|
12/24 |
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. |
12/24 |
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. |
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? |
12/24 |