through, you convince more than just your side.
And it's a very notable point that the vast majority of
the nominees have been confirmed already.
\_ By "these people" I didn't mean D's. I meant people who
don't give a damn about truth or consistency, but only
care about the R or the D. Are there people like that
with R's? Yes.
\_ They used another procedure which allowed them to block
appointees. A procedure which has seen been changed so
that can no longer be used. Even many Republicans called
it a "filibuster" so you can understand the confusion.
And there were attempted filibusters of Clinton nominees,
just unsuccessful ones. Or is it only wrong if you
are successful?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200503160004
\_ Ah yes, that left-wing http://mm.org
\_ Ah yes, the shoot the messenger approach. When you
can't deny the facts, tar the presenter.
\_ Hey I learned this from the best liberals.
\_ Most liberals I know are more than willing to
change their mind when presented with
verifiable facts, myself included. The same
cannot be said for most conservatives I know.
As intelligence increases, this distinction
breaks down.
\_ Ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha!
\_ Hint, your bumper sticker arguments are
probably neither verifiable nor based
on facts.
\_ Most liberals I know are the same way.
The very definition of the word liberal
includes openness to change. Perhaps
you hang out with the wrong liberals,
or perhaps the only "liberals" you are
familiar with are the ones you hear
about on Fox News and Michael Savage.
\_ "When people think, Democrats win" -Bubba
\_ e.g.?
\_ WorldNetDaily, freepers, etc.
\_ Ha ha ha, liberals, right.
\_ Is there anything in that article or my statement
that is incorrect as opposed to inconvenient
to your interpretation of the world?
\_ "In fact, Republicans filibustered several of
then-President Clinton's ambassadorial and
Justice Department appointments in the 1990s and
attempted to filibuster Clinton's judicial
nominees." Patently false.
\_ Did you read the whole article? Do you doubt
the Washington Post's and New York Times'
reporting on Senate dealings?
\_ You mean the 85-12 vote to cut off an
"attempted" filibuster? Doesn't sound like
a filibuster to me. No, I don't trust this
site to accurately quote the sources, and I
don't trust the NY Times period. The Post
is iffy.
\_ You're really not worth talking to.
\_ Name a Clinton appointee who was
filibustered. Go for it.
\_ Did you read the article? Sam Brown.
For judicial nominees, as the article
says, there were a number of attempts
at fillibustering his nominees. There
were also a number of others that never
went to a committee hearing because they
blocked them procedurally.
\_ I'm unable to confirm Sam Brown
anywhere else. Can you?
\_ How 'bout the congressional
record?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r103:E08JN4-62
\_ Nope. The house is not the
senate, and considering how
people seem to redefine
filibuster, this isn't
acceptable.
\_ You're a fucking imbecile.
\_ You've got to be kidding
me. Wait...does the next
line go "I know you are
but what am I"?
\_ To believe that the
sources offered are
tricking you, you
would have to be
dangerously unbalanced
or mind-bogglingly
stupid. Either way,
you're not worth
talking to.
\_ I don't believe
they're "tricking"
me. The quote I
found yesterday had
a R senator saying
that stopping
someone in
committee is a
filibuster. Just
having the word
'filibuster' isn't
enough.
Also Henry Foster for Surgeon
General in 1995. Let's see
if your researching skills are
better on him.
\_ Okay, I can verify that. Which
explains the R's limiting the
claim to judges.
\_ After they applied the claim
in general...
\_ So, as the person says
below, are these filibusters
only "wrong" when they
succeed?
\_ So your position is that it is moral to
attempt a filibuster as long as you
don't succeed? Only successful filibusters
are immoral and unconstitutional?
\_ It's seriously fun watching Frist try
to make this maneuver.
\_ I've no position on the "morality" of a
filibuster. I'm for getting rid of it
entirely.
\_ So you admit the Republicans are
hypocrites, but you support them
anyway.
anyway. Did you have the same
opinion about the filibuster when
Clinton was in office?
\_ So.. you want the senate to be the
house with fewer people...
\_ The filibuster and size aren't the
only differences between the house
and senate. And if you distrust
the house, should we eliminate it? |
| 2005/5/15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:37694 Activity:nil |
5/15 Indictments Mount for Hillary Aides
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1403701/posts |
| 2005/5/13-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37668 Activity:moderate |
5/13 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050513/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/base_closings When was the last major closure of bases? Clinton? Kennedy? Does this mean there will be a lot of pissed off military men, with rifles and sniper guns and no jobs? \_ I REALLY hope pissed off jobless military men get militant and start throwing pies at Bush. \_ People from closed bases need to move to other bases. \_ yeah like bases in... Iraq. \_ so the cut-back is just savings from operational costs associated with geography? \_ Well there are the buildings on top of the geography and the resources to keep them running. \_ Clinton closed a bunch of bases. As I recall Republicans complained. I bet the Dems do this time. \_ Mmm... a little history might give you a FUCKING CLUE. Dick Armey's legislation under Reagan created the commission so that Congress would be in on base closings. Over the last 17 years through 4 different presidents, there have been sporadic base closings. In 2002, Bush said he would veto the defense spending bill if they didn't include a provision for another commission for 2005. \_ Who cut more? Clinton closed down Treasure Island right? \_ Most of the moderately-recent Bay Area military base closures were under Clinton -- NAS Alameda, Treasure Island, Mare Island, Moffett, Fort Ord, maybe a few others. I seem to recall a lot of military resource consolidation stuff under Clinton's administration, much of which was (in my opinion) fairly justified given the post-Cold-War reduction in military forces. -gm \_ Although the last round of closures did hit the bay area, Dellums' clout as the ranking member of the armed services committee protected us somewhat. services committee protected us somewhat. Things could be much worse this time around. \_ Hang on a second. Bases exist as tools for the military to better protect the United States from foreign aggression. They are meant to be neither the TVA nor the CCC nor any other make-work economic stimulus. When you start talking about being "protected" from base closings, you get into dangerous pork territory. There are better and more efficient ways of spending federal money than by suckling communities on the teat of the military, such as on Homeland Defense in threatened Iowa. -John \_ That is just the way politics works John and it is somewhat naive to think otherwise. -ausman \_ Of course it is, I'd assume you know I'm aware of this :) However, even if "it's just the way it is", it's stupid and wrong and I'll certainly point it out. -John \_ This is simply not true. The bay area was hit disprportionately hard and this was a deliberate disproportionately hard and this was a deliberate sacrifice on the part of Dellums (and by extension the Bay Area) to lead by example. Personally, I I think we are better off with the Presidio being converted to civilian use, for example. \_ Bay area was hit hard because they couldn't get enough gays/lesbians/peace-loving-liberals to sign up and they couldn't take the heat from protestors :) |
| 2005/5/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:37658 Activity:nil |
5/12 http://mediamatters.org/items/200505100002 "Fox News general assignment correspondent Major Garrett quoted Republicans who asserted that Texas Supreme Court justice Priscilla Owen, nominated by President Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, is the first judicial nominee to be filibustered who received a unanimous well-qualified ("WQ") rating from the American Bar Association (ABA). But Garrett failed to note that blocking WQ-rated judicial nominees is hardly new." So the correspondent correctly notes the historicity of the filibuster, and Media Matters criticizes him for not mentioning "blocking" of candidates. Yeah, real solid criticism there. \_ Why are you cutting the quote? "... is hardly new. Republicans blocked 10 of President Clinton's appeals court nominees who received unanimous WQs. Denied even hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, these nominations never left the committee for full Senate consideration." Oh yeah! You == The Stupid. http://Mediamatters.org == Got it Right. \_ No, media matters apparently doesn't understand the difference between "filibuster" and blocked in committee. \_ Do you accept or not accept the observation below: One can state a standalone fact without further context and, while not lying, be misleading. \_ Of course that's possible. Proving intent is harder. At any rate, in this particular case, FN has addressed the filibuster vs. committee issue at length (at least on the one FN show I watch). \_ Do you accept or not accept the observation below: One can make a factual statement that is misleading, even when not intending to mislead. \_ Is the filibuster the only tool used to block appointees out of sheer partisan venom? If not, then why focus solely on the filibuster? |
| 2005/4/24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37337 Activity:nil |
4/24 Battle for control of the Democratic party
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1390299/posts?page=1,50
[ip address replaced; fuck you.]
\_ doesn't everyone know it's http://freerepublic.com by now? |
| 11/27 |