Politics Domestic President Clinton - Berkeley CSUA MOTD
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Domestic:President:Clinton:
Results 151 - 300 of 601   < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2017/11/22 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
11/22   

2005/4/23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:37328 Activity:nil
4/23    Here's a preview of the 2008 election, why Hillary is
        already out, and a few relevant names: David Rosen and
        Aaron Tonken, who is already in jail.
        David Rosen (the man who will turn on Hillary)
        http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1389524/posts?page=1,50
        \_ I really don't know why you bother not saying it's from FR.  -John
2005/4/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:37324 Activity:very high
4/22    Quote going around the blogs today:
        "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is
        absolute -- where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should
        he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his
        parishioners for whom to vote -- where no church or church school is
        granted any public funds or political preference ... I believe in an
        America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish --
        where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on
        public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any
        other ecclesiastical source -- where no religious body seeks to impose
        its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the
        public acts of its officials." - president John F. Kennedy
        \_ Why did JFK hate America?
            \_ JFK was the first Catholic President, he had no choice but to
                come out strong against religion, since he was a religious
                Minority.  And there were wingnuts in the red states who
                actually thought the vatican might have sway over US policy
                It is similar to why Clinton had to be so hard on drugs during
                his presidency as a known pot-smoker. -phuqm
                his presidency as a known pot-head. -phuqm
                \_ phuqm, it's hard to take anything you say seriously after
                   reading the last sentence in this paragraph.  There is a
                   kernel of truth in what you say, in that Clinton indeed
                   expanded the war on drugs more than any other president
                   before him in part to appear as a Democrat that was
                   "tough on crime."  However, calling him a "known pot-head"
                   just makes you sound like a Freeper.  That's okay, one more
                   motd crank we don't have to pay attention to.
                   \_and one more humor impaired whiner.  Here, I'll give you
                      the bland version:  "Because Clinton took so much heat
                      over his (admitted) marijuana use, he could not afford
                      to appear soft on drugs."  (Does that make it easier
                      for you to parse oh humorless one?).  Also, you or
                      someone editing at the same time as you stepped on
                      two of my posts, punk.
        \_ So?
        \_ and he is wrong.  The 'separation' metaphor is a 20th century
           contrivance by Justice Black in Everson that completely distorts the
           original intent.  Time to put this absurd notion in the trash
           bin of history.
           \_ the wall of seperation metaphore was taken from a letter by
              Jefferson in 1802.  However,  you are right that Kennedy is
              wrong above.  And right in general that it is a bad metaphore
              which does not capture the actual intent of the 1st amendment.
                                        -phuqm
              \_ Jefferson was in France during the time the Bill of Rights
                 was ratified.  He later collaborated with Madison to
                 write the Religious Freedom act in Virginia, which was
                 explicit about a separation.  At the writing of the
                 Bill of Rights almost every colony had a State church.
                 Jefferson himself as President funded Christian missionaries.
                 This type of Federal support for Christian institutions
                 continued until the beginning of the 20th century.
                 In another letter, to Rev. Samuel Miller on
                 Jan. 23, 1808 Jefferson stated, "I consider the
                 government of the U S. as interdicted by the
                 Constitution from intermeddling with religious
                 institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or
                 exercises. This results not only from the provision
                 that no law shall be made respecting the establishment,
                 or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which
                 reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the
                 U.S. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious
                 exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline,
                 has been delegated to the general government. It must
                 then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any
                 human authority."
                 Lastly, it is someone ironic that Pres. Kennedy uses
                 invokes this decision since Justice Black was
                 radically anti-Catholic and even a former member of
                 the KKK.
                  \_ umm, thanks for the history lesson and all, but i'm
                     not sure why this is a response to me.  Do you think
                     you are adding or subtracting from what I said?
                     Who cares where Jefferson was when the Bill of Rights
                     was ratified?  Why is that relavent to this
                     conversation? -phuqm
                  \_ Umm, thanks for the history lesson and all, but i'm
                     unclear on why this is a response to me.  Do you
                     think you are adding or subtracting from what I said?
                     Who cares where Jefferson was when the BofR was
                     ratified?  How does that impact anything that has
                     been said? -phuqm
              \_ JFK's statement cannot be wrong. The statement 'I believe
                 in an America where []' is very different from 'I believe
                 that in America []'. JFK's statement is an expression of
                 what America OUGHT to be rather than what it is (or is
                 required to be under the establishment clause). There is
                 nothing wrong with his belief that America should have
                 more religious separation than the constitution requires.
                 \_ There is more than one way to be wrong.  One can be
                    wrong headed.  Obviouly I am not suggesting that he
                    is wrong about what he believes (though, I don't know
                    that he did believe that).  I am saying that what he
                    believes in (allegedly) is wrong.  -phuqm
                 \_ There is more than one way to be wrong.  One can, for
                    example, be wrong headed.  I obviously did not mean to
                    suggest that he incorrectly stated his beliefs (though
                    he may well have).  -phuqm
                    \_ Perhaps I was not clear. JFK statement indicates
                       that he knew what the 1st amd required and was
                       arguing that this was not enough: the policy
                       of America ought to be complete separation
                       despite the fact that the framers didn't require
                       that. One can disagree w/ his assessment, but the
                       assessment cannot itself be wrong.
                 \_ Side note: wouldn't it be nice to again have a president
                    that could speak in complete sentences?
                    \_ Wouldn't it be nice to have a well spoken liberal
                       candidate that could actually win the election?
                       \_ Hell, liberal or conservative, it's fine with me.
                          Anything would be better than the leader of the
                          free world giving us all the sneaking suspicion
                          that he can't even tie his shoes.
                    \_ You mean like Reagan? Yes.
                        \_ reagan was very charming, regardless of whether
                           or not you agreed with what he said.
2005/4/22-25 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:37319 Activity:high
4/22    Thoughts on the "nuclear option"?  Seems truly crazy to me.
        \_ Is this in relation to something?
           \_ Uh..  do you follow the news at all?
        \_ Until both sides are willing to do a 24-hr round-the-clock
           filibuster, I don't think it's reasonable to even talk about it.
           You can break a filibuster with endurance if you're willing to stay
           up late.  And if the other side is willing to stay and fight it,
           maybe the majority should reconsider.  On the other hand, I think
           the Dems are going nuts blocking judges.
           \_ 10 out of over 200 is nuts?  Maybe the majority should remember
              what "compromise" means. I bet you'll be the first screaming
              for cloture rules to be reinstated when the D's take back the
              Senate.
              \_ Well, "10 out of over 200" is misleading.  The Democrats
                 blocked 17 of 52 Bush appellate nominees, roughly 1/3.  Of
                 course, the Republicans blocked 16 of 51 Clinton second
                 term appellate nominees too.  So the Democrats are slighly
                 less accommodating, but both sides play this game.
                 \_ I really don't mind "this game".  For the most part, these
                    nominees are fine.  When someone leans far enough to either
                    side to get more than 40 people to say NO, it _should_ be
                    a red flag.
                 \_ Explain to me again how this is "going nuts."
                    \_ Did I comment on "nuts" one way or the other?  I merely
                       explained that "10 out of over 200" is misleading, when
                       it was really "17 of 52".  Nor did I single out the
                       Democrats, when I took pains to point out that
                       Republicans did the same thing.  You need to 1) calm
                       down, and 2) work on your reading comprehension.
                 \_ This is a bit deceptive.  The Clinton nominees were
                    blocked, but by the majority in the Senate, not by a
                    filibuster.
           \_ You can approve judges if you can get 51 votes out of the Senate
              (or 50 votes + VP Cheney) every time.  Considering you have 55
              Republican senators, all you need are 50 rubber stamps to pack
              the courts.  Breaking a filibuster requires 60 votes.
              Filibustering is rarely used, because who wants to stay up all
              night when you could compromise?
              However, you can also get 50 votes to make a rule that says you
              can't filibuster anymore on judges.
              In which case, you can then employ 50 rubber stamps on any judge
              you want.
              Is this legal?  Yes.
              Is this good for America?  I really doubt it.
              \_ Don't you also need to attain cloture on a rule change?
                 \_ Apparently not.
              \_ Staying up all night sounds so theatrical and dramatic, but
                 in the modern Senate all that is required is for a senator
                 to state an intent to filibuster.  Requiring a senator to
                 pull an all-nighter might interfere with the real Senate
                 business of sucking up to special interests and banging
                 underage pages.
                 \_ What's your point again?
                    \_ Just correcting the inaccurate claim that a filibuster
                       requires a senator "to stay up all night".  Some of us
                       care about factual things.
                       \_ So all a senator has to do is "state an intent
                          to filibuster"?  What do they do after that?
                          Note how I haven't claimed "that a filibuster
                          requires a senator 'to stay up all night'".  Read
                          the wording carefully -- the words are "who wants
                          to stay up all night when you could compromise",
                          not "a filibuster requires a senator to stay up
                          all night".
                          \_ Well, the exact words were "Filibustering is
                             rarely used, because who wants to stay up all
                             night..."
                             \_ Why don't you answer my question, which
                                should address the key question of how
                                difficult it is to filibuster.
                                What does a filibustering senator do after
                                stating an intent to filibuster?
                                \_ Do?  Nothing.  If there are enough votes
                                   for cloture, fine.  If not, the filibustered
                                   bill gets tabled.  You might want to read
                                   the wikipedia entry on filibusters.
                                   \_ I did read it.  Please quote the section
                                      which shows (in more or less words):
                                      "If there are enough votes for cloture,
                                      fine.  If not, the filibustered bill gets
                                      tabled."
                                      Be very careful with your interpretation.
                                      \_ "What happens if the Senate fails to
                                         invoke cloture?   The debate
                                         continues. Generally, the Senate
                                         majority leader . in this case
                                         Frist . will simply give up trying
                                         to have the chamber vote on the
                                         measure in question and move on to
                                         another issue."
                                         http://csua.org/u/btx
                                         \_ What's your problem?
                                            Why aren't you quoting wikipedia
                                            like I asked?  You're the one who
                                            brought up wikipedia.
                                            \_ I am large, I contain
                                               multitudes.
                                               multitudes. --chiapet
        \_ The Constitution explicity names six instances where supermajorities
           are required, appellate judge nominations is not one of them.
           The use of filibusters to prevent nominations is historically
           rare, until Bush's 1st and 2nd term.
           A Senate majority is allowed to change procedural rules, and so
           they should.
           Lastly, it is a sad day indeed when espousing the beliefs of the
           founders, as did Janice Rogers Brown, makes you a controversial
           nominee.  Unfortunately this is not the first time.
           \_ "A Senate majority is allowed to change procedural rules, and
              so they should."  Just because you can doesn't mean you "should".
              Legal?  Yes.
              Good for America?  I really doubt it.
2005/4/18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:37234 Activity:low
4/18    OKC Bombing Linked to al-Qaida
        http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/4/17/112700.shtml
        \_ find a non newsmax link and i MIGHT click on it.
        \_ Hillary Clinton killed Vince Foster to keep this
           from leaking out.
           \_ But HRC is merely a pawn in the game masterminded by the
              Freemasons and the Jews!
              \_ Yeah, whatever. How much did the Illuminati pay you to post
                 that red herring?
2005/4/17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:37227 Activity:nil
4/16    Doing the jobs American's won't do.  First aircraft mechanics, now
        ship builders for the Navy.
        Audit Shows Illegal Workers Hired
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1384322/posts
2005/4/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Finance/Investment] UID:37121 Activity:nil
4/8     Dear motd guy who pointed the census graph, I imported data to
        Excel and it's clear to me that the top 5% are gaining yearly income
        at a rate much faster rate than the poorest. The exaggerated data point
        is 1992 when the top 5% richest got 24.3% increase in income and the
        poorest got a measly 1.57%. I mean, we can stop arguing whether income
        gap is increasing or not because clearly it is. I mean, what is your
        stance on this now? Do we start arguing whether income gap is a good
        thing or not?      FYI: http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/f03.html
        I think that our argument is becoming more and more similar to M$
        lawsuits. First M$ lawyers argue that they don't have a monopoly,
        and when they failed to convince people otherwise they argue that
        monopoly is GOOD for the industry (by unifying standards, etc).
        \_ I thought the argument was about whose fault it was (Clinton's).
           \_ How so? The chart showed the gap growing steadily over the last
              twenty five years. Note that I am not discounting this line of
              reasoning, as the hollowness of the Clinton boom shows up in
              other sources. This source did not lead me to that conclusion,
              though. -- ulysses
           \_ Perhaps, but it's easier to say there's a growing disparity
              in wealth (like, no, really?) than to assign blame for it to
              Clinton.
              \_ Because one is true, and the other is trollish.
        \_ What this may be missing is that the top 5% richest people are
           not always the same people. People's income (and wealth, which
           is not the same) goes up and down over time. What if I said
           that the gap was increasing, but that 10 years from now the
           people in the bottom 5% would be in the top 5%? (Not true, but
           illustrating the point.) Would the gap matter so much? To me,
           what matters most is turnover. How hard is it to get into the
           top x% and how hard is it to stay there? Historically, wealthy
           people lose their wealth within 3 generations. There is pretty
           good wealth turnover in this country unlike in, say, Europe.
           \_ If you lose your wealth after only 3 generations, then it means
              that you're either not Jews or Asian. In another word, just
              another regular Joe white trash.
              \- Check out this book (Perfectly Legal): http://csua.org/u/bmb
                 It is a bit tendentious, but much of the stuff is really
                 disturbing and some of the statistics are so over the top
                 [like in wealth distribution] it's not a matter of marginal
                 interpretation. BTW, reading this during tax season can
                 lead to depression. --psb
                 \_ "Perfectly Legal, The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax
                     System to Benefit the Super Rich - and Cheat Everybody
                     Else". Partha, you already know this is happening, and
                    so does everyone else. Why should I spend $16 on Amazon
                    (who by the way donates 1/2 mil to Republicans) to read
                    about something I already know is happening?
                    \- then dont buy/read it. or get it from the lib. --psb
                 \_ Is this an anti-Republican, pro-Democrat book in disguise?
              \_ Oddly enough, it's an old Chinese proverb that wealth doesn't
                 last pass 3 generations.
        \_ Look jackass, I pointed out that graph to prove to you that
           your contention that the poor got poorer during the Clinton
           Administration was demonstratably false. I never said anything
           about the rich getting richer. That is your trip. I even agreed
           with you. Keep ranting on about it if it makes you feel better.
2005/4/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:37103 Activity:high
4/7     Watch popular conservative blog get it wrong on authenticity of
        Schiavo memo:  http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2005_03.php#009953
        The third possibility is that the memo is a Democratic dirty trick.
        At the moment, that looks most likely.  It is easy to picture how the
        document could have been constructed.  A Democratic staffer wants to
        put in some language that will sound authentic for a Republican memo.
        What does he do?  He steals four paragraphs from the Coalition's web
        site.  Then he adds the explosive political observations which are the
        whole point of the exercise--weirdly out of place in a "talking
        points" memo, but good politics for the Democrats.
        \_ You stopped taking your meds, didn't you?
        \_ i think a republican staffer just resigned for writing the
           memo - danh
           \_ A Florida Senator's legal counsel with close ties to... Tom DeLay.
           \_ You are correct.
           \_ Bahh, I have no need of your useless facts or logic!
           \_ From the Sun-Sentinel in Florida: http://csua.org/u/blx
        \_ You stopped taking your meds, didn't you?
        \_ Do you see the black helicopters too?
           \_ You two do realize the paragraph is taken verbatim from the URL?
        \_ Powerline is no better than The Free Republic.
           \_ Nor is Sean Hannity, nor Rush Limbaugh, nor Michelle Malkin,
              nor any of the other commentators who jumped on the meme that
              the memo was forged by dems.
              \_ Wow--I guess it's a good sign that I hadn't heard this nutty
                 theory.  Sounds just as wacky as the Dems who claim that the
                 CBS memos were authored by Karl Rove as a trap for the left.
                 \_ To her credit (never expected to say that...) Malkin came
                    to her senses today.
                    http://michellemalkin.com/archives/002017.htm
                    \_ Not really. Rather than apologize for spreading a
                       false rumour, she gets all snarky and defensive
                       ands makes a bunch more unsubstantiated attacks.
                       \_ Actually she links to an earlier blog entry where
                          she says other bloggers believed the forgery rumors,
                          not her, and another blog where she attacked the
                          believability of a report suggesting so.
                          now why do i feel so dirty?
        \_ Powerline is just as much of a right-wing loony bin as Dailykos over
           on the left.
        \_ Mediamatters has an entire timeline on how this crap got into the
           mainstream media.  This all just reminds me of that Negativland
           record "Helter Stupid."
           http://mediamatters.org/items/200504070005
           \_ Heh.
              "I think within a week or two it will become clear that it--that
              memo was a forgery, possibly written by Democrats on the Hill in
              an effort to discredit Republicans." -Tucker Carlson
2005/4/5-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Reference/Tax] UID:37075 Activity:high
4/5     Pope JP2's death reminds me of Ronald Reagan's death. I don't agree
        with most of Reagan's policies and in fact I think they're stupid.
        Tax break for the super wealthy, military spending explosion,
        aggressive [redneck] foreign policies, etc. However, when he's on
        camera he's so nice looking and charming and I just can't help it
        liking him. Ditto with JP2. I don't agree with b-control and other
        crap JP2 says but I still like him for some reason.
        \_ A tax cut that moved the highest bracket from 70% to 28%.  70%!!?!
           How did we ever allow that?  It's immoral!
           \_ You shouldn't tax the rich, they CREATE jobs and equal
              opportunity for everyone! Just look at Microsoft, WalMart,
              and Dell! Every employee looks so happy and they REALLY believe
              in their company! Let's all turn America into one big happy
              corporate family. Yeah!
              \_ You're being dense.  Nobody's arguing against taxing "the
                 rich" (what the hell kind of dumbshit stupid, ill-educated
                 American fat-buttocked Fox viewer demagoguery is that,
                 anyway?)  The point is that taking 70% of a person's
                 earnings is, besides being counter-productive (as it removes
                 the motivation to excel, etc. etc.) is just theft.  Please
                 stop it with the "anyone who argues against fleecing teh
                 r1ch is a bloated plutocrat pig, workers of the world
                 unite!" horse shit, it's unworthy.  -John
                 \_ According to your argument, any tax at all is "theft."
                    What is the difference between taxing at 70% and 50%?
                    50% and 20%? Do you think that all taxes should be
                    abolished because they are "theft"? Why not? What is
                    magical about 70%? Plenty of countries tax at
                    a marginal 70% rate and somehow manage to muddle through.
                    \_ I believe that any tax taken, regardless of rate, by
                       a government that does not do its utmost to use its
                       citizens' money responsibly and conservatively is
                       theft.  Nowhere from my statement can you infer that I
                       belive "any tax at all is theft".  Furthermore, while
                       there is a large gray area, there comes a point at
                       which taxation is oppressive.  I maintain that, once
                       more of your earnings are taken from you as taxes than
                       go to you, a boundary of what is reasonable has been
                       crossed.  And I believe you used the magic word,
                       "muddle".  Is that something to strive for?  -John
              \_ Microsoft has made a lot of very ordinary Americans very
                 wealthy.
                 \_ The Waltons were smarter than Gates, they made sure their
                    money didn't leak out as in the case of M$.
           \_ It is inhumane to tax the super rich. Imagine the pain
              Paris Hilton has to go through when she can only afford to buy a
              BMW 740i instead of a Ferrari Testarosa, or the suffering of
              George W. Bush when he can only play at a cheapo 4 star golf
              course instead of a full fledged 5 star golf course. It's
              simply unusual and cruel punishment.
              \_ It doesn't even cause that. They still afford what they want.
              \_ Don't forget Paris resorted to making herself a porn in order
                 to afford a BMW 740i.  That's cruel punishment.
           \_ Do you not understand how marginal tax rates work?
              \_ Yes I do.  A 70% marginal rate is immoral.
                 \_ What a strange and twisted version of ethics you must have.
           \_ I could argue it's immoral to allow billionares to exist when
              there are people starving.
              \_ It's immoral to allow my neighbor to own a Ferrari when I
                 only drive an Audi.  What the fuck kind of argument is this?
                 Spawning season on planet thick?  -John
                 \_ Having to drive an Audi is not very much like starving
                    to death. Your analogy is flawed.
                    \_ Of course it's flawed, it's downright silly.  Now tell
                       me where exactly the line is.  Until then you have no
                       argument.  And from whom should we expropriate assets
                       to feed all these people?  Billionaires?  Millionaires?
                       Over $500k?  $100k?  Yes it sucks that there's poverty
                       and starvation and hurt and whatnot and we should all
                       do what we can, but please, do give me a working model
                       that relies on a Robin Hood approach.  -John
                       \_ Just because I cannot give you an exact answer
                          without further experimentation doesn't mean
                          that no experiment is worth doing. Sweden is
                          a pretty good working model, I would say. So
                          are Canada, Denmark, The Netherlands, Germany,
                          France, Italy and even Switzerland.
                          \_ I am going to guess that you subscribe to the
                             utopian ideals of Europe and Canada instead
                             of witnessing the realities.
                             \_ No, I have been to all these countries.
                                Canada and The Netherlands are especially nice.
                                \_ Holland *USED* to be nice. My mother
                                   was born there and lived there until 16.
                                   All the rest of her family is still there.
                                   They used to always make fun of how bad
                                   things like education, crime, and medicine
                                   were in the US. Now, many of them are
                                   shopping for houses here in the US. It's
                                   not nice like it once was. The system is
                                   collapsing.
                          \_ Sweden has been haemorrhaging educated
                             professionals for years who forsake it for the
                             UK (!) and its lower taxes.  All Scandinavian
                             countries have massive immigration problems, and
                             can't cope (as the rest of Europe) with their
                             overburdened welfare systems.  Switzerland has
                             way lower taxes and stingy welfare, and will face
                             the same problems.  You're right about "it's
                             worth trying something".  But blind truisms about
                             redistribution of wealth at the expense of "the
                             rich" isn't it.  Some people will always simply
                             be wealthier than others--life isn't fair; you
                             cannot enforce uniform economic equality.  -John
                             \_ No one is arguing for enforced equality. That
                                is a straw man you made up to avoid talking
                                about the real issue: what is a fair top
                                marginal rate. You claim that 70% is immoral,
                                but have provided no evidence as to why that
                                is so, other than your feelings. Sweden is
                                doing fine economically actually, much better
                                than the rest of Europe. And "the line" to
                                answer your previous question, is that point
                                where society provides enough resources to
                                keep anyone from starving to death. I don't
                                think it is too much to ask from those who
                                are the primary beneficiaries of that same
                                society.
                                \_ OK.  To be honest, I would add "a roof over
                                   everyone's head" and even "education" to
                                   that mix.  I simply massively criticize the
                                   extreme polemicization of the idea of
                                   forced redistribution--i.e. the systematic
                                   fleecing of "the rich" rather than a
                                   decent tax system (which nobody's arguing
                                   against.)  Governments are massively
                                   inefficient organizations, and it's wrong
                                   to use the classic European welfare states
                                   as examples of how to do things right--they
                                   have been either stagnant or coming apart
                                   at the seams.  Yes, Holland is nice, but as
                                   a visitor don't let utopian visions cloud
                                   your impressions.  I spend a lot of time
                                   in W. Europe and the UK, and there are too
                                   many problems to elaborate on, a lot of
                                   them caused by over-bureaucratization and
                                   crazy government taxation & fiscal
                                   intervention.  -John
                                   intervention.  Oh yeah, and as for Sweden,
                                   you've probably read the Rijksbank report.
                                   Look at http://tinyurl.com/6ut95 too. -John
                                   \_ Communist! Seriously, by American
                                      standards you are some kind of loonie
                                      liberal.
                                      liberal. I have no doubt that bad
                                      government is bad. I see lots of
                                      bureaucratic bungling in San Francisco,
                                      and we have much less to work with than
                                      they do in the Scandanavian countries.
                                      But the solution to this is to make
                                      the government institutions more
                                      efficient. The Swedes seem to like
                                      their government just fine, so they
                                      must be doing something right. Thanks
                                      for the link, btw, I had not seen that.
                                      http://csua.org/u/bm1 (The Economist)
                                      Sweden is the second fastest growing
                                      economy on that list. And if you go
                                      by GDP/capita, which is what really
                                      matters to a person, they rival the US.
It's growing quickly, the quality of life is great, and according to many _/
economic indicators, they're just dandy.  However, this relies on adherence to
a social contract which is slowly coming apart, cultural homogeneity (ditto),
and enough people working to keep up the fun (ditto.)  Economic excellence,
entrepreneurship, and personal mobility seem disparaged (i.e. don't get above
your station, sit around having smiling blond babies.)  Same in many European
countries.  The Swedes (except for aforementioned educated professionals who
are fleeing in droves to avoid taxes) love it, which is great.  This model
would not work in many other places--note how high taxes, bureaucracy and
govt. inefficiency have just about destroyed the German economy--and frankly
it frightens me just a bit.  And yes I probably am a bit of a commie in some
respects--I think that (a) I deserve quality and accountability for _my_ $$$,
and (b) it doesn't have to cost an arm and a leg.  -John
                             \_ I would argue that the massive deficits of
                                the USA give a false sense of economic
                                health.
              \_ please do.
              \_ that's not very Randian of you
                 \_ Or very Jeffersonian.
                    \_ "The property of this country is absolutely concentred
                       in a very few hands ...
                       Another means of silently lessening the inequality
                       of property is to exempt all from taxation below a
                       certain point, and to tax the higher portions of
                       property in geometrical progression as they rise."
                       -Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785
                       \_ He was referring to land, which is truly a limited
                          resource.
                          \_ So would you agree to cut taxes on one's primary
                             home, and ramp up tax rates on 2nd, 3rd homes
                             etc? Currently we have the opposite. The tax
                             situation is better on a 2nd investment home
                             and there's no limits.
                             \_ Sounds reasonable to me. -pp
                             \_ Just cut down on Asian immigration.
                                They're like the Jews in the 30s, buying up
                                cheap land (Silicon Valley land is cheap
                                relative to expensive Tokyo and HK properties)
                                and screwing up us natives. Go final solution!
                                \_ Somehow I doubt you're a "native"
                                \_ Price per sq ft living space in SF is going
                                   to beat HK soon.
                          \_ Don't forget the previous paragraph to his letter:
                             (I am talking about "people starving" vs.
                             billionaires and morality, not necessarily
                             Jefferson's views on an income tax)
                       "As soon as I had got clear of the town I fell in with
                       a poor woman walking at the same rate with myself and
                       going the same course.  Wishing to know the condition of
                       the laboring poor I entered into conversation with her.
                       ... As we had walked together near a mile and she has so
                       far served me as a guide, I gave her, on parting, 24
                       sous. She burst into tears of a gratitude which I could
                       perceive was unfeigned because she was unable to utter a
                       word. ... This little attendrissement, with the solitude
                       of my walk, led me into a train of reflections on that
                       unequal ision of property which occasions the numberless
                       instances of wretchedness which I had observed in this
                       country and is to be observed all over Europe."
                    \_ "The rich alone use imported articles, and on these
                       alone the whole taxes of the General Government are
                       levied ...
                       We shall soon see the final extinction of our national
                       debt, and liberation of our revenues for the defense
                       and improvement of our country. These revenues will be
                       levied entirely on the rich. ... The farmer will see his
                       government supported, his children educated, and the
                       face of his country made a paradise by the
                       contributions of the rich alone, without his being
                       called on to spend a cent from his earnings."
              \_ Look, the Gov't should never get more of my income than I do.
                 That's simple enough.
                 \_ the government didn't get 70% of anyone's income.  Get
                    a clue.  -tom
                    \_ I am sure it did happen. Why not?
                    \_ Of the income in the bracket.  Are you sure no one ever
                       had an effective tax rate of >50%?
                       \_ My overall tax rate, including state and federal
                          was about 40% in 2000, so I would not be surprised
                          at all if someone had a 50%+ rate at some point
                          when the tax rate was higher.
                          \_ Don't forget to add 8% sales tax, > 50% gas taxes,\
                             etc, etc.
                          \_ Don't forget to add 8% sales tax, > 50% gas taxes,
                             etc, etc.
        \_ They were both previously actors.
           \_ Ah-nold!
           \- As I have said many times, this is really at core a conversation
              about "what we owe each other". Well, there are other ways to
              formulate the core question, but it isnt a conversation about
              tax policy alone. You might want to for example google for
              "wilt chamberlain, nozick, liberty upsets patterns". I dont
              have a problem with people being wealthy and in general a very
              asymmetric distribution of wealth. And I also dont think you
              can do much about say the wealthy having better health care
              than the avg person. But in certain areas, we can do something
              about keeping a level playing field or try to have a "floor".
              While the Nozick view about voluntary contribution to Wilt ->
              nobody can complain when he is rich, is complelling, these
              claims that spending money = free speech liberty in a political
              context, so there should not be any limits on campaing spending
              seems iffy and other areas where the state can do something
              about buying influence [like say legacy considerations in
              college admissions, buying organs etc.]. And if you do want to
              tlk about tax policy, let's look at what people actually pay
              rather than one number, the highest marginal tax rate.
        \_ Although I agree 70% is way too high, there should definitely
           be market controls to regulate the free market (not necessarily
           taxes).  I believe a "completely" free Market will eventually lead
           to a caste society with a limited middle class.  The gap in pay
           between average workers and large company CEOs surpassed
           300-to-1 in 2003, but in 1982, it was just 42-to-1. Annual pay was
           $26,899 in 2003, up just 2.1% from 2002 according to the Bureau of
           Labor Statistics. The average large company CEO received
           compensation totaling $8.1 million in 2003, up 9.1% from the
           previous year.  The average worker took home $517 in their
           weekly paycheck in 2003; the average large company CEO took
           home $155,769 in their weekly pay.If the minimum wage had increased
           as quickly as CEO pay since 1990, it would today be $15.71 per hour,
           more than three times the current minimum wage of $5.15 an hour.
           http://tinyurl.com/5tc4t
           \_ Are you stupid? EVERYONE knows that the wealth gap is increasing
              disproportionally esp. in the US and everyone knows that the
              current Reagan-worshipping administration doesn't really give
              a damn. You don't need to spend 10 million dollars on formal
              inquiries to find out if Clinton had sex in the Whitehouse or
              not; it's just common knowledge.
              \_ Speaking of Clinton, the wage gap grew tremendously under
                 Clinton.
                 \- clinton didnt try to repeal the billionaire estate
                    preservation tax. however his pardon of marc rich does
                    give us an example of of the problems that can be avoided.
                 \_ Does it ever shrink?  Did it grow more under Clinton or
                    under Bush?
                    \_ i believe more under Clinton, but he had a booming
                       economy for 7+ years.
                       \_ As wages have DROPPED under bush, this whole point
                          has a definite apples-to-oranges feel.
                 \_ This is simply not true. The poorest quintile's share
                    of national income grew under Clinton. Unless you are
                    talking about something else, like the average ratio\
                    of CEO pay to worker pay. What are you talking about?
                    talking about something else, like the average ratio
                    of CEO pay to worker pay. What are you talking about?
                 \_ References please
                    \_ google for: wage gap under clinton. here's an example:
                        http://www.ncpa.org/pd/economy/pdeco/dec97nnn.html
                        \_ Here are much better statistics:
           http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy441/trends/share1.html
                           Go look at the whole site. The top got richer,
                           but the poor did not get poorer. It was the middle
                           class that really took a hit under Clinton.
                           \_ That's an odd conclusion to reach from the data
                              there.
                              \_ In 1992, the bottom quintile took 4.2% of
                                 the national income. In 2000, they took
                                 4.3%. 4.3 is larger than 4.2, right?
                                 \_ I was talking about the "middle class ..
                                    took a hit" conclusion.  The quintiles
                                    moved, but the data are incomplete.  Did
                                    the second or fourth quintile grow?
                                    \_  http://csua.org/u/bm0
                                        The top quintile made a bunch more
                                        and the bottom stayed the same. It
                                        should be pretty easy to figure out
                                        who is left and what happened to them.
                                        \_ Look at the full data:
                                           http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/f03.html
                                           income increased for all levels
                                           through the clintotn years.  Bush
                                           takes office and the bottom gets
                                           taken, the middle slows and the
                                           top keeps rising.
              \_ I'm all for Bush, Cheney and Co having wild & raunchy
                 bestiality S&M orgies 24/7 in the White House if it will
                 make my stock portfolio go back up to 2000 levels when
                 Clinton was getting in trouble for getting his cock sucked.
                 \_ Well you could have done *better* than 2000 had you gotten
                    in/out of Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Enron. A lot of
                    Texans didn't get in/out of the tech era, but now they're
                    pretty happy with the current administration. Sucks 2 b u.
                        \_ I did fine actually, just no longer rich on paper.
2005/3/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:36724 Activity:nil
3/16    New White House cliche: "We were all wrong"
        We were "all" wrong about WMD, "all" wrong about deficits:
        http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050316/greenspan_2.html
        \_ Don't forget:  "If confronted with the same evidence we had back
           then, I would recommend exactly what I recommended then"
2005/3/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:36714 Activity:moderate
3/16    Why is Congress investigating steroid use in baseball? Were the
        steroids illegal?
        \_ Yes.  But it seems that there might be a few things more pressing
           for Congress's attention right now...
        \_ My question would be: why does the Congress care about steoid use in
           baseball?  If it's legal, leave them alone.  If it's illegal, leave
           them to the judicial branch.
           \_ Bread and circuses my friend.  Bread and circuses.
           \_ Interestingly, congress gave baseball a special exemption from
              anti-trust law.  So they do have special status according to
              congress.
        \_ Kind of like how our tax dollars are wasted policing things like
           illegal MP3 and movie trading? Or for that matter, the whole
           "war on drugs" which has resulted in nothing but wasted lives
           and wasted money? Welcome to the world of politics, my friend.
           \_ I'm not your friend.
              \_ Welcome to the world of politics, you dick.
              \_ I think he was being mildly patronizing and you're clearly
                 too stupid to pick up on that, my overly literal and rather
                 obtuse friend.
                 \_ I knew he was being patronizing and was calling him out on
                    that.  Now who's being obtuse, friend?
                    \_ Hmm.  No, it's still you.  Train harder, grasshopper.
                       \_ You're a doody-head!  NYAH NYAH NYAH!!!
                          \_ I guess this means that you're not \my\ friend
                             either...thank God.
        \_ Just for fun, order these by how much the government spent on each:
           Investigating Bill Clinton's alleged real estate fraud
           Investigating why the last space shuttle tragedy happened
           Investigating the 9/11 terrorist attacks
           \_ Looks like you already have.
2005/3/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:36592 Activity:high
3/9     http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/08/politics/main678902.shtml
        Hilary Clinton may run in 2008. WTF are the Democrats thinking? First
        they bring in the oh so boring Goring, then the uncharismatic Kerry,
        and now this? How lame can they be    -disillusioned, former democrat
        \_ in other news, her financier pleads guilty to massive
           fraud, and her finance director is indicted.
           Ex-Stan Lee Chief Peter Paul to Plead in Securities
           Case (demands Hillary to "take responsibility")
           http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1358025/posts
           Obviously this is part of the VRWC
           Obviously this is part of the VRWC -Disillusioned Freeper
        \_ Look, if you are a former democrat, we aren't really interested
           in your opinion. She *might* run. If you were a democrat, you
           *might* have something to say about it. But you don't, so shut
           up. I personally think she is a great candidate. -former independent
           up. I personally think she is a great candidate. It is listening
           to people like you that got us John Kerry. Howard Dean would
           have been the candidate if the Democrats had any sense. He either
           would have A) won outright or B) energized the party by adding
           millions of enthusiastic young people to it. Instead we got
           boring Kerry. -former independent
           \_ Dipshit, the party was energized.  Kerry got far more votes than
              Gore did, and raised more money than any candidate ever except
              GW in the same election.  Let's face it: Kerry didn't lose, Bush
              won.
              \_ Are you former democrat?
                 \_ I'm a former independent.  I joined so I could vote in the
                    2004 primary. I supported Dean until he dropped out, but
                    I genuinely liked Kerry, and was happy to support him for
                    the remainder of the race.
              \_ Droopy face didn't have a chance.  What we really need is a
                 character who isn't going to be owned by a weak accusation
                 like "flip flopper."  Kerry did not have the charisma nor
                 the strength to beat Bush and we are getting killed or it
                 now.  You need someone that people can like, like frat boy
                 Bush, to actually get some votes.  -mrauser
                 \_ Look, it is hard to beat an incumbent president.  Since
                    the Great Depression it has only happened three times;
                    once after Watergate, and twice during significant
                    recessions.  "We didn't beat the incumbent" is the
                    expected result.  We don't need to wring our hands
                    about what we did wrong; I do think we need to figure
                    out what the message will be in 2006/2008.  I wish
                    the Democrats would do a better job of not letting
                    Republicans frame the issues.  -tom
                    \_ Not to disagree with you, but
                       Ann Coulter framing the issues:
                       http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43219
                       \_ Ann "the best way to talk to a liberal is with
                          a baseball bat"  Coulter? Is that the kind of
                          framing you refer to???
                          \_ Coulter's spittle is not really what I'm referring
                             to.  It's more like things like "death tax" or
                             "welfare reform", where the Republicans have
                             managed to frame the debate in such a way that
                             the Democrats argue not over whether the
                             Republican ideas are fundamentally wrong, but
                             over how to implement the Republican ideas in a
                             different way.  -tom
                                       \- That is Grover Power.
                          \_ Are you ready?  Are you?  Here comes...
                             "Howard Dean - chairman of the party that supports
                             murder, adultery, lying about adultery, coveting
                             other people's money, stealing other people's
                             money, mass-producing human embryos for spare
                             parts like an automotive chop shop and banning
                             God - has called the Republican Party 'evil.'"
                             Feel the love.
                             \_ I got a granny who's never seen an online
                                forum that could troll better than this.
                      \_Say what you will about my Darlin' Anne, THIS is funny:
                        "Aspiring first lady Teresa Heinz claims the election
                         was stolen through the machinations of a vast
                         conspiracy involving Republican polling machine
                         manufacturers. We eagerly await a Michael Moore
                         documentary to flesh out the details."
                         \_ THIS is an old gag is what it is but whatever
                            floats your boat...
2005/3/8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:36581 Activity:moderate
3/8     Why do conservatives have such a deep personal hatred of Hillary
        Clinton?  I've seen her referred to as the "Evil One" on freerepublic,
        and I'm a little confused as to why the hatred for her is so personal.
        \_ She's feminism, pro-choice, and lying bitch all rolled into one.
           They do have some regard for toughness, so in this respect think
           she bests Bubba in this respect.
        \_ Her power makes their penis seem even smaller.
        \_ From what I remember in the early 90's, it was because she was
           very active in pushing her health care reform plan even though
           she was never elected as a policy-maker. At least that's when the
           hatred began.
2005/3/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36565 Activity:very high
3/7     Isn't it weird that 33 people got killed in Iraq today and it's no
        longer on headline news? Instead, Michael Jackson's trial is
        on it. It's like we no longer care about deaths in Iraq. Weird.
        \_ But those are brown people.
           \_ good point, thanks. I guess they'll be on headline news when
              they're white, or when they're brown people with special
              Vitilgo skin whitening disease and noses that change frequently
           \_ MJ is white though
              \_ and female.
                 \_ And he *loves* children.
        \_ It's not on the Conservative Media Cartel's list of stuff the public
           should be informed about.  Kind of like Gannongate, which, if it
           had happened under President Clinton, would be broadcast 24/7 like
           Monica Lewinsky was.
           \_ Oh come, ON.  You don't think there's a difference between a
              reporter getting 1-day passes to press conferences, and a
              president commiting perjury?
              \_ Do you think there's a difference between lying a personal
                 matter and lying about the need for war?
              \_ Do you think there's a difference between lying about a
                 personal matter and lying about the need for war?  Or how
                 'bout marital infidelity vs. outing a CIA agent working on
                 WMD proliferation (to bring the argument closer to Guckie).
                 I'm sickened that Clinton would cheat on his wife.  I'm
                 sickened that he lied under oath.  But it was a personal
                 matter and a civil suit and it was thrown out as meritless.
                 Also, no one fucking died.
                 \_ it was not thrown out. He was disbarred in Ark. and
                    before the USSC.  The suit was settled for money.
                    How is Iraq and different than Kosovo, at least we
                    are fighting on the right side this tims.
                    \_ Are you pro-Serb?  I am not quite energetic right now
                       enough to tell you why Iraq is not Serbia. - danh
                       \_ It smelled of "Christian: good.  Muslim: bad."
                          bullshit.  I'm guessing emarkp.
                    \_ The settlement was on appeal.  The case was dismissed
                       in a summary judgement: "There are no genuine issues
                       for trial in this case." - Judge Susan Webber Wright
                 \_ 'Also, no one fucking died.'  I think it's a little trickier
                    than that.  People can die because of indirect action
                    (sanctions, etc), and inaction.  If you want to pin
                    unintended casualties on Bush, I will pin people Saddam
                    killed during Clinton's term on Clinton. -- ilyas
                    \_ Don't forget Vince Foster. He died.
                       \_ I think we should execute Bush for killing Iraqi
                          children.  With his texan, oil-stained hands. -- ilyas
                    \_ How many millions starve to death each year just
                       because there is no profit in feeding them???
                    \_ We are talking about American lives here.
                 \_ Wow, I'm impressed.  That was a very successful
                    subject change.  "Dang, he caught me in a stupid
                    statement!  Change the subject!  Bush Bad!"
                    \_ Conservatives prefer a bumbling but honest fool to an
                       intelligent prevaricator.
               \_ A political hack, with no journalistic experience but
                  working as a prostitute, somehow gets a press pass
                  in order to lob softballs week after week. Yes, this
                  is a scandal. Not on the order of Monicagate though.
2005/2/19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:36250 Activity:nil
2/19    emarkp, jrleek, did it piss you guys off when Clinton had sex with all
        these women? Did you think that he was an incapable president for
        having sex in white house and that he should have been impeached for it?
        \_ I have a related question. How many of you were pissed off that
           the President of the Nnited States had to settle for a fat ugly
           LA girl? If he's going to be boining in the White House it
           should have been a HOTTIE.
        \_ I'm getting tired of these anonymous questions directed at me.  I'll
           just comment that Clinton was not impeached for having sex in the
           white house. -emarkp
2005/2/19-20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:36249 Activity:nil
2/19    Looking for quotes that are syntactially different, but are equivalent
        semantically. I'll start:
        \_ BlockBuster: "There is NO LATE FEE. There is a restocking fee after
                         7 days"
           \_ "The end of late fees... the start of more."
           Clinton: "I did not have sex with that woman. Monica Lewinski. I did
                     have oral actions with her."
           Bush: "There will be NO DRAFT. Extended volunteer will be required
                  for some people."
                  \_ who are already in the military... Nice one troll.
                     \_ Some soldiers who were already scheduled to leave
                        or wanted to leave have not been allowed. --> Draft.
                        \_ Is that "equivalent"?
2005/2/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Science/Space] UID:36165 Activity:high
2/14    Eileen M. Collins, commander of the upcoming space shuttle flight, a
        former colonel in the Air Force and a veteran of three spaceflights,
        said "I'm a person who won't even get on a roller coaster at an
        amusement park because they scare me. I've been on one once, and I
        won't do it again."
        I find this very hard to believe.
        http://csua.org/u/b1q (Yahoo! News)
        \_ Typical error about military astronauts - they are not former
        \_ You should read Chuck Yeager's autobiography where he claims that
           he now drives like an old lady.  Just because someone can tolerate
           risk when they're in control and NASA engineers are in charge of
           safty doesn't mean they like to put their lives in the hands of
           random idiots for fun.
        \_ HH would test pilot first run planes but was afraid of doorknobs
           \_ Do recomend the Aviator?
              \_ It's got some cool visuals and is neat for the whole 1930s
                 glam environment, but drags a bit and is pretty Hollywood-y,
                 and has too many random loose ends.  See a matinee.  -John
           \_ HH?
              \_ Just a guess: Howard Hughes.
                 \_ Heh, right.  Gotitnow.  -PP
        \_ "Could I pass the challenge of a background check? My answer is
           absolutely. Not only could I pass the background check and the
           standards applied to today's White House, but I could have
           passed the background check and the standards applied on the most
           stringent conditions when my dad was President -- a 15-year period."
           -President GW Bush (August 1999)
           \_ And this is relevant because? Get over it - you lost
              \_ Our President is a former cokehead / drunk!
                 An astronaut is afraid of rollercoasters!
                 Also:  Get over it - our President is still an object of
                        ridicule.
                 \_ All presidents are objects of ridicule.
                    \_ Not Clinoccio!
                    \_ Correct, but we now have one whose oral abilities
                       are comparable to or worse than Dan Quayle's
                       (ob Clinton-Monica joke)
        \_ [political troll deleted]
        \_ I'm terrified of rollercoasters.  I don't like being up high on a
           structure that shakes.  But I enjoy flying.
2005/2/11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Foreign] UID:36149 Activity:high
2/11    Jesus fucked on a crutch.  49% of americans believe Foreign Aid is
        one of the two biggest government programs.
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/sspoll020905.pdf
        (scroll down a bit)
        \_ Hey but it is down from 67% when Clinton was President!
        \_ 49% of Americans being complete tards? Sounds about right. That's
           the big peak of the bell curve right around that 50% moron point.
           \_ It's closer to 51%.
2005/2/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:36133 Activity:very high
2/10    "No one could have imagined" a plot so monstrous as
        crashing civilian passenger jets into the twin towers of the
        World Trade Center and the Pentagon. -Rice in front of 9/11 Commission
        http://csua.org/u/b0q (AOL news)
        FAA got 52 Warnings before 9/11.
        \_ Did anyone here see the Lone Gunmen pilot episode?  Apparently
           Rice didn't.
        \_ That's nice troll. Why don't you read Robert Serling?
        \_ Uhm, you realize that the government gets literally thousands
           of terrorists threats each day, don't you? If the government were
           to follow up on every threat made we would simply be paralyzed.
           You also realize that the world contains 6 billion people, and
           it's virtually impossible to monitor everyone, right? I'm sure
           the WTC got at least two threats a day before 9/11. What are
           going to do, shut down New York?
           \_ Condi's specific claim is "no one could have imagined" it.
              Obviously, that's not true.  -tom
           \_ Got evidence for this claim? The first and third ones.
           \_ Agreed.  Maybe that was the terrorists' strategy before 9/11 --
              spreading lots of rumors on non-existing attack plans to numb the
              intelligence community.
           \_ Maybe. But the FAA itself knew about the possibility.
              http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=609895
              All that aside, let's see you defend the suppression of info.
              \_ Suppression of info? What a wonderful world of fantasy
                 you live in. On the one hand you chide the president and
                 his men for keeping America in constant fear of terrorism
                 using the alert level system, then you go back in history
                 and complain that before 9/11 we weren't scaring the
                 American public into preventing 9/11. Sorry, but you can't
                 have it both ways. Stop flip-flopping like a Kerryite.
                 Do you want to live in a safe society or do you want to
                 live in a free society? There's no such thing as a
                 completely free society that is completely safe, so pick
                 and choose, chimpy.
                 \_ Uh, no, I was talking about them suppressing info NOW,
                    about what was going on THEN. get it? And pointing out that
                    Rice's statement is patent bullshit.
        \_ You know, if Clancy can think of it to put into one of his pulp
           novels, it's that much of a stretch of the imagination.
           novels, it's not that much of a stretch of the imagination.
        \_ From the independent.co.uk link above: "The latest pages note that
           of the FAA's 105 daily intelligence summaries between 1 April 2001
           and 10 September 2001, 52 of them mentioned Osama bin Laden,
           al-Qa'ida, or both." -- so much for the "thousands and thousands"
           threats BS -- they obviously were pretty sure about this attack.
           \_ The FAA is one organization amongst many. If you collectively
              take up all the organizations such as the FBI, CIA, the
              Secret Service, the Armed Forces, NASA, the American Postal
              System, Amtrak, etc. etc. you'd realize that the government
              does get literally thousands upon thousands of threats per
              day. And before 9/11 nobody even knew or cared much about
              Osama Bin Laden. Hindsight is always 20/20. If you want to
              blame someone you should go and blame Clinton for not picking
              up Osama from Sudan when he was offered to us on a silver
              platter by the Sudanese government.
              Yesterday it was Khaddaffi, today it's Osama, tomorrow it
              could be you. Anyway, terrorists aren't only middle eastern,
              remember an incident in Oklahoma City? So let's try to take
              your head out of your ass and utilize that brain of yours and
              actually think this through before making overarching comments
              based on a small dataset.
              \_ You seem to think volume excuses failure.  Keeping us safe
                 is their JOB.
                 \_ You seem to assume that law enforcement is 100% effective.
                    Unfortunately, the real world is much less perfect than
                    what you assume. If you had ever taken a course on crime
                    you'd realize that perhaps 10% of all crimes are reported,
                    and of that 10% perhaps 25-50% actually are followed up on.
                    \_ Of course not.  There were increased threat reports.
                       There were signs everywhere.  There were warnings
                       from the previous administrations' people.  Bush's
                       White House did NOTHING to act on any of it.  On the
                       day, the Hijack Coordinator at the FAA said he didn't
                       know if he had the authority to order an intercept of
                       a plane, off course and flying low.  DIDN'T KNOW.
                       Intercepts are ordered all the time.  Any time a plane
                       does something it's not supposed to.  And the guy
                       DIDN'T KNOW. that doesn't fucking bother you?
               \_ Blame Reagan for arming him, training him and giving
                  him an international stage.
              \_ That Osama from Sudan story is total BS -- what would we
                 have charged bin Laden with, exactly, in 1996?  Remember,
                 before 9/11, we actually respected international law and
                 such, and didn't just throw people we thought might be
                 dangerous in Gitmo.  The Clinton Administration tried to get
                 Saudi Arabia to take bin Laden and convict him but the Saudis
                 wouldn't take him, fearing a extremist backlash.  So, since
                 you say "20/20 hindsight and all", what EXACTLY should Clinton
                 have done, remembering that back then we actually paid more
                 than lip service to the Constitution and international law?
                 There are thousands of threats made every day, and it is the
                 job of the government
                 to deal with that.  They stop many attacks, they miss some,
                 but it is their job to identify the really really big ones
                 and prevent those.  And they failed on 9/11.  Now, if there
                 was zero intelligence or warning they can be excused but
                 it is becoming clear they had a pretty good idea and didn't
                 do enough.  It is also the airlines' fault for always
                 resisting tougher security measures.  We created Osama
                 bin laden, and when Clinton handed over the keys to Bush
                 HE SPECIFICALLY WARNED BUSH THAT TERRORISM AND BIN LADEN
                 AND AL QUEDA WERE THE BIGGEST THREATS to this country.  So
                 none of this "before 9/11 no one knew/cared about bin laden"
                 There is also the possibility that 9/11 could have happened
                 with or without bin Laden being alive/free.  What's
                 interesting is that you excuse the Bush admin from not
                 stopping the attack saying no one is 100% perfect yet somehow
                 Clinton does get blame -- he has to be 100% perfect?
                 \_ Clinton gets the blame because all of the planning
                    happened under his watch and he did very little. The
                    Cole was bombed, the WTC was bombed, and Clinton
                    thought a missile strike was enough. Clinton was wrong.
                    He doesn't need to be crucified for his mistake, but it
                    was a mistake nonetheless. We don't really know how
                    seriously Bush would have taken these threats if 9/11
                    did not happen, since he had barely been in office. We
                    do know what Clinton did or did not do, though.
                    \_ WTC bombing under clinton was, what, 3 weeks into his
                       presidency?  Have you heard of Project Bojinka?  Year
                       2000 bombing plots?  Bush was in office for 9 months.
                       His people didn't listen to ANYTHING the clinton people
                       said.  We paid the price.
                       \_ How did Clinton respond to the WTC bombing and
                          what did he do to prevent another? You can't
                          blame Bush for 8 years of Clinton ineffectiveness.
                          \_ He arrested and prosecuted those involved you
                             dumb fuck!  He made anti-terrorism a focus of
                             the administration.  They stopped Project Bojinka.
                             They stopped the New Years bombing plot.  How many
                             convictions did Ashcroft deliver?  How many will
                             Gonzales?  You really have no fucking clue.
                             \_ I do not think you can credit Clinton for
                                stopping the Millenium plot. The truth is
                                that Clinton didn't really do anything to
                                enhance US security at home or abroad in
                                spite of frequent attacks against the US.
                                \_ Who would _you_ credit?  Ressam and 3
                                   accomplices were stopped, arrested,
                                   convicted, and Ressam was flipped.  Under
                                   who's watch?
                                   \_ What policy or action of Clinton's
                                      led to the arrest? It was just a
                                      suspicious official looking for drugs
                                      that happened upon the plot.
                                      \_ Border guards had been alerted to
                                         look for suspicious activity.  There
                                         was definitely a degree of luck, but
                                         you can encourage luck by paying
                                         attention.  Jordan warned us.  Clinton
                                         and Co. took notice.
                    \_ Yeah, Bush was only in office for about a year of
                       calendar time, but with all the vacations he was
                       taking, who can say how much work of any kind he did.
                       \_ Not even a year, but Bill was in office for eight.
                          Just comparing Bush's terms to Clinton's so far
                          it is clear tha Bush is better at this, BUT he
                          also has Clinton's failures to point to.
                          \_ Better at what?  Also,, list Clinton's "failures"
                             in this arena.
                             \_ Embassy bombings, USS Cole, Saudi bombings, etc
           \_ Here's another analogy that perhaps will help those who don't
              understand how difficult it is to keep something like airlines
              secure. Even if you did only get one threat everday for a week
              day and you knew say that there was a 70% chance it was real,
              you'd have an exceedingly difficult time pinpointing where
              and actually when it would occur. Let's assume you knew it was
              the WTC even, how many flights are there daily that could have
              been potential targets for the terrorists? Maybe a hundred?
              So what are going to do, stop all flights every day because
              you had a 70% chance of certainty? Void air travel altogether?
              The FAA had 52 threats in a given time period, and they had
              absolutely no probability measure to determine if the threat
              was going to be real. What are you going to do, shut down
              all air travel until all threats disappear?
              Okay, say that you want to mandate safer cockpits or put
              sky marshalls up there for every flight. That's going to take
              a long time to get through congress and longer for the airlines
              to implement without actually having gone through a threat.
              The ultimate question is, how likely is there a risk of a
              terrorist attack and how many people is it going to kill
              and how much pain are people willing to suffer to prevent
              such an attack? It's like the question on how to keep a
              computer completely secure from hackers. There is a real
              easy method, unplug it from the network. Are you willing
              to do that?
              \_ I was critiquing Rice's obviously BS excuse that she
                 gave the 9/11 Commission, not the failure itself.
           \_ Why do you think Ashcroft started using a private jet to get
              around the country instead of using an airline?
              \_ Because the air traffic control frequencies used by commercial
                 airlines interfere with his 2 way radio to God?
2017/11/22 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
11/22   

2005/2/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36129 Activity:very high
2/10    http://www.amconmag.com/2005_02_14/article.html
        Heil Bush.  Article by conservative writer about the birth of
        fascism in Germany and present-day US.
        \_ Does it use the word 'neocon'?  (okay, I checked--what a surprise it
           does.)
           \_ I know you guys are upset because we came up with a word
              that pisses you off as much as us being called liberals pisses
              us off.  Payback's a b****.
              \_ I don't get pissed off by "liberal".  I'm liberal and proud.
                 --scotsman
              \_ Except conservatives didn't come up with 'liberal'.  The whole
                 'neocon' usage has been a too-thinly-veiled attempt to
                 associate conservatives with neo-nazis IMO.  That fact that no
                 one can define 'neocon' doesn't help.
                 \_ Wrong:
                    http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html
                    Here is another (similar) definition:
                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States
                    What is the definition of a liberal?
                    \_ Hehe.  There is no way me and Cheney can belong to the
                       same ideological group.  We disagree on almost
                       everything.  -- ilyas
                       \_ I don't believe you and I'm not trolling. If this is
                          so, I would like to see it elucidated. Near as I can
                          tell from reading your stuff here for the past
                          couple of years, you've been a consistent apologist
                          for Cheney and his ilk the entire time. That might
                          not, I suppose, mean you *agree* with him. That's
                          fine. On a great number of things I didn't agree with
                          Kerry or Dean. -- ulysses
                          \_ Oh, I just go by the issue quiz I took during the
                             2000 election, where I agreed with him the least,
                             and with Lieberman the most (omg j00!).  I don't
                             think I am an 'apologist' for the Bush
                             administration policies -- I don't like a number
                             of things they did; the war in Iraq is not one
                             of them.  (I also liked how you framing me as an
                             'apologist' also neatly frames their entire
                             tenure as something that needs an apology).
                             Bush admin != Cheney.  Near as I can
                             tell the only remotely controversial thing about
                             Cheney was the Halliburton thing, which I have
                             no problems with for reasons unrelated to my
                             disagreements with Cheney himself.  One thing
                             I really like about Cheney is that he's really
                             smart. -- ilyas
                       \_ I suspect you and Cheney can both agree that Tom is
                          a twink.
                          \_ Touche. -- ilyas
                       \_ There is one obvious solution: you are not a neocon.
                          \_ A fair number of people on soda will disagree
                             with you.  Which is sort of my point.  It's a
                             non-concept. -- ilyas
                             \_ How about "signatories to PNAC"?
                    \_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States
              \_ What pisses me off is the neo-liberals hijacking the
                 "liberal" name.
        \_ Thanks for the article.  I realize that Nazis are often used to
           criticize political opponents who are nothing of the sort, but I
           this is a valid comparison.  I used to wonder how the Nazi party
           could come to power in a democracy, but after living through the
           first Bush administration I can now imagine it.  When the leaders
           of a country are so convinced that they are right that they will
           repeatedly deceive everyone else about their policies, disaster
           can't be far behind.  Unfortunately, I think that our country is
           so polarized that people can no longer have a rational discussion
           about this.
           \_ You are actually comparing Bush's first term to Nazi Germany?
              WTF?  How tight is your tin-foil hat?
              \_ Did you read the article?  It compares the rise of fascist
                 tendencies in Germany pre-WW2 to a similar rise in post-9/11
                 America.  There is no direct comparison between Bush's first
                 term to Nazi Germany, but rather a comparison between the
                 term and the factors existing in Germany that _preceeded_
                 fascism. -op
                 \_ I think you are just needlessly confusing things by
                    your repeated referencing of Nazi Germany. There were
                    many many countries that have been fascist that were
                    not racialist, the way the Nazis were. Franco or
                    Mussolini are better examples to use because they
                    less emotion laden.
                    \_ point taken. edited accordingly. -op
                    \_ Dude, you said racialist.
                 \_ No, I have not read the article and have no intention of
                    doing so.  I'm worn out from so many stupid attempts to
                    call Bush Hitler.  It was done in that UCB study last year,
                    and it's been done elsewhere.  Here's an idea.  Read the
                    essay again and try to match anyplace else to Nazi Germany.
                    I'm confident you'll be able to compare Clinton or anyone
                    else as well as Bush.
                    \_ The article doesn't call Bush Hitler.  In fact, it
                       doesn't even call Bush fascist:  "I don't think there
                       are yet real fascists in the administration ..."  As
                       mentioned in prior posts, the article is about the
                       populace more than the leadership. -op
                    \_ The magazine it is written is The American Conservative,
                       not some lefty rag. For that reason at least, you
                       should be willing to read it.
                       \_ Meh.  I've never read the mag before, why should I
                          read it now?  This paragraph grabbed my attention and
                          made me realize it's full of crap:
                "But Rockwell (and Roberts and Raimondo) is correct in drawing
                attention to a mood among some conservatives that is at least
                latently fascist. Rockwell describes a populist Right website
                that originally rallied for the impeachment of Bill Clinton as
                .hate-filled ... advocating nuclear holocaust and mass
                bloodshed for more than a year now.. One of the biggest
                right-wing talk-radio hosts regularly calls for the mass
                destruction of Arab cities. Letters that come to this magazine
                from the pro-war Right leave no doubt that their writers would
                welcome the jailing of dissidents. And of course it.s not just
                us. When USA Today founder Al Neuharth wrote a column
                suggesting that American troops be brought home sooner rather
                than later, he was blown away by letters comparing him to Tokyo
                Rose and demanding that he be tried as a traitor. That mood,
                Rockwell notes, dwarfs anything that existed during the Cold
                War. .It celebrates the shedding of blood, and exhibits a
                maniacal love of the state. The new ideology of the red-state
                bourgeoisie seems to actually believe that the US is God
                marching on earth.not just godlike, but really serving as a
                proxy for God himself.."
                \_ You're missing quotation marks.  The last two sentences are
                   a quote from Rockwell, and not the author of the article.
                   The rest of the paragraph describes facts, except for the
                   one statement that the mood described in these facts is
                   "latently fascist."  So why was it full-of-crap?  Because
                   you don't agree that those facts are latently fascist, or
                   because he quoted another author's wording to illustrate
                   the other author's point?
                   \_ The Free Republic is not hate filled!
                        \_ And it isn't free either ... Any post that doesn't
                           toe the party line is instantly nuked.
                           \_ And this is different from motd and DUmmies (aka
                              "democratic"underground) how?
                \_ Rockwell and Raimondo were former, and maybe current,
                   Free Republic posters.  Raimondo has been driven from/left the
                   site too many times to count.
2005/2/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:36127 Activity:nil
2/9     This must be Clinton's fault...
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1340241/posts
2005/2/7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:36086 Activity:high
2/7     I thought it was just me, but yes, the Superbowl was that boring
        (ads included) that there is nothing to post on the motd.  At
        least last year the half-time show was exciting.
        \_ So I take it Paul McCartney's pants didn't fall off?
        \_ Yes, it was boring and painful to watch.
        \_ You didn't see ilyas on the motorcycle in the truck commercial?
           \_ Uhm, last I met ilyas he had more than 2 teeth.
        \_ The only thing I know about the Superbowl is when I came into
           the office this morning, and my colleague told me I've won $25
           on the Superbowl pool.  To think that back in the old days, I
           can memorize the entire Cowboys, 49ers and Packers rosters.
                \_ Got yourself a life, did you?  Congrats.
                   \_ I don't know about that.  These days I have 3
                      bosses - work, church and my smart, beautiful
                      and kind hearted girlfriend who is, unfor-
                      tunately, also ambitious career-wise and
                      rather demanding of me, so I still don't have
                      a life.  She is currently back in Taiwan
                      for the holidays, so I get to have a one week
                      break.  I already miss her though.  Sigh ...
                      I even missed the Cal-USC game to go shopping
                      with her and her roommate.  The things you do
                      for love ....
                      \_ Sounds like "life" to me.  What you said is
                         pretty much what I meant.
                      \_ Way to sneak in the fact that you have a gf.
                         \_ Where's bdg when we need him?
                            \_ My guess: married again.
                               \_ I would rather be boiled in oil
                                  with molten lead being poured
                                  on my head than be married.
                      \_ Your "kind hearted" g/f forced you to go shopping
                         with her during the Cal-USC game??? You
                         are so pussy whipped dude.
                         \_ :(  She didn't force me.  I just decided
                            not to mention about it.  My gf is very
                            kind.  I mentioned some dish that I like,
                            and she made it the day before she left
                            for Taiwan.  She's so sweet.  But you
                            are right, I usually listen to my gf.
                            \_ How long have you been going out?
                               You just sound infatuated to me.
                               Which is nice, but it doesn't last
                               forever.
                               \_ 5 months.  I am infatuated.  She's
                                  the love of my life:
                The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field.
                When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy
                went and sold all he had and bought that field.
                Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking
                for fine pearls.  When he found one of great value, he
                went away and sold everything he had and bought it.
                                                - Matthew 13:44-46
                                  \_ Please report back in 5 years.
                                     \_ I will keep my soda brothers
                                        posted every now and then.
                                  \_ You are confusing lust with religion.
                                     That's okay though, lots of people do.
                                     \_ I think you may be projecting
                                        your own lust onto someone
                                        else.
                \_ Where's the right-wing "all women are whores" guy?
                   \_ You don't have to be a right-wing nut to think that
                      all women are whores.  The fundamental relationship
                      reality is that the male is essentially an ATM card,
                      there to be exploited to provide material comfort and
                      security.  The trick for the female is to suffer the
                      least amount of inconvenience and discomfort while
                      extracting the greatest gain from the male.
                      \_ Hey, BDG is back!
                      \_ The thing is my gf actually comes from a rich
                         family, but she is herself very thrifty.  She
                         disapproves when her brothers spend too much
                         money.  I also thinks she spends too much time
                         returning stuff to walmart, meijers, outlet, etc.
                         due to her finding a better price somewhere else.
                         I have to keep reminding her that time is money.
                         She gets a lot of joy from finding really good
                         deals ($14 boots, $4 dress pants, etc.).  However,
                         she is very generous towards others.  She is bringing
                         back 140lbs (2 max weight luggages) worth of gifts
                         for her family and relatives in Taiwan.  I make fun
                         of her and says she looks like a refugee with the
                         2 huge luggages.  She is also generous to friends
                         here in the US.  She cooks food for others when
                         they get sick, etc.  That's why I say she is my
                         dream girl.
        \_ I found the opening ceremony disturbing because of the
           facist overtones. Am I the only one?
           fascist overtones. Am I the only one?
           \_ Yes. Bill Clinton, the men who landed in France on D-Day, and
              the Tuskegee airmen = Fascists? Oh, this is Berkeley.
              \_ You don't know much about the history of fascism, do you?
                 The marching out of war vets, the honoring of the aged,
                 now retired leader, the ranks of troops lined up with
                 precision, the airplanes screaming overhead, the chorus
                 singing songs of national pride in a reverent, almost
                 religious fashion... these are all straight out of fascism's
                 playbook. I am really disappointed in your education that
                 you do not recognize this, but I am not surprised. You
                 probably never get out of a computer lab.
                 \_ Uhm, use a dictionary and look up: patriotism, nationalism,
                    and fascism.  You sound like a happily indoctrinated
                    berkeley liberal.    -!pp
                    \_ You sound like you are ignorant of history. Pick up
                       _The_Rise_And_Fall_Of_The_Third_Reich and read about
                       the use of mass spectacle as a means of political
                       indoctrination. And if you seriously don't think that
                       nationalism and fascism are just differences of a
                       degree then you are more ignorant and dangerous
                       than I realized.
                       nationalism: the doctrine that your national
                       culture and interests are superiour to any other
                       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
                       \_ The difference is that I can actually think
                          critically.
                          \_ Maybe you can and maybe you can't. But you
                             haven't demostrated that ability so far.
                             \_ Wow, so because I don't agree with your wack
                                opinion, I'm not showing 'critical thinking'?
                                I may or may not have used good critical
                                thinking, but it's absolutely clear that you
                                have no clue what it is.  It's okay to admit
                                that you're wrong, dude -- it won't make you
                                look any sillier than you already do.
                                \_ Critical thinking is not demonstrated
                                   by hurling one sentence insults at people,
                                   which is all you had done up until this
                                   point. At least now I know you can
                                   construct an entire paragraph, but you
                                   still cannot develop an argument that
                                   consists of anything other than an
                                   Ad hominem attack followed by a logical
                                   fallacy. So no, you have still not
                                   demonstrated any evidence of "critical
                                   thinking." Here's a hint: display the
                                   slightest willingness or inclination to
                                   consider anything other than the spoon fed
                                   mainstream stance you have so far will show
                                   you have taken the first step.
                                   PS Go back and re-read the initial
                                   question that prompted your overemotional
                                   reply and consider that the aforementioned
                                   statement was actually very tentative
                                   and personal and asked a question. Any
                                   belief that it inferred anything else
                                   was a comprehension error on your part.
                                   \_ Uhm, it's the motd.  What is there to get
                                      emotional about?  You're the one that's
                                      posting novels after receiving replies
                                      repudiating your patronizing assertions
                                      to berkeley u/grads.  If the tone of the
                                      conversation is upsetting to you, perhaps
                                      you should look to your own comments
                                      first.
                                      \_ No, it is not upsetting me. I am
                                         just having fun with the discussion.
                                         Hopefully, mr. critical thinking is
                                         too.
                                         \_ Truthfully, Mr Critical Thinking
                                            thinks the whole conversation is
                                            amusing and silly.    -MCT
                       \_ Proof that a little bit of knowledge is a
                          dangerous thing.
                          \_ Proof that ignorance is bliss.
                             \_ Yes, remembering the Tuskegee airmen is
                                going to mobilize our country into a
                                totalitarian state. You are so wise.
                                \_ Is that all you saw in the warm up show?
                                   A memorial to Tuskegee airmen?
                       \_ From the people who brought us 'Dick Cheney = neocon'.
                          Btw, I think if Americans can truly be indoctrinated
                          into something evil with circuses we are truly fucked
                          regardless.  Trying to fight spectacles would be like
                          trying to fight a symptom, not the disease. -- ilyas
                          \_ I...I...think I agree with this.  How can this
                             BEEEEEEEE!  DEAR GOD, HOW?!?
           \_ If your talking about the re-enactment of the
              Declaration signing I would say, not facist, but definitely
              corny and stupid.  The actors were bad, and this is a
              footbal game, not the freakin' inauguration.  I like the
              people today reciting it though, that was cool.
              \_ Did they punt the Bill of Rights, that unruly little brother
                 to the Constitution?
2005/1/31 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:35994 Activity:moderate
1/31    Yeah!  That's what we think of you and your PROTESTERS!
        http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050127.shtml
        \_ This guy's like William Safire huffing gas fumes.
        \_ You have been classified as: curmudgeon
        \_ He is spot on, point out one thing wrong w/ what he said.
        \_ Sowell is great, Visions of the Anointed is an outstanding
           book.
        \_ If we have more opinions for him than against him, the article
           will somehow stop being crap.
2005/1/26 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:35918 Activity:nil
1/26    Reading all of the SS threads there seems to be a real
        misunderstanding about the SS "surplus".  There is no
        "surplus" - the money has been spent.  So when it is
        said Clinton balanced the budget that is false.  So when
        government officials like to pretend they have bought
        Treasury bonds and are "receiving" interest this
        statement is absurd.  They money will have to come
        from somewhere, either taxes or the printing of more
        money.  It is equivalent to you making a loan to
        yourself and paying yourself interest.
        \_ You really have drunk the Republican kool-aide haven't you?
           \_ I have known this long before I was a conservative.
              Really, how exactly is the SS administration going to
              redeem these bonds?
              \_ Uh, how does the government pay all of its bills?
                 And you line about Clinton is simply a bad lie.
                 \_ was the budget balanced without SS receipts - yes
                    or no?
                    \_ Answer my question and I will answer yours.
                       \_ sorry I really should say Gingrich didn't
                          balance the budget.  Either way, its clear
                          by your cryptic responses  you have no idea
                       \_ I'm not any of the above posters, but the
                          answer to your question is, I believe, the
                          gov't pays its bills by taxing and by
                          borrowing, but ultimately by taxing.
                          what you are talking about;
                          this is not worth my time.
                          \_ Yes, it is obvious that you will not convince
                             me by parroting republican propaganda. Inform
                             yourself a bit about economics before embarassing
                             yourself again.
                             \_ gosh I guess that Econ BA was worthless...
                                \_ So do you believe that there is no
                                   money in the bank because it was
                                   "all spent"? If your bank told you
                                   that the money you deposited with them
                                   had already been lent out to other
                                   people and "already spent" would you
                                   just take that as an answer? Where
                                   did you get your Economics degree from,
                                   Stanford?
2005/1/25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35886 Activity:very high
1/25    Budget deficit of $368b predicted for this year, plus whatever Bush
        gets for Iraq. How does that compare to Reagan?
        \_ Here's a graph from 1960-2002.  Sadly can't find one including
           the last two years.   Not sure if the projected '03 and '04
           numbers include projected Iraq expenses.  [thanks for stomping
           my change, asshat]
           http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm
           \_ Great resource, thanks! More specifically, how do these deficits
              compare in terms of real dollar value at the time (i.e., Reagan's
              deficits in 1980 dollars vs. Bush's deficits in same)?
              \_ http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0
                 The tables are not in constant dollar, but they also give
                 the amounts in percentage of GDP, which is really what you
                 should be looking at anyway.  The Reagan and the early
                 Clinton years were both worse for the deficit.
                 \_ Uh.  When do you think the "Clinton years" started?
                    Starting in 93 (The start of the clinton years), the
                    deficit headed DOWN.  It's Reagan and Bush I that were
                    "worse for the deficit".
                    \_ Clinton had the good fortune to enjoy the benefits
                       of the heavy lifting Bush I did on raising taxes.
                       Bush II won't repeat the same mistake of doing the
                       hard work so a Democrat can take the credit.
                       \_ Or you could say that Bush I took the brunt of
                          trying to keep the country solvent because of the
                          excesses of the 80's, and people realized that
                          cutting taxes while increasing spending ... doesn't
                          work.
                          \_ The 2 views are not contradictory.
                       \_ Have you heard of "The Pledge?"  No Republican will
                          ever raise taxes again, ever.
                          \_ Why do Republicans hate America?
                          \_ "Read my lips" notwithstanding, Bush I might well
                             have won the re-election if he had another year
                             in his first term and the country started
                             enjoying the fruits of his tax increases.
                             \_ Maybe, but the lesson the Republicans learned
                                from Bush I was "Raise taxes and die."
                   \_ Much credit goes to Newt Gingrich, for keeping down
                      spending from 96 onwards. -liberal
                      \_ And for championing "family values" while in the
                         midst of a 7 year affair with one of his employees!
        \_ $368 + $100B for war + ??? for SS "reform"
           It could easily be over $600B.
        \_ How the hell did Clinton get +523 while all the rest get negatives?
           He didn't do anything that was so radical from the other
           presidents. Talking about radical, Bush=radical conservative.
           \_ Between 91 and 95, they fixed a number of structural budget
              problems.  From that, the discussion was able to move from
              "how to balance the budget" to "how much do we use to pay
              down the debt and how much to cut taxes".
2005/1/13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:35703 Activity:high
1/13    This is fucking hilarious.  Maybe Bill Clinton can move to Australia
        and run for parliament.
        http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4170869.stm
        \- re: anonymity -> shortages. this brings a new meaning
        \- re: non-anonymity -> shortages. this brings a new meaning
           to "reap what you sow". --psb
        \_ What the fuck does this have to do with Bill Clinton you dickwad?
2005/1/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:35558 Activity:very high
1/5     Curious, does any of you have problem with Alberto Gonzales'
        nomination?  His memo on terrorism detainees sound a lot like
        what Hitler said before Germany invaded USSR.  Does average peons
        like us has any means to influence the outcome?
        \_ Yes. No.
        \_ No, yes.
        \_ Yes, Yes.
        \_ No, No, are we happy now? hahahahaha
           \_ I am afraid this is a zero-sum game.
        \_ I have questions to ask.  Will you, as attorney general,
           immolate 80 people including women and children because
           they happened to stockpile weapons?
           \_ The idea of Janet Reno carrying a flamethrower is sexy.
           Will you, as attorney general, order
           a SWAT team to steal at gunpoint a child who escaped
           from a Communist totalitarian state, and whose mother
           died bringing him here?
           \_ Wow, you really bought into Cuban exile sob story, didn't you?
              \_ Zaire, Angola, Algeria, Nicaragua, Soviets and Venezuala...
              \_ Zaire,Angola,Algeria,Nicaragua,Soviets,Venezuala & Cuba...
                 put that in your engine and search it!  Yea, an actual
                 understanding of Cuba's geopolitics has made me a real
                 sucker.
           Will you , as attorney general, distract the nation's
           law enforcement for political gain with overwrought
           statements about anti-government militias, while there
           is a Islamic storm on the horizon?
           \_ That's right, you want the FBI (domestic) to stop focusing
              their efforts domestically and instead arrest people outside US.
           \_ Ok, so you hate Janet Reno.  So who was the last non-evil AG?
              If you say Ashcroft, you are beneath contempt.
           \_ Gonzales: As long as you allow me to approve the use of torture
              on Enemy Combatants and hold them as long as I like, I promise
              not to do any of the above.
              \_ yea... thank god Reno did not put underwear on the Branch
                 Davidian's or Elian's head!!!
                 \_ Or imprison them indefinitely without counsel. Or attack
                    them with dogs.  Or electrocute them. Or whatever else it
                    turns out has happened at Gitmo.
                    \_ barking dogs and having your writ of habeus corpus
                       denied by a federal judge... oh the humanity!
           \_ And I have one question:  Why do you hate America?
2004/12/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35177 Activity:nil
12/5    So we know nothing good has come out of Texas since before the
        JFK shooting. What was the last good thing to come from Texas?
        \_ Liberal talk radio!
           http://www.radioleft.com
           "...from the liberal and progressive capital of the world: Dallas,
            Texas!"
        \_ Troll
2004/11/30-12/1 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:35131 Activity:high
11/30   Yahoo! News - Netherlands Hospital Euthanizes Babies
        http://csua.org/u/a5n
        Helping people wanting to die to kill themselves is one thing, but this
        is completely different and I think it's horrible. -Friendly Troll
        \_ I bet you're pro-life, too, right?
           \_ As President Bush looked up to see who he was greeting [Canadian
              pro-life activist] Reid said, "Thank you for being pro-life."
              The President responded, "You bet." The President then turned to
              leave. He stopped however and turned back. Looking directly into
              Reid's eyes, the President said, with obvious sincerity, "I
              appreciate that."
                \_ Pro-life until you are born, then the death penalty is ok.
                   \_ There is a difference between an innocent unborn and
                      a death row inmate who was judged to have commited some
                      heinous crime.
                      \_ Hey man, don't let facts get in a way of a liberal
                         motd zinger.  Honestly, are you new here?
                         \_ And the death penalty is always administered
                            fairly, without bias, and the courts are never
                            wrong.
                            \_ And the "pro life" people here have repeatedly
                               stated that it's ok to kill innocent people on
                               death row as long as they get to kill the
                               "really bad guy."
                               \_ Reference please, especially since you
                                  claim "repeatedly".
                                  \_ Are you really this incompetent?  One
                                     quick search on KAIS for "death penalty"
                                     turned up several threads.
                                     \_ Since you made the claim, please
                                        substantiate by posting the URLs to
                                        the specific threads.  Note threads,
                                        since you claimed "repeatedly".
              http://csua.com/?entry=13449 _/
              Use your favorite motd archiver which has more data than KAIS
              and grep for '"death penalty" innocent' for more.
                           \_ Yes, *one* entry.  So much for your claim of
                              "several threads".  Now can you substantiate
                              your claim of "repeatedly"?  Or were you just
                              exagerating for effect?  Again, you made the
                              claim, now prove it.
                              \_ what a stupid red herring.  The issue is that
                                 the death penalty is known to execute
                                 innocents; why do you support it, knowing
                                 that is the case?  -tom
                  \_ Don't they execute the mentally retarded in Texas now?
                        \_ Obviously not, Bush became governor of that state.
                     \_ Actually, Clinton did that in Arkansas.
                        \_ If you're going to level a serious charge, post URL.
                           \_ From http://amnesty.org.uk, http://csua.org/u/a62
                              under the title "Mental Retardation And The
                              Death Penalty",
                              "The second case is that of Rickey Ray Rector,
                              a black man executed in Arkansas during the 1992
                              presidential campaign of then Governor Bill
                              Clinton. Rector had shot himself at the time of
                              his arrest and had sustained organic brain damage
                              that reduced his intellectual capacity
                              dramatically."   Not only was Rector executed
                              during Clinton's term as governer, Clinton
                              personally "flew home to oversee the 1992
                              execution".  http://Time.com, http://csua.org/u/a63 .
                              \_ Maybe I'm not seeing the whole picture, but
                                 sounds like the guy commited the criminal acts
                                 while still capable of making an informed
                                 decsision.  I don't understand clearly how
                                 this would affect the case.  Any motd armchair
                                 criminal lawyer people care comment?
        \_ No where in the article is there anything about parental consent.
           If doctors start euthenizing horribly ill babies without parental
           consent, I'd be more worried.
           \_ the state is your parent
           \_ The 7th paragraph: "The guideline says euthanasia is acceptable
              when ......, and when parents think it's best."
        \_ http://tinyurl.com/47ub2
           \_ How is this "High Stress Levels Linked to Cellular Aging" article
              relevant to this thread?
2004/11/16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34913 Activity:very high
11/15   I've read the Republicans in Congress will repeal the 22nd
        Amendment so Bush can run again in 2008.  What do you guys think?
        \_ I think, "troll".
        \_ I think 55 < 66.
        \_ Bill Clinton vs Bush.  Gee, who do you think would win?
           \_ Well let's see. In 1992 Clinton got about 43% of the popular
              vote. In 1996 he got 49%...
2004/11/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34705 Activity:very high
11/5    Why do we care about politics so much?  Why can't we go
        back to being apathetic?
        \_ Because we're educated people and this is a very interesting
           topic to discuss.  -John
        \_ because those pesky politicians have this nasty annoying habit of
           creating laws that interfere with our lives, and making taxes
           that take away our money!
        \_ Cause Dubya is a polarizing figure, duh.
           In the same way Clinton made waves by having an intern on his cock,
           Dubya is leading this country as the most inarticulate President
           of the 20th century.
           of the last 100 years.
2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34632 Activity:moderate
11/3    Hello, fellow liberals. We have been defeated. I guess we
        might as well as embrace all the things that our conquerers
        would like us embrace.  What's the best way to go about learning
        Christianity, country dancing, guns, Southern food, dating
        hot Southern belles, and other good stuff? -ok thx
        \_ I know you're trying to be funny but there are quite a bit
           of Democrats who are Christian, do country dancing, have a
           hobby in guns, etc... Not all of those things are Republican-
           only things.
              \_ yes and there are good Muslims and bad Christians,
                 that stereotype sucks, blah blah blah. Who cares. The
                 exit poll numbers speak for themselves. If 91% of the
                 Bush supporters value Bush's religion and faith while
                 only 9% of the Kerry supporters value the same thing,
                 then the majority has spoken to us what they really
                 are.
        \_ Learn proper anal intercourse technique.  Southern Belles seem to
           love that shit.
           \_ Hello German John. No Hail for you.
                \_ I would have (a) signed it, and (b) provided an ass link
                   for your convenience.  Bad.  Down.  -John
                   \- south western belle ass link: link:csua.org/u/9rg
        \_ I, for one, welcome our old Republican overlords.
        \_ All us liberals really want now is another Bill Clinton, less
           the hobby of getting blow jobs from interns.
           the predisposition of getting blow jobs from interns.
2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:34626 Activity:nil
11/3    BTW, fellow liberal hosers:
        The number one problem we have is the image of the "liberal elite":
        Unpatriotic, not proud to be an American, rich, not hard-working
        and lounging at sushi bars (thanks psb for that latter idea),
        saying and believing anything to win the election (gay marriage?),
        valuing spotted owls above jobs, being critical instead of optimistic,
        and not supporting our soldiers.
        (I'm stressing "image" of the liberal elite.  I am not saying this
        is how it actually is ... if you don't know what I'm talking about,
        do two things.  (1) Watch Team America: World Police.  (2) Read this
        thread:  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1269267/posts
        \_ I did a study 1998-ish where I tried to talk to the occupant of
           any house that sported an American flag.  Most of them are
           initially surprised by my knocking on their door, but they became
           quite talkative once I explained myself.  Out of 23 houses that
           I visited in Northern California (mainly around the Peninsula)
           and in suburban Boston (around Wilmington and Norwood), 21 self-
           identified as Republican.  The other 2 households were around
           Boston and were Pats fans.  This has no scientific value, but I
           thought the result was interesting nevertheless.
        \_ I disagree. It's a combination of uncharismatic leaders, the
           image of giving free stuff to poor "welfare queens" etc. and
           the abortion/gays/guns/god stuff. Culturally, John and Teresa
           are out of step with regular people, just the way they talk.
           A guy like Clinton had much better rapport with people.
           \_ Yeah, I also wanted to add "out of touch with the average
              American" to the list.  Remember, it's the perception of
              what a liberal is.  All those freeper posts about how happy
              the libs lost -- they are talking about this image. -op
              \_ bullshit.  the liberals tend to lose because of pussies like
                 you.  do you think that if bush lost, they'd all be sighing
                 on the freeper boards about how their extremist rightwing
                 religious agenda is out of the mainstream?  of course not.
                 they'd be shaking their fists over it, and demanding blood
                 in 2008.
                 \_ Whatever you say man. -op
2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34617 Activity:moderate
11/3    Now that I think about it, Kerry lost partly because of Clinton.
        The Clinton Lewinski scandal scarred the Democrat party's image.
        Most of the Christians were so horrified that he got away with
        such a crime that they vowed to never vote for the pagan party,
        the Democrats. Thanks a lot, Bill Clinton.
        \_ Uh, no.
        \_ Pinning the blame on any one person is deluded.  The fundamentalists
           have spent 40 years steadily seizing power.  The fact that liberals
           just dismiss these people as ignorant bigots, and can't see what
           is really happening in their own country, is why they keep losing.
        \_ I think the Democrat party lost because of Kerry.  If it were
           someone less flip-floppy who was running against Dubya yesterday,
           I'd have favored the Dems.
           \_ No, whoever attributed yesterday's blow out to the religious
              right's systematic merging of political & religious
              practices is spot on. Meticulous and long-building, Rove's
              organization of alliances between conservative institutions
              got validated -- nevermind that upon closer inspection there
              is nothing compassionate or conservative in this
              administration's policy-making. The content of the different
              political parties' beliefs and their framing were beside the
              point. Jesus Christ, Son of God, could've been the Demo
              nominee, and Rove still would've kicked his ass. --elizp
              \_ It goes way beyond Rove.  The conservative religious political
                 movement has roots going back decades, and its true father is
                 really Billy Graham.
                 \_ And let's not forget Goldwater. --elizp
                    \_ Always thought of Goldwater as more of a hardcore anti
                       communist than a Billy Graham, evangelical type, but
                       perhaps you're right.
              \_ elizp: Jesus would never ever get nominated by the Democrats.
        \_ Very off the mark.  As a friend of mine put it, the question most
           people on Bush's side seemed to be asking themselves was, are we at
           war or not, while the real question was, has this President executed
           the war well or not.  Bush voters mostly thought that Kerry was a
           peacenik, despite all of his speeches to the contrary.  That's the
           power of propaganda.
2004/10/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34417 Activity:very high
10/28   Mostly serious inquiry for BUSHCO supporters: If Bush were revealed to
        have a catamite back at the Crawford Ranch, would you still vote for
        him? If you are supporting him so that your dividends arent taxed,
        is it still about the money? On the flip side, would you Clintonistas
        have had a "problem" if Monica were say 15 ... I have to think the
        people who defended the Mark Rich pardon would stick with him through
        thick [monica] and thin. --psb
        \_ This is why I think there should be a mechanism in place to
           rescind the nomination and renominate on a dime.  Or have a
           succession plan, like the VP-hopeful becomes P-hopeful.  It seems
           silly to suddenly become a liberal for an election because a
           conservative ended up being unusually slimy this election season.
             -- ilyas
        \_ Pardons cannot be defended, as there is no offense.  The power
           of pardon, as abused as it might be is at the discretion of the
           President.  Some people are more discrete than others.  Personally,
           I'm a good deal more bothered by Bush I's pardons than Clinton's.
           \- is it not obvious i am not accusing him of doing something
              illegal but hypocritical, sleazy etc w.r.t. to the marc rich
              pardon. yes, this is not a great issue of state like the
              nixon pardon, but i think it significant for its egregiousness
              not its significance, if you see what i mean. --psb
        \_ Well, I'm male, so I'm not a Clitonista, though I was a stolid
                     \- You know, not all the Sandinistas were women.
           supporter of Clinton.  But to answer your question, if he'd been
           caught with a 15 year old, I'd have very sadly, and with much
           grief in my heart howled for his blood.
        \_ I don't think I count as a Clintonista, since I voted for Nader,
           but I supported him through the impeachment hearings. But if
           Monica had been 15, yes, I would have called for his hide.
        \_ What is catamite and why should I care? I vote republican
           not b/c of Bush. I vote for GOP candidates b/c I think
           that in the long run only republicans can return us
           to a "wise and frugal government" that restrains men
           from injurying one another, but otherwise leaves them
           free to regulate their own affairs.
           \_ example: invasion of Iraq :p
           I also feel that the major problems stem from stupid
           socialist policies brought about by democrats (New Deal,
           Great Society, &c.). Also Democrats will likely bring
           about crappy social policy like abortion on demand,
           legal pot, condoms for jr kids and garraige. I'm also
           appalled at the prospect of a more liberal judiciary
           that doesn't understand the fundamentals of federalism
           and willy nilly makes law.
           The last democrat I would have considered voting for is
           Truman (the only bad thing I can say about Truman is
           that he didn't let MacArthur win in Korea).
           \_ MacArthur wanted to use *WMD* on China.  Then again,
              if MacArthur can open fire upon USA's own WWI veterans,
              nuking civilians shouldn't be much of a moral challenge
              for him.
           \_ There's nothing frugal about Bush's government. The problem
              with your thinking is that you're voting based on a predetermined
              partisan mindset regardless of the actual candidate. You are also
              falling prey to GOP scare tactics on the garriage thing which is
           \_ MacArthur wanted to use *WMD* on China.  Then
              again, if MacArthur can open fire upon USA's own WWI
              veterans, nuking civilians shouldn't be much of a
              moral challenge for him.
              \_ MacArthur would have solved the China problem.
                 The Bonus March was probably not the smartest
                 thing to do, but I agree w/ MacArthur's view
                 that "we fought for our country, not for money".
           \_ There's nothing frugal about Bush's government. The
              problem with your thinking is that you're voting based
              on a predetermined partisan mindset regardless of the
              actual candidate. You are also falling prey to GOP
              scare tactics on the garriage thing which is
                                  \_ BUSH = DRAFT!!!!!```11one~uno!!!
              ridiculous.
                \_ Can you seriously tell me that any Democrat
                   will roll back the progressive income tax?
                   Can you honestly tell me that any Democrat
                   will reduce social programs? Which Democrat
                   will tell kids to stop taking drugs and
                   having sex and stay in school and study?
                   How many Democrats really advocate personal
                   responsibility? Also which Democrats truly
                   will put America first and go against world
                   stupidity (need I remind you that Democrats
                   were opposed to Zero Option and were pro
                   detente)?
2004/10/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:34307 Activity:very high
10/23   http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/21/1440244
        Interview with Robert Scheer, LA Times reporter, on a CIA report
        that was completed in May/June this year.
        "... what I reported was people who have knowledge of this saying
        they're stalling the report until after the election, so, it won't
        adversely affect Bush's chances ... And Porter Goss ... is the one who
        is currently stalling it. So, here is a study on what happened at 9/11
        demanded in December of 2002 -- 2001 by Congress -- 2001 by Congress.
        An eleven-man committee at the C.I.A worked on that question for
        almost two years; and it hasn't been turned over. ... My understanding
        is that this report is explosive because it says the Bush
        administration was asleep at the wheel before 9/11 and it fixes
        responsibility on individuals quite high up, and that it says the
        administration covered up after 9/11 by not holding these people
        accountable. So there it is."
        \_ Yeah, yeah, yeah... and cruise missile diplomacy used by Clinton
           really worked.
           \_ It went something like:  "Hey Dubya, I pissed off Osama by
              blowing up his base and almost getting him - you better watch
              out, he wants revenge.  Dubya:  Wut??!"
              \_ Translation, "That chick with the cum stained blue dress was
                 out there trying to ruin my legacy, so I wagged the dog,
                 destroyed an aspirin factory, killed a few camels, and
                 whipped up a hornets nest.  I never did jack about bin laden,
                 never made a major effort to do anything about terrorism,
                 never really did anything but try to create my legacy by
                 forcing Israel into dealing with terrorists and we know how
                 that worked out.  The first WTC bombing, the Cole, the 2
                 African embassies, and the rest... it's a criminal issue for
                 the FBI to arrest and prosecute individuals."
                 \_ This is all true, which is why Clinton did NOT tell Bush
                    "Terrorism will be your most important issue and watch
                    Bin Laden" during the transition, which Bush promptly
                    ignored since his neocons were busy planning an Iraq
                    invasion.  Isn't it funny how the same people who
                    criticize Clinton for launching missiles at enemy
                    terrorists who attacked our embassies and ships as
                    "Wag the Dog" praise Bush for invading a country that
                    did not attack us, totally wrecking our standing and
                    reputation all over the world?
                    \_ This post is odd.  You're confused because people
                       who criticize Clinton for not doing enough praise
                       Bush for doing a lot?  That's not confusing to me.
                        \_ No, people criticize Clinton for doing something
                           (Wag the Dog) and praise Bush for royally fucking
                           everything up.
                           \_ An apirin factory and a dead camel is doing
                              something but wiping out thousands of terrorists
                              is royally fucking everything up.  I'm guessing
                              you describe their actions and results in the
                              opposite terms I do because you pray east a few
                              times a day.  I can't think of another reason
                              why thousands of dead terrorists is bad and
                              doing nothing is good.
                                \_ Clinton could have wiped out Bin Laden
                                   & the entire royal family of UAE in one
                                   shot ... He chose not to create a
                                   diplomatic disaster, plus his hands were
                                   tied.  Bush, thanks to 9/11, has way more
                                   options open to him than Clinton, but he
                                   ends up invading a country which has little
                                   to do with 9/11, islamic fundamentalism,
                                   funding/harboring Al Queda, etc.  That's
                                   what royally fucking up means.  Plus,
                                   anti-Americanism is at an alltime high
                                   in Islamic countries, you can be sure that
                                   whatever number of terrorists Bush has
                                   killed, 3X replacements have been recruited
                                   since Bush is Bin Laden's poster boy for
                                   new terrorists.  It probably doesn't bother
                                   you that thousands of innocent lives have
                                   been lost in the Iraq war either, since
                                   all brown people are terrorists anyhow.
                 \_ Clinton:  Tried to get bin Laden after he killed hundreds
                              in two embassies, almost got him, even with
                              Monica on his cock.
                              \_That's nice you forgot to write Sudan offered
                                him and Clinton turned it down.
                                \_ Wrong.  Sudan was begging the Clinton admin
                                   to take him and did so at least three times
                                   that we know of publicly but Clinton didn't
                                   because they decided they didn't have the
                                   legal authority to do so.  They should have
                                   asked Al Gore who would have told them there
                                   is no over riding legal authority on such
                                   matters.
                                   \_ How is that essentially wrong? Clinton
                                      didnt see what we did to Noreiga? U.S.
                                      can damn well arrest anyone we please!
                                        \_ They hate us because of our freedom!
                                   \_ This is just a bald faced lie.
              http://prisonplanet.com/sudan_offered_to_arrest_bin_laden.html
                                      Stop getting your "information" from
                                      Right Wing propaganda sites.
                    Dubya:  Ignored fact that bin Laden wanted revenge after
                            we blew up his base and almost killed him.  Let
                            bin Laden get away, attacked Iraq instead.
                            \_ That's nice you forgot to include the part
                               about why the base was blown up.
                               \_ The base was blown up because bin Laden
                                  was responsible for attacking two U.S.
                                  embassies, killing hundreds, and because
                                  Bill had information that bin Laden was at
                                  one of the target sites at that very moment
                            \_ Almost killed him?  Bullshit.  Let him get away?
                               Is this the Tora Bora lie?
                               \_ We were moving troops out of Afghanistan
                                  and into Iraq.  Tommy Franks expressed
                                  displeasure with this, but made do with
                                  what he had, and bin Laden got away.
                                  "Almost killed him":
        http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/rca/rca_200111_88_2_eng.txt
                                  (this was pretty well known back then, but
                                  I guess you've been drinking the Konservative
                                  Kool-Aid a bit too much)
2004/10/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:33991 Activity:moderate
10/8    A while back someone posted 20 points talking about things Bush
        has been criticized for that Clinton also did. Where can I get
        that? I'd like to reread it.
        \_ /tmp/motd.troll . i am unaware of why this is very
           interesting. - danh
           \_ The Halliburton part is interesting, if true. Cheney has
              taken a lot of criticism for that.
              \_ Was Clinton a shareholder and previous CEO of Halliburton?
                 No, hence no appearance of impropriety. I seem to remember
                 the Clinton haters going on and on about Whitewater
                 back in the day.
                 \_ The point here is that the US awarded such contracts
                    before regardless of who was President/Vice-President.
                    \_ The point of the Cheney/Halliburton connection is
                       more an indictment of politicos who go on to become
                       lobbyists for corporations after leaving office. Cheney
                       was very well-connected with the Pentagon when Bush
                       lost in '92; Halliburton immediately offered him the
                       CEO position, counting on his personal relationships
                       to win them contracts with the military.  It worked.
                       Coincidentally, he then became VP, which made his
                       activities and those of his former company much more
                       public.  The last thing you need when you're running
                       back room deals is the publicity of public office, but
                       it was really too good an opportunity to pass up.
        \_ motd archives.
         \_ http://csua.com/?entry=33877
            And it's 12 lame points. Go Kerry!!!!!
            \_ Yes, anything that you can't answer that shows your hypocrtical
               nature is lame.
2004/10/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:33876 Activity:high
10/1    Why does everyone harp of North Korea as a failure of the Bush
        administration? It was Clinton/Carter who gave them the technology
        and time to make it. Kerry rails against unilateralism, but seems
        to be for going into NK alone w/o the Chinese or Japanese. The point
        no one seems to understand that even w/o WMD, Pyongyang has over 1K
        artillery pieces aimed at Seoul and will level it in two hours. Arty
        is and has been the real killer in any conventional war until OIF.
        \_ No, it is not Clinton's fault.  He sent his coke head brother
           over there on a magical musical tour.  Madeleine toasted them
           with champagne.  It's obviously all Bush's fault.
        \_ What's OIF?
           \_ "operation iraqi freedom" woud be my guess. -- ulysses
              \_ Why haven't mortar attacks caused more casualties than they
                 have?  It seems lots of our losses have been IEDs and gun
                 fights.  I'd expect shelling the 'green zone' would be a lot
                 easier.
                 \_ Mortars are short-range weapons and not that damaging.
                    There are 'mortar shelters' constructed all over the
                    place as well. IEDs are effective since there is no
                    way to guard against them except vigilance. RPGs are
                    a bane of the soldier's existence as well.
                 \_ Mortars are damaging, but not accurate.  An infantryman
                    is terrified by mortars shells precisely because they
                    hit somewhat randomly, and there's the nice sound as they
                    are coming in, of course.  The insurgents use mortars
                    because this weapon is ideally suited for a hit-and-run
                    attack.  You drop the shell in the tube, and run as it
                    becomes airborne.  By the time any sort of sound of
                    the incoming shell is detected, the mortar team is
                    long gone. -- ilyas
        \_ Because Republican: stupid/evil, Democrat: smart/good.
2004/9/30-10/1 [Health, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:33844 Activity:moderate
9/30    How did Dr. Atkins die? Did he die of his own diet? And was
        Bill Clinton on the Atkins diet before the heart incident?
        \_ A young Jedi named Darth Vader - who was a pupil of mine
           until he turned to evil - helped the Empire hunt down the
           Jedi Knights.  He betrayed and murdered Atkins.
        \_ dr atkins was just really goddamn old when he died
        \_ Clinton was on the South Beach diet, but how well he had been
           following it or exercising, I'm not sure.  Atkins slipped on an icy
           sidewalk, hit his head, went into a coma and died.  Some people say
           his diet hampered any chance for recovery, but it's hard to say.
           \_ Some news article also said he's obese at the time of the
              accident, but his wife disputed.
        \_ Rib-eyes are on sale at Safeway this week, yay!
        \_ Uh, he fell on his head while walking on an icy sidewalk.
           \_ Why didn't they sue the State for $millions for negligence?
              \_ There's assumed risk when you walk down an icy sidewalk.  The
                 city is not negligent when the sidewalks are icy in winter.
                        \_ Yeah, right. I actually believe and agree with you,
                           but a lot of disgruntled and pathetic people don't.
                           Cities have been sued over lame things like that,
                           for example by a man who broke his shin while
                           sliding into home plate during a softball game
                           sponsored by some city league.
                           \_ Damn those ambulance chasing laywers.
2004/9/24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:33739 Activity:very high
9/24    Burkett: Lockhart Asked Me for Rathergate Documents
        http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/23/233909.shtml
        Gotta loves the Clinton's, their stench just never goes
                               \_ No apostrophe necessary.  The apostrophe
                                  doesn't mean: "Warning: 's' follows."
        away.  And remember, according to Dan Rather, Burket is
        an "unimpeachable source".
        \_ This is just the Clintons torpedoing Kerry's campaign so
           Hillary can run in 08.  Duh.
        \_ Please. Gary Trudeau offered $10k for evidence of Bush's service.
           If someone sent him allegedly forged documents, would he be at
           fault for asking for such evidence?
           http://doonesbury.msn.com/strip/faqs/index.html
           \_ You know, I never heard about this before the motd.  And I
              stopped reading Doonesbury a long while ago when Trudeau went
              completely loopy IMO.  It's quite possible that there aren't any
              GWB supporters that could verify the claim reading the strip.
        \_ newsmax article quoting forth worth star telegram, which had
           subsequently retracted the lockhart claim.  there are enough
           lies flying back and forth on both sides already.  let's not
           add to it.  link:www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/9748929.htm?1c
           \_ What's the csuamotd login/pwd for http://dfw.com?
2004/9/23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:33736 Activity:nil
9/23    Burkett says Lockhart requested fraudulent documents.
        This is getting ugly. -Drudge
        The beauty of this is everytime Clinton's people reappear
        the same of scummy behavior resurfaces.
        \_ It would have been a shitstorm had the Democrats been given the
           documents and they didn't quickly identify them as fakes.
2004/9/21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33652 Activity:insanely high
9/21    What would we do without the true believers at dailykos?  These guys
        are just as wacky as the freepers!  http://csua.org/u/94w
        \_ I agree.  "Hunter" sounds like a freeper, but he's a liberal.
           The characteristic in common is that the typical freeper and
           Hunter here just won't acknowledge central weaknesses in their
           position.  E.g., for this dailykos guy, it's
           http://csua.org/u/94h (the Post comparison of memos), and the Post's
           reporting that all existing Texas Air National Guard memos have
           reporting that all 100+ existing Texas Air National Guard memos have
           been in fixed-width font, except these four from Burkett.
           http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18982-2004Sep13.html
           -liberal
           \_ Not to mention that the signatures on the comparison memos
              aren't even remotely similar.
        \_ This is really embarassing, and it just goes on and on!
        \_ They are just as whacky as Freepers because they point out
           that Freepers are liars and extremists? Whatever.
           \_ You don't think that "The right-wing are liars.  They have
              been liars.  They will continue to be liars.  It is part and
              parcel of modern "movement" conservatism." sounds just like
              a freeper, but with right-wing instead of left wing?  Not to
              mention such great explanations as: "Does it remain possible
              that Killian re-typed them at a later date, and that his
              inexpertise as a typist is responsible for the differences
              between those docs and official TANG docs? Certainly."  It's
              POSSIBLE, but it's pretty freakin' unlikely, don't cha
              think?  You know, on the same level of possibilty as the
              plot of "The Day After Tomorrow."
              \_ The modern right wing movement is based on extremist and
                 easily disproven religious BS like creationism and the
                 Virgin Birth. It is extremism to point out this obvious
                 fact? The guy could be more tactful, but the truth is
                 the Religious Right's entire worldview is based on
                 fantasy.
                 \_ "Easily Disproven?"  Go ahead.  Prove to me that
                     virgin birth is impossible, and creationism isn't
                     true.  Or heck, why not just go straight for it and
                     prove there is no God?
                     \_ If you continue to believe that the world was
                        created in seven days in the face of all the
                        evidence from the fields of biology, geology,
                        physics and astronomy, then there is no hope
                        for you and I will not waste my time. Take
                        a science class sometime. The existence or
                        non-existence of God is tangential to what
                        any particular sect or cult believes in. Oh,
                        I agree with you on the memos, btw.
                        \_ it was reformed in 7 days, not created
                        \_ You need to study up on your Christianity.  In
                           the Hebrew in the bible it doesn't say "7 days"
                           it says "7 periods of time" which could mean
                           ANYTHING.  People who literally believe 7 days
                           are probably idiots.  Although, if you can't
                           prove the non-existence of God, ANYTHING
                           becomes possible, and 7 day creation is just as
                           logical as anything else.  Anyway, the point
                           was that the people you're calling wackos are
                           using the same argument as the people you're
                           defending.  You mock the belifs of one and not
                           the other, although they use the same argument
                           style to back up their conclusions.  "You can't
                           prove it's NOT true!"
                           \_ that's ridiculous.  There is physical evidence
                              which supports the Big Bang and evolution.
                              There is no evidence to support the creationist
                              view except some book that some wack jobs wrote,
                              and there are portions, like the Great Flood,
                              which are directly contradicted by all the
                              physical evidence as well as simple logic.
                              Shit, I've been trolled.  -tom
                           \_ Why are they idiots? I say you're an idiot for
                              believing in your version. The early bible
                              stories are all ripoffs of old Babylonian etc.
                              mythology anyway. So you really believe the
                              Bible is some kind of elaborate metaphorical
                              construct that could mean ANYTHING? Or do you
                              simply apply that to things science disagrees
                              with?
                              \_ ripoff?  nah, I would say they have the
                                 same origin.  afterall, abraham was a
                                 babylonian, being from ur.  different
                                 books of the bible are written in very
                                 different manner, so yes, parts of it
                                 could be metaphorical and other parts
                                 not.
                                 could be allegorical and other parts
                                 not.  Jesus used parables all the time.
                                 (ref. "dict ur")
                           \_ "7 day creation is just as logical as anything
                              else." No. It is not logical to believe something
                              in the face of overwhelming evidence to the
                              contrary. It might be conceivable, but it is
                              not logical.
                        \_ You've convinced *me* there's no God.  Would you
                           please sign your name so I'll know who to thank
                           for completely changing my world-view?
2004/9/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:33450 Activity:moderate
9/10    National Debt severely underreported:
        http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200409080940.asp
        \_ Oh, the irony.
           \_ How so?
        \_ Will everyone who thought they were getting SS in the future
           please raise their hand.
           \_ yes: ..
              no: ....
           \_ Back in high school when I researched it for a class I had an
              'uh-oh' moment.
        \_ Well, duh.  We never had a surplus during the Clinton years if
           you take into account SS/Medicare liabilities.  But like the article
           says, if you are in charge of the dollar it becomes really tempting
           to abuse the dollar, especially since spending money gets you
           reelected and saving it doesn't.
2004/9/7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:33389 Activity:high
9/7     After the Democratic convention and the last couple months, is it too
        late to recast Kerry as anything other than the Vietnam guy?
        \_ Certainly not.  If he picks two or three main points and gets the
           talking heads to parrot his talking points, he could easily enter
           October as the "We can do better" guy.
        \_ IMO, Kerry can spend a little time on Vietnam (basically be morally
           outraged and say it was all done in '96), but focus on for George
           W. Bush:  W. stands for "Wrong".
        \_ Play populist.  Show how GWBs policies have favored the rich and
           screwed the middle class (no-one likes to consider themselves poor).
           Ask "Where's Osama?" and point out half-assed security measures.
        \_ Do people have a memory that extends further back than 2 months?
           \_ It's easily modified.  E.g., even though there were no WMDs in
              Iraq, nukular weapons are the real threat.  Our use of force
              in Iraq caused Libya to give up its nukular program!  Anyway,
              the whold world thought we'd find WMDs in Iraq!
              \_ Bush had more than 2 months to change perception.
        \_ Is this your first presidential campaign? The campaign season
           just officially began.
           \_ Gallop poll, since 1980, at the start of September (polling
              number eyeballed from graph) and actual result:
              1980      Reagan tied, Reagan won at 50.8%
              1984      Reagan ahead at 57%, Reagan won at 59%
              1988      Bush ahead at 48%, Bush won at 53.9%
              1992      Clinton ahead at 50%, Clinton won at 43.2%
              1996      Clinton ahead at 53%, Clinton won at 49.9%
              2000      Tied, Bush won by winning the tie breaker
              If you bothered to do some research, you might actually learn
              something.  Is this your first election?
              \_ No, I have followed many campaigns. That is why I know
                 any question asked at the start of the campaign season
                 asking "is it too late" is really really stupid.
                 \_ I see.  And it's just coincidence that the candidate
                    leading the race in the start of September has won
                    every presidential since the 1980 (that I've bothered
                    to look)?  In fact, since the 1930's (when Gallop starting
                    tracking elections), only in 1960 did the leading candidate
                    in the start of September lose an election.  In 9/1960,
                    Kenneday was behind 46% vs 47%, and he won the election
                    with 50.1% of the vote.  Nah, just a coincidence.
                    \_ No, it just shows that elections are decided by
                       something other than personalities. The economy
                       in September determines the winner in November,
                       except during exceptional years.
                       \_ Now, how does this claim jive with your previous
                          claim that "*any* question asked at the start of
                          the campaign season asking 'is it too late' is
                          really really stupid."?  (Emphasis added.)
                          \_ I believe he's claiming that this is an
                             exceptional year.  I would tend to agree.
                             !the above guy
                             \_ Note that he didn't say "in an exceptional
                                year".  He stated it as a general principle.
                                Note also that he repeatedly asked "is this
                                your first election?".  The only reason to
                                ask that would be to use the history of
                                previous elections as a guide to what will
                                happen this time.  This is clearly contrary
                                to a claim that history doesn't apply because
                                this is an exceptional election.
2004/9/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:33283 Activity:high
9/1     Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans:
        On the Clinton recession and the early stages of Bush prosperity --
        "This president inherited a Clinton recession and turned it into the
        early stages of Bush prosperity ... When you look at all of the
        economic data collectively, you can't do anything but conclude that
        this is a very strong economy, it continues to get stronger, it's a
        resilient recovery we have under way, we're in the early stages of
        Bush prosperity. But, yes, there's always more work to do, because
        you want to make sure that everybody in America that wants a job has
        a job. The president will talk about more work to do. He will talk
        about making the tax cuts permanent. He will talk about an ownership
        society."
        \_ We've turned the corner! Re-elect Hoover in '32! Four more years!
        \_ Please don't troll the csua socialists.  A frothing socialist is
           not pretty.  They do that enough on their own without you baiting
           them with how well the economy is recovering from the excess of
           the Clinton years.
           \_ Hey, bub, didn't you get the message?  The motd is
              republican-landia, there are no socialists here.
        \_ Yep, everything's fine:
           http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2004/mft04090118.htm
2004/9/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33273 Activity:insanely high
9/1     Anyone else catch Arnie praising Nixon?  High-larious!
        \_ yeah so you were all alive back in 1968 and wanted Humphrey
           don't you know anything about history, I'm talking the complete
           story not just Watergate.
        \_ In the draft of the speech, it was Hitler, but they softened it
           a bit in the rewrite.
           \_ I guess you are part of the 30% who disapprove of Arnold
              in this state.
        \_ Of course.  He didn't slip it in secretly.  And the talking heads
           commented on it afterwards.  What about it?  What Nixon did would
           not even get mention today.  What happens commonly today and is
           dismissed by the media and public would yield prison terms during
           Nixon's era.
           \_ You mean it wouldn't matter if a Republican did it. Or have you
              forgotten that a blowjob in the Oval Office seems to be more
              impeachable than leaking the identity of a CIA agent?
              \_ Um, no.  Perjury and suborning perjury.  Not a blowjob.
                 \_ Yeah wow, lets have THIS argument again.  Woohoo.  You've
                    heard of the Nixon tape where he tells Chuck Colson to
                    BLOW PEOPLE UP, right?
                    \_ I'm not the above poster, but what does blowing
                       people up have to do with blowing people in the
                       oval office?
                 \_ Lying about getting a blowjob ... How many politicians
                    tell the truth about affairs unless confronted directly
                    with incontravertable evidence?
                    \_ Sheesh.  This is such a lame attempt at
                       justification.  He was under oath in front of a
                       grand jury.  Lying to a grand jury is not ok no
                       matter who you are.
                       \_ Note that it appears to be ok to lie to Congress
                          (Reagan, Bush Sr), the SEC (Bush Jr), and to fuck
                          your employees even if you're married (Gingrich).
                          Don't be a democrat.
                       \_ And the earth is round and the sky is blue. All
                          true, but not the issue.  The man should not have
                          been questioned about an infidelity in front of a
                          Grand Jury to begin with.
                          \_ The case was a SEXUAL HARRASSMENT CASE.
                             \_ which was THROWN OUT for being MERITLESS
                             \_ Nope. Sorry. It was in the context of the
                                Whitewater probe, remember?
                                \_ And you remember this?
                                   "Having an affair with an intern is not a
                                   federal crime, but lying about it, or asking
                                   others to do so, is. And that's why
                                   Whitewater special prosecutor Kenneth
                                   Starr's inquiry has expanded to include it.
                                   Allegations so far involve possible perjury,
                                   suborning perjury and obstruction of
                                   justice."
                                   http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/multimedia/timeline/9809/starr.report/cnn.content/starr.legal
                        \_ and then there's lying in front of grand jury
                           compared to lying about WMD's infrot of everyone.WTG!
        \_ Nixon was an effective president, a crook, but a pretty good
            president.          -liberal
           \_ So its okay to be a criminal, as long as you are an effective
              criminal?
              \_ Isn't that what all the Clinton lovers taught us?
                 \_ If lying under oath about your infidelity is wrong, I don't
                    want to be right!
                    \_ So you think infidelity is ok?  Does your wife/gf know
                       you think that way?
           \_ Nixon started out with great intentions and fell into paranoia
              and dirty tricks.  By the end, he was up to his neck in ethical
              and legal violations, and the only thing he could think about
              was trying to save his own ass.
                \_ if Nixon rose from the dead, I'd vote for him
                   instead of gwbush.
                   \_ Oh no!  Zombie Nixon!
                      http://www.filibustercartoons.com/store_tshirts.php
        \_ yeah so you were all alive back in 1968 and wanted Humphrey
           don't you know anything about history, I'm talking the complete
           story not just Watergate.
           \_ Put your drivel at the bottom like everybody else.  Ok tnx.
        \_ In the draft of the speech, it was Hitler, but they softened it
           a bit in the rewrite.
           \_ I guess you are part of the 30% who disapprove of Arnold
              in this state.
              \_ I haven't taken part in this thread at all yet, but while
                 I had once approved of Ah-nold prior to his speech, I now
                 disapprove and this probably won't change.  "If you still
                 support George W. Bush, you're still stupid."
              \_ Sheesh, just trying to inject a bit of humor into this
                 landmine filled motd "debate"
           \_ Put your drivel at the bottom like everybody else.  Ok tnx.
           \_ Yeah because you can win any debate by just comparing the other
              guy to Hitler.  This is brilliant!  Now I have the key to
              winning any debate on any topic!  Thank you motd!
        \_ What did Ah-nold actually say?
           \_ "I finally arrived here in 1968. I had empty pockets, but I was
              full of dreams. The presidential campaign was in full swing. I
              remember watching the Nixon and Humphrey presidential race on
              TV. A friend who spoke German and English, translated for me. I
              heard Humphrey saying things that sounded like socialism which
              is what I had just left. But then I heard Nixon speak. He was
              talking about free enterprise, getting government off your back,
              lowering taxes, and strengthening the military. Listening to
              Nixon speak sounded more like a breath of fresh air."
              \_ What's really great is that Nixon NEVER DEBATED Humphrey...
                 \_ Ah-nold never said he watched them debate.
                    \_ He has in the past, and it's what he implied.  Listen
                       to the speech rather than just reading the transcript.
                       http://www.walrusmagazine.com/article.pl?sid=03/10/08/1951245&mode=nested&tid=1
              \_ See, I don't see what's so bad about this.  I probably
                 wouldn't have said it, but saying he liked what Nixon
                 said about economics in his campaign speech is hardly a
                 big deal to me.
                 \- also see:
                    home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/Articles/Politics/NixonObit-HST.txt
                    \_ so, how is Nixon different from Dubya and friends, other
                       than getting caught? -lame troll #69
2004/8/21-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33061 Activity:very high
8/21    I asked earlier about John McCain's face, and I meant no disrespect.
        Was he wounded in the jaw or neck area?
        \_ I think I heard that he was wounded in Vietnam when he
           either went down in his plane or when he was at the POW
           camp. I believe the damage was to his vertebrea resulting
           in neurological damage of the spine. The direct result is
           that he doesn't have full movement of his arms and probably
           other areas of his body. I believe that it was similar to
           Bob Dole's damage from WWII.
           \_ Bob Dole: war hero, injured in combat for his country in a just
              war.
              Bill Clinton: self proclaimed draft dodger.
              Election winner:  Bill Clinton.
              Given that history shows the voters don't care about war heroes,
              why is Kerry spending so much time talking about his war hero
              status?  It didn't help Dole at all.
              \_ Eh, Dole had several things going against him: he had even
                 less charisma than kerry, clinton had enormous charisma,
                 and was a VERY popular incumbent.  Also keep in mind that
                 we're a nation at war, and the merit badge of heroic military
                 service at this time is seen as a necessary trait.  I don't
                 think this was true of the clinton era.
                 \_ What country are we at war with? --aaron
                    \_ Uh, Evildoer... uh... onia.
                    \_ None.  It is peace time.  In times of peace we don't
                       need war heroes.  So vote for Bush with us Aaron and
                       let's focus on the economy and other peace time issues
                       instead of 30+ year old war records.
                       \_ I think the soliders dying overseas would disagree
                          with your flip, off-the-cuff analysis.  The idea that
                          we're a nation at peace with soldiers enagaged in
                          daily battles with opponents shooting rpg's at them
                          is pretty stupid, actually.
              \_ You may not remember Bob Dole's "war on drugs?"  how about
                 his 17% tax cut across the board?  Not that he had any chance
                 but he, among other things, choose wrong platforms.  and
                 honestly, I would choose a 90 yr old Dole over current Bush
                 any day simply because Dole's character.       -liberal
                 \_ Are you equating the war on drugs with a military conflict?
                    I don't understand why you mention it.  And what's wrong
                    with a tax cut for everyone that pays taxes?
                    \_ Who's going to pay for it if you give everyone a tax
                       cut?  Cut spending?  Hahahahaha.
        \_ Shortly before it came out that his nurse wife was abusing
           prescription skills at work, McCain had surgery for cancer in
           in his face.  I think that is what you're wondering about.
           And I am talking about in the 1996 race.  -maxmcc
2004/8/13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32889 Activity:very high
8/13    Just curious.  I don't think this has ever been asked on the motd
        before.  Who have you voted for in the past and why?  I'll start:
        \_ It's kind of interesting to note who people voted for and
           who's in power an election cycle afterwards. If America had
           voted for Dukakis, we wouldn't have had Clinton. If we voted
           for Bush Sr. or Dole instead of Clinton, we probably wouldn't
           have had GWB.
        \_ 1992:  Perot, realized mistake later.  Not voted since due to
           overall disgust with available candidates, don't believe in the
           lesser of two evils.  I'd vote for Kerry's wife, though. -John
        1988: random never heard of third party.  Bush Sr, ex-cia chief or
              Dukakis?  Hardly.
        1992: random never heard of third party.  was going to vote Perot
              until he claimed the cia was out to ruin his daughter's wedding.
        1996: random never heard of third party.  More Clinton or Dole, Mr.
              "it's my turn!".  Don't think so.
        2000: Nutty Gore (who turned out to be even nuttier after) or the
              coke head party boy?  Nader.
              \_ I  know a guy who voted for the guy who lost all the way
                 back to the mid '60s.  That's how I knew the 2000 election
                 was a fraud.  He actually voted for W.
                 \_ Whoa.  He voted Carter/Mondale/Dukakis/Bush/Dole?!
                    Now who's the nut?!!!!
                    \_ well, he voted for perot in '92 and at some point
                       he voted for Jesse Jackson, but you've got the rest
                       right.
              \_ Just out of curiosity, what is it that makes Gore so nutty?
                 It sounds like you're just talking out your ass.
              \_ What's the "never heard of" third party of which you speak?
              \_ Nader is far nuttier than Gore.  -tom
                 \_ I humbly suggest that is not saying much.
                    \_ Being nuttier than Gore is not saying much?  You mean
                       Gore isn't nutty at all?  Well, I basically agree with
                       that.  -tom
                       \_ heh, I meant that Gore is pretty nutty, and saying
                          Nader is far nuttier isn't saying much because
                          they're all nuts at that point.  Gore may be right,
                          but he sure is pretty nutty.  I say he is nutty
                          based on two things:  Gore is a robot; and when
                          he crashes, he crashes hard.
                          \_ Uhm, that's a really stupid basis to draw that
                             conclusion from.  Maybe you should wait until
                             puberty before posting to motd or (god forbid)
                             voting.
                             \_ I don't think you understand the lack of
                                seriousness implied when comparing levels of
                                nuttiness.  I'd still vote Gore in over Bush,
                                and I did, and I still think Gore is better
                                Presidential material.
                                \_ No, I understand it.  I just think you're
                                   nitwit.
        \_ Wow!  You still remember the names of failed candidates in the past?
           \_ Don't worry, brother.  Enemies of the party and other unpersons
              will soon be forgotten.
2004/8/13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:32887 Activity:nil
8/13    Just curious.  I don't think this has ever been asked on the motd
        before.  Who have you voted for in the past and why?  I'll start:
        1988: random never heard of third party.  Bush Sr, ex-cia chief or
              Dukakis?  Hardly.
        1992: random never heard of third party.  was going to vote Perot
              until he claimed the cia was out to ruin his daughter's wedding.
        1996: random never heard of third party.  More Clinton or Dole, Mr.
              "it's my turn!".  Don't think so.
        2000: Nutty Gore (who turned out to be even nuttier after) or the
              coke head party boy?  Nader.
              \_ Just out of curiosity, what is it that makes Gore so nutty?
                 It sounds like you're just talking out your ass.
              \_ What's the "never heard of" third party of which you speak?
              \_ Nader is far nuttier than Gore.  -tom
                 \_ I humbly suggest that is not saying much.
                    \_ Being nuttier than Gore is not saying much?  You mean
                       Gore isn't nutty at all?  Well, I basically agree with
                       that.  -tom
                       \_ heh, I meant that Gore is pretty nutty, and saying
                          Nader is far nuttier isn't saying much because
                          they're all nuts at that point.  Gore may be right,
                          but he sure is pretty nutty.  I say he is nutty
                          based on two things:  Gore is a robot; and when
                          he crashes, he crashes hard.
        \_ Wow!  You still remember the names of failed candidates in the past?
2004/8/11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32834 Activity:very high
8/11    Wouldn't even Republicans agree that any administration that purposely
        leaks classified info (in the latest case, the identity of a Al Queda
        operative working for us) for political gain, endangering this
        country's security in the process, should be removed? Isn't this on the
        level of Nixon's crimes, if not greater?
        \_ Wouldn't even Democrats agree that any administration that
           purposely sold nuclear secrets to China in exchange for campaign
           money, endangering this country's security in the process, should
           be removed?  Isn't this far above the level of Nixon's crimes, if
           not far far greater?
           \_ Yeah, if such a thing actually happened, it would be. But since
              it is only a fiction of some paranoid loons imagination, I
              not going to worry about it too much. Forget your tinfoil hat?
           \_ Which Clinton administration official admitted that this
              happened?  Condi Rice actually ADMITTED the name was leaked by
              the Bush admin
        \_ It's minor compared to what Nixon and Reagan administrations did.
           Nixon used the CIA to counter the FBI investigating his reelection
           committee's illegal activities. Reagan sold arms to an enemy state
           to fund an illegal war. This said, what Bush's admin did was just
           really stupid, not illegal. The Valerie Plame thing was illegal.
           \_ Nixon/Reagan stuff was clearly wrong ... but did it give aid
              and comfort to a foreign enemy we are at war with?  Scale vs.
              direct effect.
           \_ Why no recrimination for Clinton buying arms from Iran to give
              to the KLA?  So having another Soviet satellite state in
              our hemisphere would have been a good thing?
              \_ 1) Because after nearly 20 years, attempts of normalization
                 of relations with (supposively moderate) Iran through
                 economic mean is not a totally bad idea.
                 \_ The arms tranfers were illicit, just like those in
                    Iran-Contra.
                    \_ Sigh. Context has no meaning to you. -EOT-
                 2) The US Congress had outlawed the sales. Both El Salvador
                 and Nicaragua were economically, politically, and militarily
                 incapable of threatening the US.
                 \_ So a Soviet controlled Central America would have
                    been no problem during the 1980's?
                    \_ The US told these nations "our way or the highway."
                       They took the highway and Cold Warriors struck back.
                       If the US had tried to fix the oppressive (pro-US)
                       regimes, socialism wouldn't have taken root.
              \_ I had never even heard of this charge before. Are you sure
                 it is not one of those "who killed Vince Foster" type
                 Clinton-hater legend?
        \_ SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! - Bill O'Reilly
           \_ He only says that to people repeating liberal nonsense after
              they've had their turn.
        \_ Only 40% of Americans believe the Bush administration would be
              \_ And when encouraging people not to speak out about the war.
                 And when the son of a man killed on 9/11 tries to point out
                 that the terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.
        \_ Only 38% of Americans believe the Bush administration would be
           capable of that.
           http://i.timeinc.net/time/covers/1101040816/poll/images/poll_2.gif
        \_ No, it's only incompetence that led to the al Qaeda operative's name
           being leaked to the press at an inappropriate time.  Who exactly
           leaked it?  Tom Ridge says he doesn't know.  Rice implies the name
           was purposely released by the administration to press.
           http://csua.org/u/8jx
           \_ It's worse than that. The guy had flipped and was giving the
              Pakistanis viable intelligence, plus feeding Al-Quada trash.
              Knowing that someone had been found drove Al-Quada back
              underground instead of into the hands of authorities.
              \_ I'm just talking about the motive, not the results (which
                 are as severe as you say).  I say incompetence, not politics.
2004/8/11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Foreign] UID:32821 Activity:nil
8/11    Old News: "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we.
        They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our
        people, and neither do we."
        \_ Sounds like Quayle.
        \_ A new 'Bushism': We're gonna get us
        \_ That answers the question "Why do you hate America?"
2004/8/9 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:32790 Activity:very high
8/9     Wow, the FBI really does need reforming. If this is all true,
        they should just tear the whole thing down and start over
        from scratch:
        http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/25/60minutes/main526954.shtml
        \_Reminds me of the story where Israeli translators fluent in
          Arabic were shunned because they were Jewish, and it
          wouldn't look right.
        \_ Must be Clinton-appointed people, or at least inspired by him.
           \_ YES! THE CLENIS! THE CLENIS MUST HAVE BEEN INVOLVED! OH HOW
              I HATE THAT MANLY THROBBING CLENIS. --Typical Freeper
        \_ Well, the FBI said she was fired because of her disruptive behavior.
           While I have no way to know who is lying (maybe both?), there are
           those paranoid people who run around doing no work but making
           accusations until they are fired and then make an even bigger fuss.
2004/7/30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32598 Activity:high
7/30    Washington Post book review on the 9/11 commision report
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26729-2004Jul30.html
        Clinton did something before 9/11; Bush didn't.
        \_ You don't call taking a month-long vacation doing something?
        \_ They were, they were trying to figure out how to pick a
           fight with China so they can spend all the tax payer's money
           to make themselves rich, until Bin Ladin shitted on their
           face. It's amazing people have such short memory.
2004/7/29 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Finance/Investment] UID:32565 Activity:very high
7/29    Jobless claims up, consumer spending down.  Wages drop 9.2% from
        2000 to 2002.  First time since 1953 that wages have dropped.
        \_ What does "wages" mean?  Average?  Cumulative?
           \_ Sorry, wrong word.  overall income:
              http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/29/business/29tax.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1091124617-0REdJYzdft5vWcq6Zdx2PQ
        \_ It appears income rose for all people making under $200k and fell
                      \_ Where do you get this?
                         \_ Click on the chart to the right on that page
                            (and my bad, $1-$25k went down 1.4%); actually
                            the right column there is a better metric, which
                            says income per taxpayer went down for $100K and
                            up but not for $0-100K.
           for people with larger incomes, which makes total sense given the
           large stock gains in 2000.
           \_ No, actually the opposite has happened, at least with take
              home pay.
        \_ The bubble created in the Clinton era had bursted before he left
           office in 2001.
           \_ don't forget the Twin Towers also bursted.
              \_ and we know that's dubya's fault because he sent the jews
                 there to blow them up so he could invade iraq to get the
                 free oil for halliburton.
                 \_ You make Michael Moore look like an intellectual.
              \_ That's what they want you to think.  The whole "attack"
                 took place in a soundstage in Japan, where they used to
                 make the Godzilla films.
        \_ It's 2004 now, son.
           \_ but perhaps they only have data up to tax year 2002, daddy?
              \_ probably but so what?  why are old numbers from the worst
                 part of the recession being hashed around now in the middle
                 of an election?  suspicious.
                 \_ It must be the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy.
                 \_ It's true, the IRS is run by liberals who hate America.
2004/7/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:32549 Activity:high
7/28    Serious question: Politically speaking, what's the diff between
        Al Gore, Clinton, Edwards, Kerry, Ted Kennedy?
        \_ This would be a long post, sure you want to see it?
           \_ what about a short summary or URL?
        Clinton:  The Natural, The Horny Bastard
        Gore:  The Boy Scout
        Kerry:  The Troubled Vietnam Officer
        Edwards:  The Trial Lawyer For The People, The Young Guy
           \_ Edwards is 51. Bush was 54 in 2000. Clinton was born '46, so
              was 46 when he became president. But they'll probably keep
              calling Edwards young even when he's 60.
        Ted Kennedy:  The Old Bostonian Democrat
2004/7/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Health/Men] UID:32523 Activity:insanely high
7/29    Democrats... did you guys listen to Bill Clinton's speech at the
        convention?  it seems that he is still by far the best public speaker
        out of all the big boys in that hall.
        \_ Where can I get a transcript of what he said?
        \_ Barack Obama was awesome too, but I guess he's a "new kid," not
           a "big boy."
        \_ Doesn't it bother you that you refer to a former President as
           the 'big dog'.  Exactly what is this supposed to mean?  He
           is not spaid and has free roam of the neighborhood?
           As for Obama, oh yea let's make this the land opportunity
           by giving people things for free that other people paid for.
           \_ That damn Clinton mutt, always sneaking around while my bitches
              are in heat!
           \_ Damn right!  Kids didn't pay for the schools, so let's get
              rid of that commie public education.  Also, kids don't have
              any money to pay doctors, so let's stop this nonsense about
              public health care.  Once we get rid of all this free stuff
              that other people paid for, then America will be the true
              land of opportunity.
              \_ Would you be willing to lower your GPA by a full point to
                 give 5 others with 1.8 GPAs a 0.2 boost so they don't get
                 kicked out of school?
                 \_ Ahh.. the old "the points versus the playing field"
                    argument
                    \_ Answer it, don't duck.
              \_ So you wouldn't mind paying my taxes?
              \_ Ah yes, the red herring.  I'm sure you incapable of seeing
                 how something like free schooling for everyone is a benefit
                 for everyone because it's free schooling for *everyone* which
                 everyone uses to the same extent.  Whereas free health care
                 for everyone is a resource that is disproportionately used by
                 some at the expense of others.  But don't let logic or clear
                 thought get in the way of your rant.
                 \_ Ever heard of private schools? And free health care would
                    not mean the end of all private health care. So your
                    logical exceptions aren't any different than other social
                    programs. In fact all of these can be said to have a
                    benefit for everyone since it impacts the society. An
                    educated and healthy society has all sorts of benefits.
                    I'm not arguing one way or the other, just pointing it out.
                    \_ Actually, under the last seriously proposed universal
                       health care system, Hillary's, private medical care
                       would no longer be an option.  So, yes, it would mean
                       the end of private care.  I agree that an educated and
                       healthy society has benefits for all.  However, the
                       benefit to individuals in education is the same.  The
                       cost is also the same per student.  Health care costs
                       vary dramatically.  No, I'm not willing to pay for
                       some old guy's viagra, some fat person to go on a diet,
                       the umpteenth heart surgery for someone who won't take
                       care of themselves or anyone's plastic surgery.
                    \_ If all schools were private, many people would not
                       be able to send their kids to school, at least 25%,
                       since that is the percent of kids in poverty. Just
                       pointing that out.
                       \_ With private healthcare many don't get healthcare?
              \_ then, there is the non-sense of minimum wages.  We should
                 get rid of minimum wage let the iron law of wages dictates
                 the market value of hourly pay.
                 \_ minimum wages are entirely artificial and don't help
                    anyone.  all it means is that all prices go up that much
                    more to pay the legally mandated minimum.  If the iron
                    law of wages was allowed to dictate the market value of
                    hourly pay, prices and wages would be forced into
                    alignment instead of giving us government sponsored
                    inflation.  once again, don't let logic or reality get
                    in the way of your little rant, either.
                    \_ No economist believes these things. Show me some
                       evidence that "prices go up" in lockstep with
                       increases in the minimum wage. Don't let logic
                       or reality get in the way of your little rant, though.
                       \_ Let's take this to it's logical extreme.  Raise the
                          minimum wage to $25/hour.  Roughly $50k year.  That's
                          a living wage in the SFBA, right?  What is going to
                          happen to prices?  Homework on this topic is due on
                          Thursday, the quiz is next Monday in section.
          \_ Awww, if only he'd actually said that, my poor widdle twoll.
             \_ I watched his speech.  After reciting his personal
                history that is exactly the consequence of what he said.
                Just be honest about your intentions - is that too much
                to ask???
2004/7/27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:32499 Activity:nil
7/27    It's amazing to see that people continue to bring up Clinton's
        sex scandal while ignoring the facts that BushCo has murdered
        thousands of people, invaded a foreign country for no reason
        other than to make themselves rich, fucked California out of
        billions of dollars in utility bill, lost millions of American
        jobs, drive up the deficit to record levels while pocketing
        millions themselves (heck, we have to pay it back, not
        BushCo). And all you can say to this is "I did not have sex
        with that woman"? We all make mistakes, what Clinton has done
        probably deserves a few slaps on the face by Hilary, what
        BushCo has done, the only justifiable punishment is a bullet
        in their head.
        \_ ye trolle, hello!
           \_ How is this a troll? you fuck head! -op
              \_ Use this in a sentence that's not a troll:
                 "... a few slaps on the face by Hilary ..."
        \_ What utility bill?  The one stalled in congress?
2004/7/25 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:32471 Activity:nil
7/25    Is it any surprise that Sandy Berger attempted to dowplay the Cox
        report on Chinese espionage?
        'Sandy Berger must go' from 1999
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1178015/posts
2004/7/23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32441 Activity:insanely high
7/23    Washington Post editorial on the Sandy Berger affair
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7523-2004Jul22.html
        "Whether it was a mistake or not, Mr. Berger's conduct, the subject of
        a criminal investigation by the FBI, was reprehensible, and he was
        right to resign as a Kerry adviser."
        \_ "IT'S STILL NOT clear why former national security adviser
           Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger improperly removed secret documents
           from the National Archives last year."  How 'bout waiting for
           the investigation, that's been ongoing for ALMOST A YEAR, to
           finish, instead of making allegations purely based on leaks
           from the white house.
           And if there is any doubt this is being pushed into the press:
           http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_07_18.php#003195
           Mmmm... Tucker "Pull it straight from my ass" Carlson... -scotsman
           \_ The aren't leaks.  He and his attorney admitted it.
        \_ How can it be a mistake?  He repeated the behavior six times.
        \_ uh, how about "As happened so often during the Clinton
           administration, [Republicans] are treating a real but
           apparently limited case of misconduct as an opportunity to
           misuse congressional oversight powers to wage partisan
           warfare."
           \_ WTF Limited case of misconduct!!??? He stole documents with the
              highest security classification.
        \_ He stole documents six times - how could this possibly be
           a mistake?
           \_ If he didn't know he couldn't take documents out of the room,
              there's no reason not to do it six times.  If he knew he was
              breaking the law, might he be slick about it and only risk
              getting caught once?
              \_ There's no way he didn't know.  Do you know how
                 hard it is to get clearance to see that stuff?  It's WAY
                 higher clearance than nuclear weapons data.
        \_ "As happened so often during the Clinton administration, they
            are treating a real but apparently limited case of misconduct
            as an opportunity to misuse congressional oversight powers to
            wage partisan warfare."
            Whaaa...?  Since when is stealing classified documents from
            the national archives and destroying evidence needed in
            reviews of National Security limited misconduct?  You people
            realize this is worse than Watergate, right?  You know, what
            Nixon got impeached for?  He was just stealing the other
            party, this guy was doing the same with the FREAKING NATIONAL
            ARCHIVES!  No liberal Bias in the media my %$@.
            \_ I don't know, I think spying on your political opponents and
               organizing burglaries and covering it up is a bit more serious
               than what basically amounts to misshandling library materials.
               \_ Wow, you have no idea what you're talking about.  If I
                  work at a national labratory, and I take out nuclear
                  weapons data and give to to Al-Queada, am I
                  "misshandling library materials?"  Please. This is
                  stealing from a highly secure government site, not
                  accidentally dropping a library book in the toilet.
                  \_ That's stretching a bit don't you think?  Was any harm
                     actually caused by taking the materials out of the
                     archives?
                     \_ How would we know?  Some documents just seem to
                        have dissappeared.  Do you know what they said or
                        where they went?  The point is, once they're out,
                        you don't know.  I doubt they were really
                        dangerous, but you can't rate the crime on how
                        dangeous the documents are once they're gone.
                        That's something you do before they're gone and
                        assign them a classification.
        \_ It's a BushCo frame job.  I know because when I heard the story
           on KCBS, the reporter just mentioned in passing the Republicans
           think it's a big deal, then the Democrats rated a 5 sentence
           quote on why it's all just a dirty political trick.
2004/7/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:32393 Activity:very high
7/20    Berger investigated for taking classified reports
        http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040719-112728-6891r.htm
        "...he had taken from classified anti-terror documents he
        reviewed at the National Archives by sticking them
        in his jacket and pants."
        This guy was Clinton's and Kerry's NSA (equivalent to Rice)
        \_ Again, even though you erased it, what's really interesting about
           all of this is why this is suddenly "news" when the investigation
           has been going on since last December.
           \_ how is the timing relevant in any way?  This guy stole and
              lost documents from the National Archives and you are
              worried about the timing.  Congress had known about Abu
              Ghraib for half a year before it came out, and???
              \_ And you screamed bloody murder about it all being leaked
                 out in time to be an election-year issue.  If that was
                 politicking, then so the hell is this.
                 \_ I don't know who 'you' refers to.  I though the whole
                    thing was overblown, nothing more than hazing of
                    terrorists.  Again, when is a good time to release
                    a former NSA stole and lost documents while the
                    9/11 commission was ongoing?  I don't think you have
                    an answer.  I can't believe you have the
                    audacity to worry about the 'timing'.
                    \_ Pshaw all around.  The NSA scandal and the Abu Graib
                       scandal should have been revealed at the same time:
                       as soon as they were discovered.  How do you like my
                       answer now?
                       \_ Abu Graib was revealed when it was discovered.  I
                          remember seeing it mentioned months before the
                          pictures came out.  It was only the pictures that
                          suddenly put it on the front page.
                       \_ You simply reinforce my opinion that to you
                          what matters is style over substance.  You could
                          care less that someone violated the law and
                          effectively interfered with a Congressional
                          investigation.  In summary, you are unethical and
                          choose to do defend like individuals.
                          \_ Is that the impression you got? Let me disabuse
                             you of it: If he violated the law and interefered
                             with said investigation beyond a reasonable doubt,
                             I not only care, I will be happy to see him
                             punished. Now pay attention here, because this is
                             where it gets tricky: at the same time that I
                             agree he should be punished, I _also_ understand
                             that the timing of this release of information is
                             of particular use to the Repubs in their efforts
                             to discredit the Kerry campaign.  See that? Two
                             beliefs, one pro-punishment and the other
                             rather cynical, held at exactly the same time in
                             my brain.  You should try it some time. It's a
                             kick.
2004/7/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:32307 Activity:high
7/15    Michael Moore is even more of a scumbag than I thought:
        http://www.townhall.com/columnists/johnmccaslin/jm20040713.shtml
        \_ Best. Nutty ring wing rant.  Evah!
           \_ Rant?  It isn't a rant.  It says the family is pissed off
              because Moore used their son's death for his propaganda and
              didn't even tell them much less give them the humanly decent
              option to say "no, thanks".
              \_ When you have a public event in a public place, you
                 open yourself up to reporting of that event. That is
                 called freedom of the press in America. I hope
                 the family does sue. They will lose.
                 \_ Who said it was public?  Was it public?  Who filmed it?
                    Why does he lack the common human decency to at least
                    inform the family it will be there.  How sickening to
                    show up at a movie and see yourself at your son's
                    funeral.  If you think this is a-ok, you're just a sick
                    bastard and not a human being.
                    \_ Arlington Cemetary == public space. Perhaps you
                       really didn't know that. I think the First Amendment
                       is a-ok and that it is really sad that you are
                       against it.
                 \_ Guess you missed this.  From the article: "The family
                    does not know how Moore obtained the video..."
                    I assume, therefore, it was not a public event.
                    \_ Do you assume that Yosemite Park is not a public
                       space as well? There is no presumption to privacy
                       in a public space. So if you are walking down the
                       trail in Yosemite and I take your picture, I can
                       publish it. That is the foundation of our free
                       press, that people are allowed to report on events
                       that occur in public.
        \_ Ohhh... that's why he's such a fat turd.  I hear human flesh is
           quite fattening.
2004/7/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:32278 Activity:high
7/14    Don't ever try to pass off Fox News as "Fair And Balanced"
        http://csua.org/u/86m (wonkette, a political blogger)
        \_ You're using a blogger site to prove something on the motd?  This
           is beyond ridiculous.  Just quote something off the
           http://democraticunderground.com message boards and get it over with.
        \_ That John Moody has a good vocabulary: "obstreperous" was new to me.
        \_ Doesn't matter, the wingnut crowd will just stick their fingers
           in their ears, shut their eyes and go "waaah waaah waaah liberal
           media waaah waaah waaah."  The scary part is that given Fox's
           success, all of the other 24 hour news networks are now
           emulating them.  The worst part isn't their bias so much as
           how they package it as good wholesome entertainment.  At least
           in soviet russia, people knew Pravda for what it was.
           \_ Ummm... The rest of the media IS biased.  That's no excuse
              for Fox, but I really wish people would stop pretending Fox
              News invented the biased news program.  It just pisses off
              all the liberals who are used to the news being slanted
              their way, which is the same reason so many middle american
              conservitives like it.  "Sure it's biased, but at least
              it's biased toward ME now." -jrleek
              \_ The liberal media canard has been thoroughly debunked.  Its
                 mostly just a stick with which to beat the mainstream media
                 to keep them in line.  There is absolutely no equivalent to
                 Fox on the left.
                 \_ Debunked in your little leftist echo chamber.  The rest
                    of us know the score.  Try being intellectually honest
                    for once.  You can't even see it because you're so
                    partisan.  The Fox equiv. is NBC/CNN/CBS/NYT/LAT at the
                    core and many others with smaller audiences.
                 \_ Well... maybe KPFA, but they don't reach *nearly* as many
                    people.
                    \_ I don't really see the equivalence with KPFA.  KPFA
                       presents itself more as "the Voice of the Activists"
                       and an organizational rallying point than as a news
                       source.  Fox is more like Inside Edition meets the
                       World.
                       \_ They both present themselves as a news source and
                          provide biased news.  Fox is the only one that keeps
                          claiming to be "Fair and Balanced"
                          \_ Are you confusing their opinion shows with their
                             news shows?  Yes.  I think you are.
                 \_ Link?  That is, a link that doesn't come from farther
                    left than CNN?  -jrleek
                 \_ I don't buy this "thoroughly debunked" argument. An
                    older survey (American Society of Newspaper Editors, 1997):
                      http://tinyurl.com/4c295
                      Total:
                      36% democrat/liberal
                      25% lean democrat/liberal
                      7% lean republican/conservative
                      8% republican/conservative
                      24% independent
                    A more recent survey (Pew Research Center for the
                    People and the Press):
                    http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=214
                      "More striking is the relatively small minority of
                      journalists who think of themselves as politically
                      conservative (7% national, 12% local). As was the
                      case a decade ago, the journalists as a group are
                      much less conservative than the general public
                      (33% conservative)."
                      \_ Talk to people who actually work in journalism.
                         Individual journalists have almost no say about what
                         ultimately appears.  This is almost always up to a
                         publisher or producer or whomever the authority
                         depending on the medium.
                         \_ So far I have 2 links showing media bias.  I'm
                            still waiting for the one that "throughly
                            debunks" media bias. -jrleek
                            \_ those surveys are about how journalists
                               self-identify, not about how they report.  And
                               the Pew report you give is very specifically
                               about how bottom-line pressure is "seriously
                               hurting" the quality of news coverage. And of
                               course you've seen the FAIR report, which you're
                               going to claim "comes from too far left".  -tom
                               \_ You're saying that the political leaning
                                  of the people who report the news
                                  doesn't effect how they report it?  I
                                  admire your faith tom.  And yes, when a
                                  communist tells me Clinton was a
                                  right-winger, I tend to think his
                                  opinion is too far left.  (BTW, that's
                                  hyperbole) -jrleek
                                  \_ First of all, I don't think people are
                                     very good at reporting their political
                                     leaning; the FAIR report asks their
                                     position on specific issues and then
                                     compares that to the national average.
                                     Second, it should be obvious that
                                     the ownership of the news outlet has
                                     more control than the people who report
                                     it.  -tom
                                     \_ It's all relative.  How else to
                                        determine one's place on the political
                                        spectrum without comparing to other
                                        people?  It isn't something that can
                                        be measured like the frequency of
                                        sound.
                                  \_ I respectfully submit that you don't
                                     know much about how publishing or
                                     the news media functions, jrleek.  I know
                                     a couple of people that work in print
                                     journalism, which admittedly may differ
                                     from television media in many ways but
                                     not, I doubt, in this respect.  Editors
                                     vet everything that goes into print, and
                                     editors in turn are under enormous pressure
                                     to follow general directives about content
                                     and editorial direction from publishers.
                                     People lose their jobs in the industry
                                     all the time over this.
                                     \_ I admit, I don't have much
                                        personal contact with
                                        journalists.  My opinions are
                                        pretty much all circumstantial in
                                        reguard to the media.  That is,
                                        all the news sources I see, SF
                                        Cron, NYT, CNN, etc. are left
                                        leaning.  I've seen right leaning
                                        local newspapers before, but no
                                        national ones.  -jrleek
                                        \_ The fact that you consider the NYT
                                           left-leaning speaks volumes about
                                           your bias, and little about theirs.
                                           \_ I like the NYT, mostly, but if
                                              you think it isn't left
                                              leaning you're either waaaaaay
                                              out in left field or just
                                              trolling.
                                           \_ Not to mention the William
                                              Randolph Hearst SF Chron.  -tom
                                              \_ Ummm... ok.  I guess I
                             should point out that I'm refering to
                             left-leaning against the national average,
                             not the Berkeley average.  -jrleek
                             \_ Do you know anything about William Randolph
                                Hearst?  -tom
                                \_ I know he's dead.
                                   \_ Tell us how dead guys control the
                                      media Tom!
                                      \_ That's Dead Rich White Males to you!
                             \_ So I guessed you missed that whole thing where
                                the Howell Raines-led NYT was basically out
                                to get Bill Clinton in the '90s with their
                                Whitewater coverage?
                                \_ Sorry, yes.  I wasn't reading the NYT
                                   regularly in High School. -jrleek
                                \_ "Out to get" or simply reporting the
                                   biggest news story of the day?  Should they
                                   have ignored the Clinton's criminal
                                   activity?
                                   \_ Whitewater criminal?  What criminal
                                      behavior was Clinton convicted of
                                      in connection to Whitewater?
                         \_ Are you suggesting that publishers personally
                            edit each and every article that goes into, say,
                            the New York Times every morning, injecting spin
                            of their own particular flavor? Interesting. I'd
                            always thought that the articles that go into, say,
                            a daily newspaper were largely the work of their
                            authors, with a little editing. The headline is
                            written by someone else, but not the article.
                            \_ The owners and editors lean conservative.
                               And you bet that biases their newspapers.
                               Are you trying to claim that GE, Westinghouse
                               and MSNBC are "liberal"? I personally think
                               that the Big Business owner bias and liberal
                               reporter bias more or less cancel out.
                               \_ Cancel out?  The person writing the story
                                  is the most important part of it.  There are
                                  tens of thousands of words printed in each
                                  paper everyday and you think some editors
                                  are rewriting everything to have a right
                                  slant?  That's just nutty.
                         \_ http://www.fair.org/extra/0405/npr-study.html
                            Republicans outnumber Democrats 2:1 on NPR.
                         \_ Conservative think tanks quoted more than liberal:
                            http://www.fair.org/extra/0405/think-tank.html
                            \_ I dunno, A lot of the think tank references
                               I see are written poorly.  That's a whole
                               article on how we're all going to die from
                               Global Warming, then a little blub at the
                               end that says "Hertiage Foundation dude
                               says that he doesn't think this is the
                               case."
                         \_ The Myth of The Liberal Media:
                            http://csua.org/u/86s (Amazon)
                            How corporations have taken over what used to
                            once be a free and independent press corp.
                            \_ The press has always been a business. This is
                               just plain silly.  When exactly was the media
                               ever  "independent"?
                         \_ On the http://fair.org links: My concern about media
                            bias is not so much the biases that I DO know -
                            if they quote the Heritage Foundation or bring on
                            a liberal commentator, I know what to expect. My
                            concern is biases I can't see. What is the bias
                            of the person who writes the news, and what is
                            the bias of the person who edits it and decides
                            what gets on the air? Consequently I find the
                            third link (and also the Eric Alterman book) more
                            compelling than the first two.
                            \_ http://fair.org is a raving left-wing group.  Just
                               tiptoe through their archives and count the
                               number of stories of media being too liberal.
                               Good luck!
        \_ Barry Diller is one of Hillary's closest allies and biggest
           contributor.  President of ABC advising Kerry on VP selection.
           The notion that coorporate leadership can't lean democrat is
           nonsense, look at campaign contributions.  The media is based
           in New York and Hollywood, very left wing areas.  Based on
           this it would be natural to expect to some bias.  Couple that
           with the rich Jews it becomes even more obvious.
           As for Alterman, I've repeatedly heard him admit on CSPAN
           yes the media is biased, but, he then contrives some
           bizarre explanation why it doesn't matter.  As for Fox, their
           prime time viewership is 2 million, compared to 30 million for
           the broadcast networks.
           \_ Corporate contributions can influence politicians of any party.
              The current administration seems to exhibit quite a lot of
              quid-pro-quo.
           \_ No one said it can't.  It just that it doesn't.
           \_ Use motdedit, you quished 2 reponses.
           \_ Corporations contribute to *both* parties so that they can
              receive favors no matter who wins. Even Enron gave money
              to the Dems. Your analysis is spot on. The media is
              controlled mostly by rich, left-wing Jews who are fiscally
              conservative and socially liberal. Liberals go to journalism
              school. Conservatives go to business or law school. In
              addition to Diller there are Eisner and Geffen among others.
              \_ So you're saying David Geffen controls the news media?
                 You are a funny man.
                 \_ I didn't write this comment but I think its pretty
                    obvious Jews control the media, and they are
                    overwhelmingly leftists.
                    \_ Media is not the only thing we control, peon. -- ilyas
                 \_ Music and movies are definitely media that influence
                    lots of people. Further, I named Geffen because he
                    is an example of a big, rich, media owner who is also
                    decidedly liberal. I have no idea why the left equates
                    "corporations" with "conservative".
                    \_ I don't equate the two; I think the media is corporate
                       rather than conservative.  -tom
                       \_ What is the corporate position on social issues?
                          \_ there is not a single corporate position, but
                             generally, corporations will not take risky
                             positions.  -tom
                             \_ In other words they won't lean too far
                                left or too far right. That sounds right.
                                So what's the beef?
           \_ Racist! Hate Israel, Love Jews!
           \_ Oh I get it!  Jew bashing is cool as long as you're only bashing
              left wing Jews!
              \_ Most Jews are left wing, but I didn't see any bashing.
           \_ It is just a list of memos from the director of Fox News.
              Are you trying to claim that she made them up?
2004/7/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:32277 Activity:high
7/14    So I am curious how Conservatives feel about The House repeatedly
        "bending the rules" to get things passed at the last minute:
        http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/005080.html
        \_ Sounds shady to me (the actions of the house leaders, not the
           reportage).  Got any better references than Joe Q. Blogger?  How do
           Liberals feel about the mutation in the Senate of everything
           requiring cloture?
           \_ This was widely reported.  You can do a search anywhere for it.
              On the Medicare bill last year, they held the vote open for
              almost 3 hours while they tried to convince people to change
              their votes.  This time it was only 20 minutes.  As far as I've
              read, this was unheard of before last year.
           \_ Weren't the new cloture rules proposed by Frist and Z.Miller?
              Why do you suggest this is a Liberal mutation?
              \_ I'm not referring to rules, but rather the practice of the
                 dems to filibuster anything they don't like, which basically
                 means that to get anything done you need cloture rather than
                 simple majority.
                 \_ That's the senate, son.
                 \_ As opposed to the filibuster free repubs in the senate
                    under Clinton?  Come on...  That's what the senate is for.
                 \_ As opposed to the filibuster free repub senate under
                    Clinton?  Come on...  That's what the senate is for.
                    It's a necessary check on the majority.  Democracy at
                    work.
                    \_ We could compare the numbers between the previous and
                       current admins for filibusters.  The answer won't
                       come out in your favor.  You're also twisting the
                       issue.  It isn't a case of "filibuster free". It is
                       a case of now requiring 60 votes instead of the
                       Constitutionally mandated 50 because the Dems won't
                       let *anything* pass at 50 now.  It's an abuse.
                       \_ okay, i'm curious. care to cite sources for numbers
                          and post the math and results somwhere?
                  \_ I think it is a shitty way to run a democracy. -op
           \_ So I guess when the Republicans logjammed the congress in the
              '90s, that was really bad too?  Oh wait, Democrats BAD,
              Republicans GOOD.
              \_ Compare the numbers like I said above.  There's a difference
                 between stalling a few bills here and there and doing it
                 for nearly everything.
                 \_ And the dems don't do it for nearly everything.  Man have
                    you drunk the koolaid.  They have done it for a few high
                    profile cases, jsut like the repubs did.
2004/7/7 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:31211 Activity:insanely high
7/7     Kerry's Chinagate - Loral Money Going to DNC
        http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/7/7/150106.shtml
        1996 campaign finance scandals all over again?
        \_ OOOOOhhhh, a NewsMax link!  Why don't you post a Drudge link,
           a worldnetdaily, and a FreeRepublic while you're at it?
           \_ Translation: "Any news source that is not biased to my
              political thinking is completely invalid.  Do not speak of
              them to me!"
           \_ Sigh... it is either true or it is not.  Attack the truthfulness of
              the material, not the source.  Attacking the source is weak
              and demonstates you have nothing else to say against the
              truthfulness of the material and lends it credence.  This is
              basic Rhetoric 1A stuff any freshman should know.
              \_ Nah, they might teach it in Freshman 101, but anyone
                 with common sense knows you don't argue with a homeless
                 insane drunk.
        \_ As long as he doesn't out any CIA operatives for political
           gain. Whoops! Motherfucking wingnuts. --aaron
           \_ Anything a democrat does, evil.  Anything a republican does,
              good.  Any questions?
              \_ Evil?  Or Eeeeevvvviiilllll!!!!! ?
        \_ Remember when it was "Motorola, Qualcomm and Loral" in all
           the Republican smear pieces? Notice how Motorola is not
           mentioned anymore? I wonder why that is.....
           http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.asp?Ind=B09
           \_ Tinfoil.  Hats.  Safety from Martian radio waves.
              \_ Follow the money.
           \_ I really like the sector plots under Labor, Lawyers, and
              Media.
        \_ Kerry returned the money from Chung and other foreigners.
           But last I checked, Republicans took lots of money donated
           from corporate CEOs. Are you guys renouncing that as a
           source of fundraising, now? No more Kenny Boys?
           \_ Do you honestly see no difference between an american corporation
              and a foreign interest?
              \_ Schwartz is an American CEO. Loral is an American company.
                 What is your beef? Are you upset because he is Jewish?
                 \_ Only conservatives are allowed to be upset about anti
                    semitism.
              \_ No, that's why it was ok for Clinton to take Chinese money
                 quid pro quo for the most advanced US weapons research.
                 \_ The Clinton haters have claimed this for years, but
                    never offered up any real evidence. Do you believe
                    that Hillary killed Vince Foster to cover up the
                    evidence of their love crime, too?
                         \- "I killed Vince Foster, just to watch him die."
                    \_ The DNC returned hundreds of thousands of
                       campaign contributions and paid hundreds of
                       thousands in fines for taking money from the PLA and
                       Riady.  The PLA now has all of our nuclear weapon
                       designs, when / where do you think they got them?
                       What do you think 'no controlling legal authority'
                       was about?   Read the Cox report.  The evidence
                       is abundant if you would bother to look.
                        \_ Correlation is not causation. Any idiot knows
                           that.
                           \_ I would classify your behavior and denial as
                              a neurosis.  Poor WJC.. disbarred by USSC
                              and in his home state, impeached, a traitor,
                              and hero to anyone except the VRWC.
2004/7/7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Recreation/Computer/Games] UID:31197 Activity:nil
7/7     Yikes! Scotty has alzheimers! http://tinyurl.com/3ckj9
        \_ Dude! Scotty has a 4 year-old daughter!  Wow!
2004/7/6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:31186 Activity:high
7/6     Remember when Limbaugh called her "The White House dog"?
        http://www.wonkette.com/images/frizz_ease.jpg
        \_ Hmm, she's pretty, but I call photoshop on that particular
           photo.  Not to mention heavy makeup.
        \_ Now see here. I was ready for some serious g-on-g photos with
           Wonkette and somebody and all you have is some Chelsea headshot?
           That's what I get for not following Rush, I s'pose.
        \_ Wow, it's kinda like one of those 80's teen movies.  Is she the
           most popular girl in school now?
2004/7/6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:31184 Activity:high
7/6     Poll: Chelsea or Jenna?
        \_ Sorry, not into plumper.
          \_ Depends on your objectve, no? One of the two is clearly a better
             choice for liquoring up.
        \_ if the goal is sex, then definitely the latter
        \_ Chelsea looks like Bill *shudder*
           \_ OMG NEWS FLASH!  CHILDREN RESEMBLE THEIR PARENTS1!!1! CALL
              WATSON AND CRICK NOW!!!!1!!!!
              \_ On a purely aesthetic basis, Jenna got better genes.
                 \_ It's jeans, not genes, stupid. -dubya
                 \_ What, you like dating simians?
                    \_ w00t!
        \_ Can someone post a link of pics of Jenna, I have no idea who she is.
        \_ A three way with both of them at the same time!
           \_ Chelsea on the left, Jenna on the right...
2004/7/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:31114 Activity:very high
7/1     Saddam uses same hand gestures as Clinton, (ie: thumb) scary...
        \_ that is a very common gesture among politicians, McCain
           uses it quite frequently as well
           \_ It's called "gesticulating," don't they teach you people
              anything in school anymore? I mean, c'mon, there are
              words for these things...
              \_ Lamentably no. My gastronomic rapacity knows no satieties.
           \_ Don't disturb his wingnut fantasy with your facts.
2004/7/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:31104 Activity:very high
6/30    So the link:
        http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124079,00.html
        Regarding Moore's veracity has some troubles itself.
        The number they give about vacations, excluding camp david trips,
        assumes that every weekend was spent at camp david.  This doesn't
        jive with the month long vacations to Crawford.  And excluding the
        Camp David trips doesn't go all that far in negating Moore's point.
        \_ So you agree that Moore is lying, you just disagree with the
           specific numbers?
           \_ Um, no.  I'm saying Fox, even with an invalid qualifier,
              got their numbers wrong. --scotsman
              \_ But the point is still valid that Moore puts weekends at Camp
                 David as part of his "vacation" time.  Is Moore's 42% number
                 exaggerated or not?
        \_ Interesting.  According to <DEAD>csua.org/u/80m<DEAD>
           The first President Bush had a ratio of 37% per year if you include
           weekends at Camp David.  Was he slacking off?
        \_ Moore's source for the 42% is almost certainly this article:
           <DEAD>www.dke.org/haginranch.html<DEAD>
           Interestingly, that was published in 8/2001 and said:
              By the time President Bush returns to Washington on Labor Day
              after the longest presidential vacation in 32 years, he will have
              spent all or part of 54 days since the inauguration at his
              parched but beloved ranch. That's almost a quarter of his
              presidency.

              Throw in four days last month at his parents' seaside estate in
              Kennebunkport, Maine, and 38 full or partial days at the
              presidential retreat at Camp David, and Bush will have spent 42
              percent of his presidency at vacation spots or en route.
           So the percentage is based on the first year up to the end of the
           big vacation, including weekends at Camp David--which of course is
           going to be much higher than the total percent for the first year,
           and has been the highest percentage of the entire presidency.
           It's a pretty disingenuous statistic unless all the qualifiers are
           included.
           \_ So FNC could be correct if they're talking about the entire
              presidency while this article is talking about the most
              vacation-filled part of Bush's presidency.
        They counter the 7 minutes with a politic quote from L Hamilton.
        Fallacy of Appeal to Authority (not to mention an authority that
        the right screamed about for months as being a non-starter
        witchhunt).
        \_ Of course, I credible is FNC these days? If you've ever taken
        \_ Of course, how credible is FNC these days? If you've ever taken
           a look at "Lying Liars and the Liars the tell Them" there are
           documented cases of people on FNC just flat out lying. And
           unlike FNC, Franken actually presents evidence to back things
           up when he accuses others of lying.
        \_ So we disagree about the significance of the 7 mins.  No biggie.
           Moore turns it into something it isn't.
                     The news of Clarke having approved the saudi flights
        didn't come out until June 1st, well after the Palme D'or was
        handed down.
        \_ So here Moore was just incompetent?  No only did Clarke approve the
           flights, but they didn't happen when US airspace was closed (which
           is part of what Moore claims).
           \_ Where do you get "incompetent"?  He said what was general
              knowledge at the time.  Clarke retracted his statement
              some time after the film was released.  This goes to Clarke's
              veracity.  Not Moore's.  --scotsman
           \_ How is the White House magically not responsible for what
              their cabinet does? The Cabinet are the closest direct
              reports to the President and appointed by him. Bush can't
              claim that he is not responsible for their actions, no matter
              what Clarke tries to claim to deflect responsibility onto
              himself.
                      Since I don't have a transcript, I can't address the
        parts about the Taliban visit to Texas, but faulting Moore for
        "not mentioning that THE CLINTON approved the visit" is pretty
        hollow.
        \_ Check the history then.  The visit happened during the Clinton
           administration.  How is this hollow?  He's blaming Bush for letting
           the EVIL TALIBAN in when it wasn't Bush who did it.
           \_ This is why I said "I don't have the transcript."  But I'll grant
              you, he did suggest it.  And will you grant that the Bush admin-
              istration suggested that saddam was involved with 9/11?
              --scotsman
                 Moore has had plenty of harsh words about Clinton and
        other democrats in his books.  But he seemed to be comparing the
              \_ That's right.  When he's done with the right, he's coming
                 after you too.  Be careful who you get into bed iwth.
        tacit approval of THE CLINTON vs. the active support by THE BUSH
        in regards to the Taliban. To wit:

          But do not declare war and massacre more innocents. After
          bin Laden's previous act of terror, our last elected
          president went and bombed what he said was "bin Laden's
          camp" in Afghanistan-but instead just killed civilians.
          Then he bombed a factory in the Sudan, saying it was
          "making chemical weapons." It turned out to be making
          aspirin. Innocent people murdered by our Air Force.

          Back in May, you gave the Taliban in Afghanistan $48
          million dollars of our tax money. No free nation on earth
          would give them a cent, but you gave them a gift of $48
          million because they said they had "banned all drugs."
          Because your drug war was more important than the actual
          war the Taliban had inflicted on its own people, you
          helped to fund the regime who had given refuge to the
          very man you now say is responsible for killing my friend
          on that plane and for killing the friends of families of
          thousands and thousands of people.
          \_ This is a big lie.  The money was to a relief fund administered by
             the UN to relieve the FAMINE in Afghanistan.
             \_ How 'bout the Cato Institute's take?
                http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-02-02.html
                \_ Cato is anti-american.  Boycott Cato!

                \_ While CATO is useful to find stuff, I can't rely on them
                   alone.  Every news story I find about this says the $43M was
                   in "additional emergency aid" and was the result of
                   perceived efforts in reducing the poppy harvest (which was
                   wrong).  It doesn't say it went to the Taliban, and it
                   doesn't say how the funds were administered.  My
                   understanding is that it was through the UN and was typical
                   aid (food, clothing, medicine, etc.).  Do you have any
                   reason for believing it was a cash payment to the Taliban as
                   Moore suggests?
                   \_ Cato does not say (though kind of impies) that the money
                   \_ CATO does not say (though kind of impies) that the money
                      went to the Taliban.   As far as I can tell that untruth
                      originated in an LA times, by (yet another leftist liar)
                      Robert Scheer.  However, if you think that the taliban
                      got no part/control/benefit of that money (to say, give
                      building contracts to their cronies) then
                      you don't understand how international aid works in
                      autocratic 3rd world countries, even if it was
                      administered "though NGOs" by the U.N.
                      \_ So Moore is arguing that we shouldn't give aid to
                         countries with totalitarian leaders?
                         \_ I don't know about Moore, but I like that
                            argument. --erikred
           \_ Moore said that we gave the Taliban in Afghanistan $48M
              dollars. He did not say what the aid went for. He simply
              say that we gave it. You call this "a big lie" yet you
              agree with him that the money went to Afghanistan, which
              was controlled by the Taliban at the time. How is this
              a lie, again? It matters not if the money went directly
              to the Taliban or indirectly helped them by supporting
              their government and substituting for tax money they
              would have had to spend on the same programs anyway.
        --scotsman
2004/6/30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, ERROR, uid:31084, category id '18005#21.245' has no name! , ] UID:31084 Activity:high
6/30    http://www.drudgereport.com/kerryhrc.htm
        Anonymous insider claims that Hillary is going to be Kerry's VP pick.
        \_ Where's that hilarious motd troll who claimed that Drudge was never
           wrong?  He needs to be properly mocked again.
           \_ No.  Drudge was wrong once which he got sued for.  The rest of
              his stuff is either links to other sites or like this URL make
              it clear he is quoting a single anonymous source.  He leaves it
              for the reader to decide.  Try again.
              \_ So you see absolutely nothing wrong with publicizing
                 false accusations from single anonymous sources?  Wow, you are
                 really amoral.
                 \_ Now you're confusing morals with the accuracy of his
                    publication.  I see no difference between this URL and the
                    same anonymous sources getting quoted all the time in the
                    newspapers.  Do you?
                    \_ For one, the anonymous source says nothing definitive
                       so the whole quote is meaningless.  But in fact, I see
                       no difference on the whole.  Reporting single anonymous
                       sources without any effort to confirm their allegations,
                       as Drudge routinely does, is amoral.  If I have a very
                       popular publication and I get a phone call in the middle
                       of the night telling me that Dick Cheney rapes dogs, I
                       have a responsibility to try and confirm that before I
                       print it.  Are you familiar with the concept of libel?
                       And yes, I know US libel law requires malicious intent.
        \_ Bush it is!
        \_ The best part about this non-credible non-story is that there is no
           definite gotcha in the quotes - the "insider" is speculating just as
           much as Drudge is, reporting Capitol hill gossip and giving his
           opinion of what it means.  It doesn't even qualify as decent hearsay
           Why do people pay attention to Drudge again?
           \_ It's hearsay about speculation about hearsay.
              That's a *kind* of evidence.  -Lionel Hutz
              \_ Wrong!
                 "Well, Your Honor. We've plenty of hearsay and conjecture.
                  Those are *kinds* of evidence."
2004/6/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:31069 Activity:high
6/29    "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the Common Good."
        Hillary Rodham Clinton, making my point much more eloquently than I
        ever could. -- ilyas
        \_ isn't that the definition of taxes?
        \_ or the Republican line: we're going to take things away from
           you and there's nothing you can do about it....buah! ha! ha! haaaa!
           \_ Your comment does fall a little flat in that she was commenting
              on the (hoped for) repeal of Bush's tax cuts.  -- ilyas
              \_ Okay, she wants to repeal ill thought out tax cuts.  That
                 seems like a lesser evil when compared to an administration
                 that seeks to deny US citizens their right to legal counsel,
                 as well the right to a speedy public trial based on the
                 frighteningly slippery classification of 'terrorist' under the
                 aegis of National Security.
                 \_ Eh.  I don't like erosion of rights.  However, the Courts
                    recently reaffirmed that whole 'checks and balances' thing,
                    while they can do nothing about the growth of government
                    at our expense.  It's telling, also, that most of the
                    responses to this thread have been counterattacks on
                    republicans (I am neither republican nor conservative),
                    rather than the defense of Hillary's statement. -- ilyas
                    \_ Think of it this way: The current administration is
                       like a guy that wants to shoot you in the left testicle.
                       He missed his first three shots, but he's still armed
                       and in a position to try again.  Would you feel safe
                       knowing that?  I can't speak for everyone else, but the
                       current administration makes me veeeery nervous when it
                       comes to preservation of rights.  Don't get me wrong:
                       I want terrorists dead, but I'm not excited about seeing
                       the US turn into a police state acheiving that goal.
                    \_ Sure, you are neither conservative nor republican!
                       I thought you claimed to be a conservative of some sort
                       once upon a time.
           \_ "We're taking things away from you on behalf of Halliburton and
              Enron and the Military-Industrial Complex." Cutting taxes while
              running huge deficits isn't really giving much.
2004/6/25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:31006 Activity:nil
6/24    Bush is God's gift to mankind. Clinton is a child rapist.
        \_ Stop bringing facts into this thread.
           \_ He's not bringing facts. He's just some ranting Republican.
              \_ Why do you hate America?
                 \_ I don't hate America. I'm just saying that OP said
                    nothing factual.
                    \_ But you said you hate Bush. So surely, you must
                       hate America. You also like Clinton so you also
                       support child rapists.
        \_ where's that guy that says "strawman! strawman!"??
           This is definitely the right moment for him!
2004/6/23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30971 Activity:insanely high
6/23    How many members of the Bush Administration are needed
        to replace a light bulb?
        The Answer is SEVEN:
        1. One to deny that a light bulb needs to be replaced,
        2. One to attack and question the patriotism of anyone who has
           questions about the light bulb,
           \_ WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?
        3. One to blame the Clinton administration for the need of a new
           light bulb,
        4. One to arrange the invasion of a country rumored to have a secret
           stockpile of light bulbs,
        5. One to get together with Vice President Cheney and well, no, no one
           would want to be in the same room with Vice President Cheney.
        6. One to arrange a photo-op session showing Hillary changing the light
           bulb while carrying a tray of cookies she baked herself.
        7. And finally, one to explain to Bush the difference between
           screwing a light bulb and screwing the country and screwing an
           intern.
        8. And one more to explain that when your penis enters a woman's
           mouth, that is sex, no matter what the definition of 'is' is.
           \_ That's a waste of tax payers' money.  Bush still would not
              know the difference.
        \_ AWESOME!!
        \_ what are all these light bulb parts ending up in foreign country
        scrap yards?
           scrap yards like Kosovo and the Sudan and Afganistan?
          \_ they just removed the filaments and discarded the shells
2004/6/21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:30932 Activity:nil 66%like:30928
6/21    Clinton lies!
        http://csua.org/u/7ue
        \_ Please don't delete properly-formatted freeper links. -liberal
           \_ It's a good thing 'liberal' is here to let others know that
              s/he has given 'protected' status to properly formatted freeper
              links.  Here Ye!  Here Ye!  Let it be known that it is no longer
              ok to censor properly formatted freeper links as they now fall
              under the protection of 'liberal'!  -!freeperboy
              \_ Freeper links mysteriously disappearing makes liberals look
                 like we don't tolerate debate.
                 \_ It isn't a mystery.  Leftists have been censoring the
                    poor lad since day 1.  Where's the mystery?  -!freeperboy
                 \_ I read it. Boy was it a waste of time. And here I was
                    trying to be mature and engage my Republican friends
                    in an thoughtful debate and all I read about are the
                    non-sensical rantings of a bitter author. There's
                    nothing substantive in here. Now I see why people
                    delete URLs.
                    \_ Freeper != Republican.  Freeper != conservative.  There
                       are real honest to god conservatives right here on the
                       motd.  Freeperboy isn't one of them.
                 \_ No.  Free republic is useless noise, and a link from it
                    with the description "Clinton lies!" is most certainly
                    noise.
                    \_ Of course, there is the possibility that it was posted
                       by a liberal to shake up an insufferably dull motd
                       to make a boring monday morning more interesting.
                       \_ That's the most reasonable explanation I've seen.
                          Given that the Freepers have cried wolf so much,
                          it only makes sense to feature them as entertainment.
                          \_ Not just reasonable, also correct. -op
                             \_ More fringie than the tinfoil hat crowd. I
                                love it!
        \_ Big news!  Sky is blue!
           \_ No it's not.  It's gray!
        \_ Clinton Lies!  Hillary Cries!
           \_ The truth?  You can't handle the truth!
        \_ dude, he lied about *SEX*  Everybody lies about SEX.
           On the other hand, we got a guy in whitehouse right now lied about
           WAR.  If this is happening in Alex Hamiton's time, it would be
           considered as an act of treason.
           \_ Lied about war?  Which war and what lies?  URL, please.  And no,
              everybody doesn't lie about sex.  People who aren't scumbags
              don't have to lie about it.  Chew on that for a while.
           \_ Who is Alex Hamiton?
              \_ Mmmmrrrnnnn  Brrrrr!
              \_ Look at a $10 bill some time.
                 \_ Oh thanks!  I have achieved enlightenment!  Now please
                    tell me, who was that poor old man that died the other
                    week?  What was his name, Roald Raygoon?
                    \_ Hi troll!
           \_ Not everyone believes that Bush lied about the war. There
              is no way to prove (beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt)
              that he lied about the war. Clinton, however was caught
              with is pants down.
              \_ If you note what was actually said and not what the media
                 op/ed pages paraphrase him into saying, there was no lying.
                 \_ I completely agree. I don't think that he has misled
                    or lied about the war. He has been fairly honest about
                    it since the beginning. Anyone who knows how intel.
                    works knows that it can never be 100%. You often have
                    to make time sensitive decisions based on incomplete,
                    conflicting data.
                    \_ He said he was certain that Saddam had WMD when the
                       evidence was contradictory and uncertain. That counts
                       as a "lie" in my book. Look up the defn of lie. It has
                       more than one defn. Spreading a falsehood (that you
                       believe to be true) is a lie by one defn of it. He
                       is certainly guilty of this kind of lie.
           \_ I still agree with what the other guy said. What Clinton has done
              is probably shop lifting. What BushCo has done is mass murdering.
              You are right, there is no comparison.
     Lie \Lie\ (l[imac]), n. [AS. lyge; akin to D. leugen, OHG. lugi,
     G. l["u]ge, lug, Icel. lygi, Dan. & Sw. l["o]gn, Goth. liugn.
     See {Lie} to utter a falsehood.]
                             [...]
     2. A fiction; a fable; an untruth. --Dryden.

                \_ bush hems and misinterprets and miscontrues
                  and exaggerates immensely the true economic costs of
                  his tax cuts like ALL THE TIME, whenever he opens
                  his mouth, i think we're living in an alternate
                  reality, i don't know how he gets away with it.
2004/6/21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:30928 Activity:very high 66%like:30932
6/21    Clinton lies!
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1157303/posts
        \_ Please don't delete properly-formatted freeper links. -liberal
           \_ It's a good thing 'liberal' is here to let others know that
              s/he has given 'protected' status to properly formatted freeper
              links.  Here Ye!  Here Ye!  Let it be known that it is no longer
              ok to censor properly formatted freeper links as they now fall
              under the protection of 'liberal'!  -!freeperboy
              \_ Freeper links mysteriously disappearing makes liberals look
                 like we don't tolerate debate.
                 \_ It isn't a mystery.  Leftists have been censoring the
                    poor lad since day 1.  Where's the mystery?  -!freeperboy
                 \_ I read it. Boy was it a waste of time. And here I was
                    trying to be mature and engage my Republican friends
                    in an thoughtful debate and all I read about are the
                    non-sensical rantings of a bitter author. There's
                    nothing substantive in here. Now I see why people
                    delete URLs.
                    \_ Freeper != Republican.  Freeper != conservative.  There
                       are real honest to god conservatives right here on the
                       motd.  Freeperboy isn't one of them.
                 \_ No.  Free republic is useless noise, and a link from it
                    with the description "Clinton lies!" is most certainly
                    noise.
                    \_ Of course, there is the possibility that it was posted
                       by a liberal to shake up an insufferably dull motd
                       to make a boring monday morning more interesting.
                       \_ That's the most reasonable explanation I've seen.
                          Given that the Freepers have cried wolf so much,
                          it only makes sense to feature them as entertainment.
                          \_ Not just reasonable, also correct. -op
                             \_ More fringie than the tinfoil hat crowd. I
                                love it!
        \_ Big news!  Sky is blue!
           \_ No it's not.  It's grey!
           \_ No it's not.  It's gray!
        \_ Clinton Lies!  Hillary Cries!
           \_ The truth?  You can't handle the truth!
        \_ dude, he lied about *SEX*  Everybody lies about SEX.
           On the other hand, we got a guy in whitehouse right now lied about
           WAR.  If this is happening in Alex Hamiton's time, it would be
           considered as an act of treason.
           \_ Lied about war?  Which war and what lies?  URL, please.  And no,
              everybody doesn't lie about sex.  People who aren't scumbags
              don't have to lie about it.  Chew on that for a while.
           \_ Who is Alex Hamiton?
              \_ Mmmmrrrnnnn  Brrrrr!
              \_ Look at a $10 bill some time.
                 \_ Oh thanks!  I have achieved enlightenment!  Now please
                    tell me, who was that poor old man that died the other
                    week?  What was his name, Roald Raygoon?
                    \_ Hi troll!
           \_ Not everyone believes that Bush lied about the war. There
              is no way to prove (beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt)
              that he lied about the war. Clinton, however was caught
              with is pants down.
              \_ If you note what was actually said and not what the media
                 op/ed pages paraphrase him into saying, there was no lying.
                 \_ I completely agree. I don't think that he has misled
                    or lied about the war. He has been fairly honest about
                    it since the beginning. Anyone who knows how intel.
                    works knows that it can never be 100%. You often have
                    to make time sensitive decisions based on incomplete,
                    conflicting data.
                    \_ He said he was certain that Saddam had WMD when the
                       evidence was contradictory and uncertain. That counts
                       as a "lie" in my book. Look up the defn of lie. It has
                       more than one defn. Spreading a falsehood (that you
                       believe to be true) is a lie by one defn of it. He
                       is certainly guilty of this kind of lie.
     Lie \Lie\ (l[imac]), n. [AS. lyge; akin to D. leugen, OHG. lugi,
     G. l["u]ge, lug, Icel. lygi, Dan. & Sw. l["o]gn, Goth. liugn.
     See {Lie} to utter a falsehood.]
                             [...]
     2. A fiction; a fable; an untruth. --Dryden.

                \_ bush hems and misinterprets and miscontrues
                  and exaggerates immensely the true economic costs of
                  his tax cuts like ALL THE TIME, whenever he opens
                  his mouth, i think we're living in an alternate
                  reality, i don't know how he gets away with it.
2004/6/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:30922 Activity:high
6/19    Report: Ken Lay to be indicted
        Trace Lay's ties to the Repubs. and Dems. throughout the '90 on this
        thread.
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1156564/posts
        \_ It's not legit until it's linked through freerepublic?
        \_  Ooh, I've been waiting for this to happen.
2004/6/18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:30903 Activity:high
6/18    Bubba whines:
        Clinton wrote that he came to learn that his upbringing had made
        certain things more difficult for him than for other people, and
        that he was particularly prone to self-destructive behavior when he
        was tired, angry or feeling lonely.
        Give me a fucking break, Bill.
        \_ Why do you hate ex-America?
        \_ You are such a big strong manly Neocon. Can I suck your cock now,
           please?
           \_ Your cock is so BIG and TAX FREE! -Ann Coulter
           \_ It doesn't take a Neocon to call "bullshit!" when shit stinks.
              \_ In fact, most Neocons are so desensitized to the smell that
                 they hardly ever call bullshit when it's appropriate.
        \_ You forget what he says in his 60 Minutes interview:
           "I'm not making any excuses. I have no excuse and as far as I'm
            able to explain it to myself, here's my explanation: ..."
           \_ which really just means, "i did it because i wanted to and just
              didn't give a flying fuck about anyone else".
              \_ Contrast this to GWB who does give a flying fuck about
                 anyone else?
                 \_ That's an opinion.  You could slap that charge on anyone
                    in power in any country at any time.  Policy is different
                    from personal failure.
                    \_ In other words, when it comes to national policy, it's
                       okay not to "give a flying fuck about anyone else"
                       but when it comes to personal matters, it isn't.
                       That makes sense.
                 \_ GWB can believably say he is acting to protect America.
                    Clinton has no defense for Monica deep-throating him.
              \_ He actually said:  "I did something for the worst possible
                 reason. Just because I could. I think that's just about the
                 most morally indefensible reason anybody could have for doing
                 anything."  Which echoes what you wrote, but he said it
                 before you just did.
                 Your thesis is Bill is making excuses.  Bill says pretty
                 clearly, "I have no excuse", but he is providing some kind
                 of explanation:  "Because I could", etc.
                 It's how you apologize.  You say you fucked up, then you
                 explain why in the world you did.
                 \_ I didn't have a thesis.  I only wrote the 2 lines above.
                    Anyway, having or not having an excuse really doesn't
                    matter.  Some behaviour is inexcusable and if he was really
                    all that sorry about it, he could have apologized years ago
                    without earning $10m off a book to do it.  I wish I could
                    get $10m for writing a book about how I cheated on my wife
                    just because, for no particular reason, really meaning
                    that I'm just an asshole.  Can any asshole get $10m for
                    cheating on his wife and not having a reason?
                    \_ All right, then I challenge the thesis from the
                       original post.
                       As for the $10 mill, it's your right to think that
                       he's only apologizing for 10 million dollars and
                       royalties.
                       \_ There is no 'thesis' in the original post except
                          that Billy is whining, which is pretty obvious.
                          \_ Are you op?  If you are, good.
                             "Whining" and "Give me a fucking break, Bill"
                             clearly implies the poster thinks Bill is making
                             excuses.  I am pointing out that Clinton has said
                             he has no excuse for Monica blowing him.
                             \_ So why is he still whining?
                       \_ Oh yeah, I forgot he gets royalties for being an
                          asshole, too.  The $10m was 'just' the advance.
                    \_ Hillary is reason enough to cheat. It's between the
                       two of them anyway. Sex isn't evil.
2004/6/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:30802 Activity:high
6/14    Here's the VRWCer Drudge reporting more of his pro-Bushco anti-Clinton
        lies!  I'm sure that none of this is true... hehehe, right wing
        controlled media, hehehehe, yeah right.
        http://www.drudgereport.com/bc1.htm
        \_ CBS is right leaning if anything.  This is about the revenue.
           Not the politics.
           \_ CBS would be considered right-leaning in France.  Maybe. -- ilyas
              \_ ilyas is talking about Abu Ghraib photos, experts who dispute
                 aluminum tubes, and Bill Clinton book press.  The previous
                 poster is talking about CBS's older demographic and
                 patriotism advertising.  Everyone's right! :D
           \_ How exactly does CBS get revenue by *forcing* all of it's
              affiliates to carry an hour long Bill Clinton commercial for
              *free*?  Hey, it isn't 1998 anymore!  You don't make money by
              giving your shit away for free.
2004/6/12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:30765 Activity:nil
6/11    Clinton >> Carter > Kerry. -dem. What's the republican take?
        Or maybe Clinton > Carter >> Kerry ?
2004/5/18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:30274 Activity:very high
5/18    Military starting to call up inactive reservists.  One step away from
        conscription, woo-hoo!
        http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_irs_051804,00.html
        \_ As an aside to this, there are indications that the Army is
           planning to deploy some of its OPFOR training units to active
           duty in the Middle East.
        \_ Just out of curiosity, what does the gov't do if say, Joe
           Reservist makes $100k per year and has $40k of mortgage per year?
           And his gov't pay is only about $50k/year?
           Must he lose his house to serve his country?  --PeterM
           \_ Why do you hate America?
           \_ Yup.  Especially since you're in the inactive reserves for
              quite some time after you finish active service.  You've gotten
              your life together, gotten married, probably had kids and bought
              a house, etc. etc. etc...
           \_ Your country helped you out when you needed it.  When your
              country needs you, you go.  It's part of the price you pay later
              for the help you got earlier.  Would you have that $100k job if
              it wasn't for the rest of us paying for your education?
        \_ I was almost called up for the 1st gulf war while on the IRR. I
           got my postcard from the gov't...
           \_ You too? Who are you? -ausman
        \_ Since it was nuked: "What will you do when the draft starts?
           Sign up?  Move to Canada? Claim conscientious objector?"
           \_ Why would Canada or Germany or any other country want to take in
              the lazy assholes who won't serve their own country?  What good
              would you be to their country if you're no good to your own?  So
              just where does a "Citizen Of The World" hide when the shooting
              starts?  Maybe Kofi will take you in.  He can certainly afford it
              after ripping off the Oil for Bribes program in Iraq.
           \_ What's the drafting age here?
              \_ According to sss.gov, 18 to 25.
                 \_ yes! I'm 26. Go draft!
                 \_ Good.  I'm 33.
                 \_ I was of age during the Reagan and Bush I years.  I have
                    little sympathy for those of age during the Clinton/Bush II
                    years.  No one is getting drafted.  It's ridiculous.
           \_ CO status is notoriously hard to prove, and I believe Canada
              now has an extradition treaty with the US specifically related
              to draft-dodgers.
              \_ Okay, how 'bout Germany.
                 \_ You *do* know they have 1 year of mandatory military
                    service, right?
                    \_ not for everyone. I think that like Sweden and some
                       other places there's a lottery of some sort and only
                       those people have to serve.
                    \_ No EU country is going to take you in.  You're useless.
                       Your beloved pacifist countries have closed border
                       policies.
             \_ And most COs end up assigned as medics. The job of a medic
                is even more dangerous than infantryman.
                \_ Yep.  Don't generally even have a real rifle to shoot back
                   with and mostly near the front where people are getting
                   shot to shit.  Go COs/sniper finders!
          \_ I'm pretty sure you're all already signed up for the draft.
             \_ no, not if you're over 25, and almost no one here is *under*
                25, which is why this thread is a little silly.
                \_ For what it's worth, you can be called up to your 26th
                   birthday
                   \_ You can be called at any age.
                \_ I heard on the radio that the Selective Service was doing
                   the ground work on extending eligibility to 35.
                    -- ulysses
                   \_ True.  They call from youngest to oldest, though.
                     \_ Does that mean they actually expect to run out of
                        people < 26? That doesn't seem likely to me.
                         -- ulysses
                        \_ I don't think that's the point of the draft.  The
                           point of the draft is to exert power over citizens,
                           by confiscating their labor (which is what a draft
                           is). -- evil libertarian
                           \_ Gotcha. Now does anybody else feel like trying to
                              answer the question - the question I asked, that
                              is?
                           \_ That's pretty amusing considering most
                              Libertarians consider national defense one of the
                              few legitimate functions of government.  How
                              should the government raise troop strength if the
                              market isn't sufficient?  Just give up?
                              \_ Libertarians think the market is always
                                 sufficient. Just raise salaries for soldiers
                                 until you attract enough of them. Of course
                                 this will also entail raising taxes, but
                                 raising taxes is ok as long as they're being
                                 used for approved purposes like protecting
                                 our property rights by sodomizing brown people.
                                 \_ Straw men aside, I would expect one's life
                                    to be a rather inflexible resource.  The
                                    Libertarian's property won't be worth much
                                    if it's glowing.  I see plenty of room for
                                    debate among realy Libs.
                                 \_ Mod +5 Funny!
                                 \_ But my property rights could be protected
                                    much more cheaply and efficiently by a
                                    private army!  Why should I be taxed to
                                    pay for a wasteful public army when a
                                    private-sector army could do a better job
                                    for less money?
                                    \_ Cf. Abu Ghraib prison scandal, private
                                       military contractors.
                                       \_ True, but a real Libertarian wouldn't
                                          want his army in a foreign country to
                                          begin with.
                                          \_ Unless the foreign country was
                                             threatening his property.
                                    \_ Protecting collective assets
                                       (infrastructure and stable gov't for
                                       instance) requires a collective army.
        \_ There are an awful lot of inactive reservists to call up before
           they have to start a draft.
        \_ I thought they are bringing in troops from S. Korea.  Those
           aren't enough?
           \_ Not even close. The big problem is the literal size of the US
              standing army, the time it takes to retrain units (both regular
              army and Guard), and how long they can stay in the field. The
              US troops coming in from SK will be able to provide some relief,
              but is nowhere near enough for the long term.
           \_ We've been needing to decrease troop size ing SK for a while.
              But last I heard, only about 3-4k troops were relocating.  Which
              is only 1-2% of the troops in the ME.
              \_ You mean like since Carter?  That's what he thought, and
                 it almost ended up causing a second Korean war.  (Ok
                 actually I agree with you, but I wanted to throw that out
                 because Carter is an idiot.)
                 \_ CARTER IS AN IDIOT.
                    CLINTON IS AN IDIOT.
                    CLINTON IS THE REASON WHY AMERICA LOST WWII
                    CARTER HATES AMERICA
                    CLINTON IS A BIG FAT LOSER.
                    CARTER WAS THE REASON WHY 9/11 HAPPENED
                    CLINTON CAUSED AMERICAN CITIES TO BE NUKED
                    CARTER AND CLINTON ARE COMMUNISTS
                    CLINTON IS A FUCKING LIBERAL TREE HUGGER.
                    CLINTON SOLD NUKES TO IRAQ
                    CLINTON WAS THE CAUSE OF BOTH IRAQ WARS
                    CLINTON SUPPLIED 767S TO OSAMA BIN LADEN
                    AL GORE INVENTED HIV AND AIDS.
                    AL GORE INVENTED CANCER.
                    GEORGE W BUSH IS THE NEXT MESSIAH.
                 \_ All right, you've ranted about Carter enough times that
                    you're getting a name.  CarterTroll!  Right up there in
                    the hallowed ground with ChiCom Troll and Freeper!  Yay!
                    \_ It isn't a troll if it's true.  Should we just call you
                       BlindToRealityTroll?
                       \_ Truth is in the eye of the beholder.  Besides which,
                          maybe you should worry about the idiots that are
                          currently in office rather than the idiots that
                          haven't been in office in quite some time?
                          \_ Ninja poster strikes! He throws up a mindless
                             phrase to distract his enemies, then quickly
                             attempts the change the subject!
                             \_ DON'T CONCENTRATE ON THE FINGER OR YOU WILL
                                MISS ALL THE HEAVENLY GLORY!!!
2004/5/15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, ERROR, uid:30237, category id '18005#5.94625' has no name! , ] UID:30237 Activity:nil
5/15    The new world of campaign opposition research
        http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/06/green.htm
2004/5/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30211 Activity:very high
5/12    The Revolution Will Not Be Blogged
        http://www.mojones.com/commentary/columns/2004/05/04_200.html
        (why blogs suck as political force, basically)
        \_ here's a shock; masturbation sucks as a political force, also.  -tom
           \_ I disagree.  There are a ton of wankers in politics.
              \_ but outside the ASUC, it won't get you elected.  -tom
                 \_ did someone get elected to ASUC for masturbating?
                    \_ Can you prove there is no God?
                       \_ it's a reasonable question, dammit.  tom made it
                          sound like there's a story there, and i want to
                          hear it.
                          \_ I think there was a "Masturbation Party" a few
                             years back.  I don't know if they won.  -tom
                             \_ And I wasn't invited?
                                \_ You were, but you didn't come.
                                \_ You're a founding member.  We signed you
                                   up while you were "busy" pushing your
                                   "political agenda".
        \_ That is what this guy gets for spending all his time reading
           echo chambers. Blogs have already proven to be good fundraising
           tools.
2004/5/6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:30071 Activity:nil
5/6     Cover of the new Economist:
        http://www.economist.com/images/20040508/20040508issuecovUS400.jpg
        \_Damn liberal media
        \_ And where were the calls for Reno to step down after she immolated
           a few dozen children and women in Waco?
           \_ I see.  It's her fault they were too nutty to leave the building?
              In any case, some people *did* call for her to step down at the
              time.
              \_ Uh, I don't think you are very familiar with that incident.
                   -- ilyas
                 \_ Most of America agrees with him:
                    http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/printerfriend/index.asp?PID=16
                    \_ Over 100 people were immolated by the Fed government and
                       you respond with a fucking poll!!??  The MOTD is
                       populated with fascist leftists.. I see that now.
              \_ Can someone tell me what religions are sacntioned by the Fed
                 government so I don't have to be worried about immolation?
                 Thanks!
                 \_ just try to tone down the incest, pedophilia, and weapons
                    stockpiling.
                    \_ Good little fascist.  Why don't you scroll through these
                       autopsy photographs:
              http://www.public-action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/map/d_list07.html
           \_ All over the place, don't you remember? Republicans in Congress
              demanded that she step down.
              \_ On the cover of the economist? the washington post? the
                 nytimes?
                 \_ latimes ran an opinion piece saying she should step down
                    over it in 1999.
                    \_ oooh an opinion piece on page A21.  You're position is
                       completely vindicated!
                 \_ The story behind the cover is likely that Democrats are
                    calling for Rumsfeld's resignation.  The cover looks like
                    The Economist is calling for hist resignation, but it's
                    probably just reporting that others are doing it.  Bad
                    cover IMO. -emarkp
                    \_ No, I read the article, the economist is calling for
                       him to resign.  This doesn't surprise me, however.
                       Waco is an internal incident -- Iraq has international
                       ramifications (well you can argue Waco does too...)
                       Certainly, I consider both incidents atrocities.
                         -- ilyas
2004/5/6 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Japan, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:30059 Activity:very high
5/6     Rush Limbaugh on the Abu Ghraib incidents:
        http://mediamatters.org/static/audio/limbaugh-20040504.mp3
        \_ Got a transcript? I can't listen to him at work.
           \_ Got a transcript?  I can't listen to him.
           \_ Partial transcript here:
              http://mediamatters.org/items/200405050003
        \_ Despicable, and one more reason conservatives should abandon Rush.
           Compare that to Glenn Beck's comments that he supports the troops
           but would like to spit in the face of the soldiers who did this.
           -emarkp
        \_ Wow.  Talk about taking things out of context.  When will he start
           saying that the prisoners were having fun too?
           \_ "When you invade a country, you have to break some eggs.
               My enemies are blowing this out of proportion, to get to ME."
                  -Dick Cheney
                   \-"The Iraqis should be glad they were abused by Americans.
                      If they had been abused by Italians for Japanese, then
                      it would have been even more humiliating." -D. Cheney
           \_ Well, the (not so) silent majority of Americans think they are.
2004/5/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:29948 Activity:very high
5/1     Heh, your guy can't even get his story straight!  hehe,
        http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040510-632009,00.html
        \_ How about putting an old Republican Guard general in charge
           of Fallujah? Talk about the Mother of Flip Flops.
           \_ Here's someone who missed the message.  -op
              \_ maybe because it's totally unclear?  who is "your guy?"
                 in case you haven't noticed, the motd has a plurality of
                 libertarians with a smattering of anarchists, democrats,
                 communists, far-right republicans, moderates and some
                 buchannan nuts.
        \_ Clinton gave sworn testimony behind closed doors.  Bush and
           Cheney gave unsworn testimony behind closed doors.  I'll take
           sworn over unsworn any time.
2004/4/26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:13383 Activity:moderate
4/26    NYTimes is running an editorial promoting marijuana decriminalization
        http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/26/opinion/26SCHL.html
        \_ An article written by Eric Schlosser.
           'Eric Schlosser is the author of "Fast Food Nation" and "Reefer
            Madness."'
           Just so's you know.
           \_ Right.  Thanks for the correction.
              \_ how is this a correction? is the piece no longer on
                 http://nytimes.com because Eric Schlosser wrote it?
                 \_ Someone performed sed s/editorial/article/ on my post.
                    \_ It's neither an article nor an editorial. It's an
                       op/ed piece.
        \_ Has anyone been able to get nytimes working with the web browser
           links?  I can do it with lynx, but not links.  tia.
        \_ Wow.  Was it really necessary ot modify my posting like 4 times? -op
           \_ Yes.  It is easier for the weak minded to modify your post
              instead of replying intelligently to it.  When my posts are
              modified I accept it as complete and total victory over the
              vastly inferior intellects that invest the motd.
2004/4/21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:13310 Activity:nil
4/21    Do you notice a lot of non-Indian, non-Asian, non-Caucasian
        CS/EECS students these days?
        related article:
        http://tinyurl.com/2mg2f
        \_ It could be that the College of Engineering's sundry programs
           for recruiting underrepresented minorities and making
           sure they graduate in CS/EECS is actually working. (I believe
           Cal's is headed by a black, female Materials Engineering
           graduate who also distinguished herself as one of Cal's few
           Rhodes Scholars.)-elizp
        \_ tell me how smart or dumb the incoming class is.  don't tell me
           what race it is.
           \_ or how privileged.
              \_ it would be great if uc adjusted admission based on socio-
                 economic status (or lack thereof) rather than on race-
                 substitutes.  (btw, i believe i saw reference to a study
                 that said, based on se status, asain attendance would
                 go up, whites stay flat, and other privileged minorities
                 would drop.  sorry, no ref, so may just be faulty on my
                 part.)
                 \_ Why?  Why not just have smart people rather than stupid
                    poor people?  Oh wait, I forgot... -John
                    \_ we are.  poor kid who did well tend to be smarter
                       than rich kid who performed at an equal level.
                       take bush and clinton for example.  if clinton
                       has low IQ like bush, he would not have made it
                       to governor of arkansas.
                       \_ The Clintons are poor now?  -- ilyas
                          \_ Bill Clinton grew up poor. Are you purposely
                             being stupid?
                             \_ Well I am not a Bill Clinton scholar or
                                anything, nor did I read any of his
                                biographies.  Quick internet search turns
                                up at least middle class, given the jobs
                                of his mother and step-father.  But yes,
                                Tom, I am purposely being stupid. -- ilyas
                                \_ that wasn't me, twink.  I'm not sure you
                                   can help being stupid.  -tom
                                \_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton
                                   "Clinton grew up in a turbulent family.
                                   His stepfather was a gambler and
                                   alcoholic who regularly abused his wife,
                                   and sometimes Clinton's half brother
                                   Roger, Jr." Search harder padawan.
                                   \_ I grant that he was a gambler and a drunk.
                                      But poor?  No way.  Look up what Clinton's
                                      parent did for a living again. -- ilyas
                                      \_ "He rose from poverty to graduate
                                          from Georgetown University with a
                                          degree in International Affairs"
                                          It does not matter how much money
                                          you make, if you gamble it all away.
                                          Your refusal to even bother reading
                                          the first few paragraphs of the
                                          refernce I found for you only
                                          demonstrates your desire to
                                          stay ignorant, the definition
                                          of stupidity in my book. -!tom
                                          \_ Well, I have a choice.  One is
                                             to take wikipedia's word for it,
                                             and another is to look at what
                                             his adult family members actually
                                             did for a living...  I ll take my
                                             chances with that.  I ll grant you
                                             my stupidity if you want, just
                                             to avoid having to talk about it
                                             anymore.  A short blurb from
                                             wikipedia doesn't prove your
                                             argument for you.  I offered a
                                             reasonable piece of information
                                             for why he didn't grow up poor.
                                             You just flamed. -- ilyas
                                             \_ gambling can make you poor
                                                even if you have a decent job.
                                                \_ Yeah it may.  Or not.  It
                                                   would be nice to actually
                                                   look into that.  But let's
                                                   just quote wikipedia some
                                                   more instead. -- ilyas
                                                   \_ http://csua.org/u/708
                                                      If you really are
                                                      interested.
                                                   \_ I am not the person
                                                      who quoted wikipedia.
                       \_ and rich kids who did well tend to be smarter
                          than other rich kids who did less well.  so let's
                          control for se status.
                          \_ Cal does a "comprehensive review" which includes
                             looking at socioeconomic status.  -tom
                             \_ And here I've been thinking that "comprehensive
                                review" is just court approved smoke screen
                                for "let's accept members of privileged
                                minority classes rather than members of
                                nonprivileged minority classes".  Silly me.
        \_ Somewhat related question.  There have been many studies along
           the lines of: send in white and black candidates for job/loan/
           apt/whatever and observe white candidates getting better
           response.  Has there been a study where they sent in college
           applications for black and white students of identical background/
           grades/scores/recommendations/etc. and observe the admission
           results?
           \_ the scariest study of that nature I saw was one in which
              computer-generatred resumes were sent to perspective employers
              with fake randomized personal and profesional information, but
              with some having "black sounding" names that are typically
              associated with african americans, and some having more WASP
              sounding names.
           \_ Well who would this benefit? That's why it won't be studied.
              Merit-based admission is the dream, but won't happen until
              the educational playing field is leveled - which will be
              never.
              \_ Gee, isn't it worthwhile to find out if there's racial
                 discrimination in the college application process?
                 Color me curious.
              \_ It would be interesting if we can attach a value for being
                 a member of <minority> in the college application process.
                 Someone enterprising might be able to take advantage of
                 that.  A very straight friend joined all the usual gay/
                 lesbian/bi/transexual clubs as part of his med school
                 application process and got into some pretty impressive
                 schools that he thought he'd have no chance at.  With no
                 control, it's hard to know what the effect of his club
                 membership might have had, but it'd be an intersting thing
                 to find out, no?
        \_ We should screen for hot females.  Old-time MIT-boys still tell
           me how great the class of '86 was.
2004/4/20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:13282 Activity:nil
4/20    Mr. Ashcroft's Smear [in the 9/11 hearings]
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25813-2004Apr19.html
        \_ For those who can't be bothered to log into the Washington Post:
           /csua/tmp/ashsmear
        \_ This whole committee is a political sham and everyone knows it.
           \_ Well, as far as Congress members, only a couple
              Republicans have said that
              \_ What good would a political sham be if all the
                 politicians admitted it was a sham?
2004/4/19 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, ERROR, uid:13262, category id '18005#5' has no name! , ] UID:13262 Activity:nil
4/18    Besides frontline what is good to watch online?
        \_ http://www.cspan.org
           Has cspan, cspan2, cspan3, cspan radio and archived bits from
           the various cspans.  All free.
        \_ http://Archive.org has a ton of "ephemeral films" free to download.
2004/4/8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:13088 Activity:very high
4/7     Condi Rice paraphrased. "It's not our fault. We didn't know exactly
        what was going to happen so we couldn't do anything to prevent it.
        It's Clinton's fault."
        \_ Truth hurts, huh?  Read the transcript for yourselves instead of
           getting the mindless motd leftist rehash:
           http://wid.ap.org/transcripts/rice.html
           http://wid.ap.org/transcripts/rice.html
           \_ Truth?  From a series of subjective statements by one woman,
              in the face of numerous subjective statements by several other
              people?  Yes, that'll get us to the bottom of this.
              \_ Better subjective statements by the person under discussion
                 than subjective rehashes by others.  I think the above
                 poster makes a good point.  Thanks for posting the link.
                 You hear a lot of lies watching CSPAN, but IMHO that's a lot
                 better than hearing a brief, badly understood, spun version
                 of the lie by some reporter on one of the "real" networks.
                 \_ You're right, primary sources are better than secondary
                    sources.  Unfortunately, it's now devolved into "She said,
              people?  Yes, that'll get us to the bottom of this.
                    he said."  It's hard to get to the truth at this point.
                    \_ when it comes to a question of crediblity between
                       a white man and a black woman, we all know who to
                       trust.
        \_ We already found that out when Clarke testified (he said that had we
           done everything he wanted it wouldn't have stopped 9/11).  It's a
           shame that this commission is a blame hunt instead of an attempt to
           fix problems.
           \_ To fix problems you need to find the cause. The blame game tells
              you who thought what way. Was it institutional or executive
              based? What were the priorities? Who knew what when? Was it
              incompetance, lack of communication or PHB syndrome?
              \_ If you want to find the cause, you shouldn't be lobbing
                 partisan opinions, or even having this in open session.  This
                 whole Rice inquisition is happening not to find answers, but
                 to present a dog and pony show to the public, which includes
                 the blame game.
                 \_ Like Cheney's Energy policy? Golly, no partisans there.
           fix problems.
                    Yes it was a dog-and-pony show, because sometimes you NEED
                    prove you have a dog-and-pony, that can state your case
                    instead of being told "don't worry your pretty little head
                    about it, we know what we're doing."
           \_ as one radio commentator mentioned- the phrase "couldn't the FAA
                have put heavier doors on the cabin / armed the pilots"
                never came up from any of the commission members.  They
                seriously are not interested in the truth, even the Democrats
                who would benefit from showing the Bush administration's
                failures.  They are all worthless parasitic trash.
                \_ Because the FAA could never have gotten that passed though
                   committee before 9/11.
                   \_ what committee?
           is a lot more glamurous.
        \_ you guys have such short memory span.  Remember, Bush and his
           neocons were putting China and Russia under their cross hair and
           eager to start another cold war.  Fighting an evil empire
           is a lot more glamurous.
           \_ I thought it was 'neocons and their Bush'?
              \_ my bad, i'm sorry.
                 \_ glamorous.
        \_ What frustrates me is the emphasis on how "lucky" the US caught
           previous terrorists attempts. You can MAKE luck. It's like sodans
           whining about no sex when they spend whole weekends playing UT.
           If you're not trying, it's not going to happen.
           \_ Exactly.  We all know that it's the CounterStrike guys who get
              the chix.
              \_ Word. I hate those guys.
        \_ Clinton lobbed cruise missiles at bin Laden (after the U.S. embassy
           bombings that killed hundreds).  You can bet he would have liked
           to have Predator accuracy at that point.
           On the other hand, Bush didn't do anything.  Nothing was
           "actionable".  The attitude was that if Clinton supported it, the
           Bush people didn't want anything to do with it.
           \_ Given Clinton's record it's a sound basic policy from which to
              start.
        \_ Condi testimony indicates a failure of the intelligence
           community, mostly their fear of being wrong.
           \_ Maybe. That's the question. Emperor's clothing or deaf ears?
              \_ no, the statement means keeping mouth shut before
                 telling the emperor or emperor's helpers like condi
2004/4/6 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:13032 Activity:high 50%like:13030
4/6     Don't you hate it when facts get in the way of your book sales?
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1112119/posts
        \_ Here's a much better article on the same subject:
           http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040406-121654-1495r.htm
           \_ You are joking right?
                \_ if you have to ask...
                   \_ exactly.
                      \_ i don't get it
2004/4/6 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:13030 Activity:high 50%like:13032
4/5     Damn it, I hate when facts get in the way of my book sales!  --clarke
        http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040406-121654-1495r.htm
        \_ Damn it, I hate it when the real news doesn't furnish pithy,
           topical subject lines, so I have to resort to my limited creative
           writing skills.
           \_ Clue bat: this isn't a news site.  If you want boring, go read
              CNN.  But you do score half a point for completely ducking the
              content and point of the URL.  Maybe next time you'll get an
              entire cookie!
              \_ Damn it, I hate it when people having fun pointing out the
                 faults in my posts gets in the way of my trolling! --op
                 \_ Keep ducking.  So far you've got 2 ad hominens, 2 ducks
                    and 1 falsely signed post and 0 real replies.  --real op
2004/3/29 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:12897 Activity:very high
3/28    Let's take some perspective on Dick Clarke.  He was the counter-
        terrorism point man through 4 presidents.  His ideology, whatever
        it may be, obviously wasn't offensive enough for Reagan to appoint
        and Bush I to keep.  So he voted for Gore.  Big fucking deal.  He
        voted for the VP of the administration that gave him his ear.  This
        somehow discredits him?  Does it not disturb you that his suggestions
        and recommendations were abandoned by Bush II?  Because he "wrote a
        book," his experience is negated?  mumble mumble emperor mumble mumble
        clothes... --scotsman
        \_ It disturbs me that some disgruntled book writer gets so much
           positive media attention which plays up his role as if he had
           actually had a successful track record and plays down the timing
           of his book and his bitter demotion and exit from government.
           \_ The only people putting this view of the man forward is the
              Bush admin and Bill Frist.  You're buying a whole lot.  How
              many people will they be able to convince you are slimeball
              opportunists?
           \_ He has a positive track record-- during the Reagan, Bush I, and
              Clinton years, no foreign terrorist organization committed an
              act of terrorism on American soil.  From what it sounds like,
              he was demoted for wanting to do his job effectively instead
              of pushing the Iraq invasion.
              \_ Dude. Remember the first WTC attack? That was during Clinton.
                 \_ In the first few weeks of his presidency. And led
                    to his increased watchfulness on OBL.  Clarke's point
                    is that the numbers just weren't high enough for Bush
                    to take it as seriously as he should have.
                \_ Dude.  I guess you didn't hear his testimony at the
                        hearings?  The one where he says the Bush Admin wasn't
                        doing anything about terrorism, even the plan that
                        was put together under Clinton?  Not following their
                        OWN plan INSTEAD of Clinton's, they were doing
                        not a thing.  Nuthin.  Nada.
                   \_ Chill. I was noting that the first WTC happened under
                      Clinton. Your attempt to change subjects and ignore
                      facts has failed. Try again later.
        \_ I was actually fortunate enough to meet someone who worked in the
           upper echelons of the White House during the Clinton and Bush 2
           administration. She said something very similar to what Clarke
           said. Basically, Bush really wanted to distance himself from
           anything remotely "Clinton" related. Things like Middle East
           Peace and Terrorism were Clinton obsessions and so Bush really
           wanted to distance himself from them.
           \_ Clinton?  Focussed on terrorism and the middle east?  Clinton
              pushed so hard in the middle east that there's a fair argument
              to be made that he's partially responsible for the current
              uprising (at least the start of it).  On terrorism?  What was
              done after the *first* attack on the WTC?  After the Cole?  After
              2 US embassies in Africa?  Nothing.  Nothing happened.  BC went
              on TV and made pretty speeches but there was no intelligence
              action, no military action, no diplomacy either in the UN or
              country-country.  Nothing.  "I feel your pain".  BFD.  If I was
              the new President I'd want to distance myself from previous
              failure also.
              \_ Clinton did plenty of things after every attack
                 mentioned Your contention that he did "nothing" is a big
                 fat Republican lie:
                 http://www.bartcop.com/clinton-terrorism-truth.htm
           \_ I just thought that Bush Jr. and his neocons were too busy
              start another Cold war, with Russia and China at their
              crosshair.  The scrap of Ballistic Missle Treaty, dumping
              billions on missile defense just couple examples of where is
              Bush Jr's priority lies.  This is an example of how Bush and
              his *STUPID* ideology put entire nation in danger... and he
              got high approval rating as result.       -kngharv
                \_ You do realize that the Soviet's were never in
                   accordance with the ABM treaty right?  It was
                   meaningless gesture on the part of the NATO (U.S.).
                   How is theatre missile defense a bad idea?  The Airborne
                   Chemical Laser will be operation in a few years.
                   \_ And yet, the most likely nuclear attack is a smuggled
                      in dirty bomb. I'm sure your laser is real cool dude.
        \_ This commission is one big let's cover each others asses.  That
           said I base my opinion in actions not words.  Clinton had
           eight years, 5 attacks do something, anything.  Instead in
           every foreign policy arena he simply kicked the can down the
           road.  What was Clinton's pinacle of foreign policy success?
           Kosovo - where we effectively gave muslim insurgents a Balkan
           base by bombing Christian Serbs?
           I remember repeatedly posting links in 2000 about BC's 'diversity
           quilt' policy at the CIA.  When Woolsey was head of the CIA
           he met with Bill Clinton alone twice, TWICE, in the span of two
           years; other administrations this would be weekly.  And this
           was after the first WTC bombing.  The running joke in
           Washington was that the Cesna aircraft that crashed into
           the White House was Woolsey trying to get a meeting with
           Clinton.  Sorry.  You can whine, spin, and cry all you want but a
           review of leftist policy the past 30 years is completely
           damning.  I've said it before: BC was too busy raising money
           from Chicom's and jerking off the Oval Office sink - we now
           now see the legacy of the Baby Boomer's quintessential
           representative.  BC's only anti-terrorism 'success' was immolating
           the 'religious fanatics' in Waco.
           Clarke was an integral part of BC administration - based on
           his testimony is directly culpable.
           \_ So you believe spurning our allies and sinking massive
              resources into nation building is a foreign policy success?
              \_ Good duck!  When someone says something and you try to turn
                 it around and point a finger elsewhere without disputing any
                 of it, you should understand that you're granting everything
                 they say is true.  Little one-off quips like this are weak.
                 \_ Pot, kettle...  Your answer to the question of Clarke's
                    credibility, and the terrifying nature of his character-
                    ization of this administration was "Clinton was a do noth-
                    ing, sex-mongering hippie".  4 presidents.  4. --scotsman
           \_ Way to avoid the question...
           \_ The best part was where you define "stopping Milosevic's
              genocide" as "giving the muslims a Balkan base".  Shine on,
              don't ever change.
                \_ So you swallow CNN's propaganda wholesale.  Fine -
                   Enjoy your dream world.  Even a cursory search
                   on google for Islam Kosovo Albania is alarming.
                   \_ The Balkans are a sump.  Unfortunately, you are both
                      right.  Rather, I'd give Clinton & co. credit for
                      helping to prevent an Islamic takeover in Bosnia. -John
                      \- Helo, I think the way the back and forth went
                         about "he's fishing for a job in the kerry campaign"
                         was great, i.e. when Clarke said in front of Congress
                         "I wont take the job". What some of the slow witted
                         democratic supporters should have said "Hey, isnt
                         Condi Rice et al also fishing for a job in the
                         Bush Admin." I think the "could 9/11 have been
                         prevented" part of this is a huge distraction.
                         There is saying "dont make weak arguments your
                         opponents can win" and 'split the difference' since
                         it's hard to make the case "well that's not the
                         important matter" ... they should have kept hammering
                         in the iraq fiasco. the dems still dont get how to
                         play dirty. Dan Qualye has no political career/
                         power now because of low politics. You should
                         try to do the same to Scalia for example. Lots
                         of people are talking about whether Cheney is a
                         liability now etc. --psb
                         \_ Rice *has* a job and she'll be keeping it.  She
                            doesn't need to sit quietly somewhere after being
                            demoted for incompetence and then retire just after
                            her 30th year in government (gotta get that next
                            big pension hike) and write a book in the middle of
                            an election from out of nowhere.  I find it really
                            sickening that you want politics to be even dirtier
                            than they already are.  There's a reason the % of
                            people who vote in this country is so dismal.
                            \_ You are right -- there is a reason so few
                               people vote in the US, but it is not because of
                               dirty politics. It's because of the asinine
                               pluralality-majority voting system we use.
                               \_ Are you refering to our Federalist
                                  voting system designed to thwart
                                  dictatorship by the majority?
                                  \_ No, i'm referring to plurality-majority
                                     voting systems (sorry about the typo):
                                       http://tinyurl.com/3c2mq
                                       http://tinyurl.com/36k4w (fairvote)
        \_ I wouldn't say is opinion is wothless except he's so OBVIOUSLY
           playing partisan politics NOW.  I mean, here he is on the one
           hand complaing that Bush didn't care enough about terrorism
           (like good old Clinton did) and on the other saying Bush told
           them to kill Bin Laden at the first opportunity and such.
           In other words he says "Bush cared less, did more.  BTW Bush
           bad."  Uhhh right man.  Whatever.  Besides the plot was almost
           entirely underway by the time Bush took office.  The fixes
           would have had to have been instituted under Clinton to have
           done any good.  What the heck is with this "On September 9th
           I tried to tell Bush that we should pay more attention to
           Al-Quieda."  Maybe so, but BIG FREAKING DEAL!  Little late
           by then, don't cha think?
           \_ No, he said very little of what you attribute to him here. It's
              good to know that your lack of attention to details will assure
           \_ I didn't realize Scott McLellan had a csua account. [Delete me
              again, and watch your little screed disappear.]
                   on google for Islam Kosovo Albania is alarming.
                      helping to prevent an Islamic takeover in Bosnia. -John
              me of a job for quite a while. Thank you.
2004/3/24 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:12834 Activity:nil
3/24    Clarke told reporters different story in 2002 background briefing
        http://cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/24/clarke.bush.binladen/index.html
        \_ Okay, now try a news source that isn't rabidly right-wing.
           \_ Cnn is rabidly right-wing.. umm whatever Lenin.
              \_ Sorry my sarcasm was too subtle for you.
                 \_ Apology Accepted.
2004/3/8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:12577 Activity:nil
3/8     Stop dwelling on the Floriday election people - it doesn't matter
        that people were scrubbed from the voters rolls- elections are
        determined by those who actually vote.  You can only guess at
        what these others would have done, or if they even would have
        showed up.  Although, imo, scrubbing should be done before the
        primary, not in between.  That gives those improperly knocked
        out time to raise hell.  FL is just like San Francisco - the
        election machinery is a joke.  Here we just don't have close races,
        or even races at all.  I vote absentee and avoid it all.
        \_ good point, voter fraud is fine.
           \_ Nah, it's only bad when a Republican won.  There was (apparently)
              hardly any voter fraud to worry about when Clinton won, or during
              any other race that wasn't close.  Because you know, if there
              _was_ voter fraud then, I am sure you diligent non-partisan
              folks would have been screaming about it at the top of your
              lungs too.
              \_ anything specific, or are you just talking out of your ass?
                 \_ Nah, I am sure it was nothing.  I think republicans
                    invented presidential voter fraud in 2000.
                    \_ What is your point?
                       \_ My point, my frothy friend, is that if you dislike
                          voter fraud, you should have been yelling about it
                          all these years.  As it is, your serendipidous
                          discovery of this unfortunate malaise on our
                          society, and subsequent outrage seem a little too
                          well-timed to be well-intentioned (or honest).
                       \_ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                          HEY SHITBOX STOP WRITING OVER OTHER PEOPLE'S POSTS
                \_ Kennedy/Nixon, 1960. Illinois. Texas.
                   "[T]he Chicago Tribune concluded that 'the election
                   of November 8 was characterized by such gross and
                   palpable fraud as to justify the conclusion that
                   [Nixon] was deprived of victory.'"
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36425-2000Nov16?language=printer
                   \_ yes, yes, so what?  Kennedy was a better man so we got a
                      better President out of it.
2004/2/19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:12309 Activity:nil
2/18    Anyone interested in seeing what Max Boot is writing these days?
    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-boot19feb19,1,6229710.column
        \_ Not unless it is an apology for lying to America about the
           threat Iraq posed.
2004/2/13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:29802 Activity:kinda low
2/12    "Right-wing news web site The Drudge Report -- which broke the
        Monica Lewinsky scandal -- claimed a woman close to Senator Kerry
        recently left America at his behest." -Irish paper
        Yes, I know the news is old.  But it's funny how they call Drudge
        right-wing.
        \_ Yeah, all those links to main stream news sources, the right wing
           nut bastard!  It's insane!  He must be stopped!
2004/2/9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:12174 Activity:kinda low
2/9     Another Albright success story.  Gotta love that woman!
        http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/392006.html
        \_ Wouldn't the lead-in, "Al Qaeda has the bomb!" have been enough
           of a troll without reference to Madeleine Albright, who seems to
           have nothing to do with this story?
           \_ You don't seem to understand how the government works.  That's
              ok.  You have time.
              \_ Oh, right, I forgot about the black helicopters.
                 \_ Wow, nice attempt at going way off topic.  Maybe you'd like
                    to go re-read the URL and join us for serious discussion.
                    \_ What part of this discussion has been serious?
        \_ Whoa, like, dude, the Clinton Administration has been out of power
           for MORE than three years now.  You guys need to get it out of your
           system.
2004/2/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:29783 Activity:nil
2/4     If the Republicans can dig up dirt on Clinton (affairs, etc etc) how
        come the Democrats are so incompetent that they can't find dirt on
        Bush?
2004/2/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/SIG] UID:29782 Activity:very high 50%like:29780
2/4     Conservatives -- what two issues do you really care about?
        \_ a. keeping my money
           b. making more money
           \_ you are making conservatives sound very selfish
              \_ of course he is.  he isn't a conservative.  he's trolling.
        \_ 1. Making sure my money is spent how I want it to be spent.
           2. Reducing government services/intervention/size to those the
              government does best (e.g. defense)
           \_ I disagree with #1.  Tax money should be spent wisely and for
              what helps the nation, not on a new pool in your backyard.  Or
              better yet, my backyard.  --conservative
              \_ Maybe I feel strongly that a new pool helps the nation. I
                 think deciding what "helps the nation" is at the core of
                 this question and liberals have a different idea than
                 conservatives do. I don't think a lot of "helpful
                 government programs" help the nation.
                 \_ your feelings have nothing to do with it.  you won't be
                    able to demonstrate a new pool helps anyone but you.  I
                    agree that various social programs only destroy those
                    they are intended to help.
                    \_ How about the Interstate system? Are you opposed
                       to that, too?
                       \_ Built during the Commie Liberal Roosevelt
                          New Dealism era.
                       \_ The IState system improves commerce efficiency, so
                          no.  The welfare system destroys lives, so yes.
                          Various tax credits and penalties are used to
                          conduct government directed social engineering which
                          IMO is the biggest crime possible in this context.
                 \_ a new pool will increase overall GDP (by increasing
                    consumption, and the pool maker will also consume and
                    so on.. sort of like the multiplier effect.)  Thus, a
                    new pool might be helpful to society.
                    \_ no, because the final product has no value to society.
                       if the pool was purchased with his own money then what
                       you say would be true.  but when purchased with tax
                       dollars which otherwise would have had that multiplier
                       effect in the economy, they are first filtered through
                       the government waste system and what little is left is
                       then multiplied.
                       \_ So you are saying it's better to build a pool
                          than to give the money to the wasteful
                          government in the form of taxes. Exactly. If I
                          pay some laborers $20K to build my pool I think
                          I've done more for them than any government
                          program would have.
        \_ 1. Promote traditional family values.  Protect the family.
           2. Protection of Life and Liberty (from conception to natural
              death) and the pursuit of happiness.
           \_ Isn't racism a traditional family value?
              \_ hint: I'm not white, or a WASP.
              \_ yes, it is, in white, black, hispanic, asian, and just about
                 all other cultures.  would you prefer breaking up all
                 families because sometimes they do bad and stupid things?
                 \_ No. But I'm pointing out what a vague and meaningless term
                    "family values" is in politics. What, specifically, do you
                    expect politicians to do about family values? They like to
                    talk about it in elections but it sidesteps any debate over
                    actual policies. In short, it's a load of bullshit. And
                    historically speaking, liberals were the ones fighting for
                    the rights of women and minorities. Maybe nowadays, family
                    values is a euphemism for anti-gay, xtian fundamentalism.
                    \_ killing people (born and unborn) is bad.
                       What about those rights?  And affirmative action
                       is not the only way to help minorities.
        \_ 1.  Only allow the traditional sexual position.
           2.  Only adult can and must be killed.
           \_ Bad troll, no cookie.
        Liberals      -- what two issues do you really care about?
        \_ 1. Universal health care and education.
           \_ Provide a service with infinite costs like healthcare and you'll
              get everyone over-using it to the point that everyone gets near-
              zero care.  Education is a different story since the costs are
              limited and predictable with long term benefits for all of
              society.
           2. I'm very glad to see a good number of the candidates talk
           about fair trade and tax incentives to keep jobs here. If
           we're going to play in a "global" marketplace, all players
           must play fair. --scotsman
           \_ They're talking but once elected it'll be outsource as usual.
           \_ I'm being naive but I thought conservatives were free traders?
              \_ Did I say free?  Check your prescription. --scotsman
                 \_ what does fair mean exactly?  I'll raise my tariffs
                    to match yours?
                    \_ It means "I actually care about how you treat your
                       workers"
                       \_ how does this translate into policy?
        \_ Getting Bush out of office.
           \_ is this an "issue"?
              \_ only if you're an extremist leftist motd wacko.  the rest of
                 country is more concerned with jobs, healthcare, and defense
                 \_ I bet 1/3 of the Democratic party would disagree with
                    you. You might think that 10% of the country is extremist
                    left whackos, but you are starting to stretch the
                    definition a bit there. Many of them are more partisan
                    than leftist, anyway.
                    \_ you are right.  kind of like how all the
                       republicans want clinton out no matter what.
                       \_ "all" and "no matter what" are incorrect.
        \_ 1. Making sure the most helpless in society, especially
              children, are adequately taken care of.
              \_ isn't that what *PARENTS* are for?  who else?
                 \_ Parents have the first responsibility, but in many
                   -- ilyas
                    cases they fail to do their job. What then?
                    \_ Take the kids away and sterilise the parents.  There
                       are a lot of people who can't have kids and would take
                       much better care of them.  It Takes A Village, remember?
           2. Keeping the rights of the minority safe from being
              trampled on by the majority.
              \_ including free speech rights for those who disagree with
                 you, right?
                 \_ In my case, absolutely. I am an ACLU member.
                    \_ mmmmm, yeeaah... I like the concept of the ACLU and
                       what they claim to stand for but they don't always,
                       but overall I'm glad they're there than not at all.
                    \_ I was an ACLU member once.  Then they sold my name
                       to a bunch of mailing lists.
        \_ 1. Protection of civil liberties
           \_ Where were the Democrats during the Civil Rights movement, huh?
              Blocking Highschool doorways so black kids couldn't enter.
              \_ Didn't Johnson sign the Civil Right's Bill and send
                 federal troops to Alabama to desegregate the schools?
           2. Socialized Medicine
           \_ what is the conservative way of dealing with Medicine?
                - not a liberal
              \_ not going EU/Canadian style and destroying the system.
              \_ Let the free market handle it.
                  \_ how would the free market handle it?  What about those
                     who can't afford it?
                     \_ I believe there should be a minimal level of health
                        care provided to all citizens such as shots for kids,
                        and 911 emergency care but I don't think we should all
                        be paying for some of the things I've seen such as the
                        $250,000 spent so far just in medical costs to keep a
                        friend's near-brain dead child alive for the last 10
                        years.  And then there's the $150,000 or so spent on
                        other care.  The child is non-functional, unable to
                        speak at all, can almost crawl and doesn't recognise
                        her own mother from a hole in the ground.  None of this
                        ever should have been allowed to happen.  She should
                        have been allowed to die at birth and would have with-
                        out *amazing* amounts of top notch western medical
                        care.  How many kids could be helped with that $400k
                        who can actually *use* the help?
        \_ 1. Equal rights under the law, civil liberties.
           \_ Where were the Democrats when the Civil Rights Movement was
              taking the nation?  Blocking black kids from entering white
              high schools.
           2. Promoting the welfare of the masses and egalitarian society.
           \_ You mean taking money from one group and giving it to another
              who hasn't done anything to earn it.
        Moderates     -- what two issues do you really care about?
        \_ they care about nothing at all, that's what makes them moderates.
           \_ No, they just aren't fanatics. They don't have a pet agenda to
              push. So they listen to the yammering of both sides and want
              something in between.
              \_ They're mushy heads.  How can they have been awake for the
                 last however many years and still not have an opinion on so
                 many topics which will send this country down very different
                 paths in the years to come?  Mushy heads.
                 \_ They may like how things are or have views which don't
                    all neatly fall into one column or the other. Most things
                    end up being a compromise and therefore "moderate".
                    \_ The key concept of compromise is no one likes it.
                       I have no respect for people who prefer to compromise
                       all the time instead of making something happen.  Mushy
                       heads.  If they really believed in the status quo then
                       they should be opposing both sides.  They *do* have a
                       pet agenda if you're correct.  Since we don't see
                       your version of moderates raising their voices in
                       loud opposition to the extremes we must conclude they
                       really don't care and are just a bunch of Mushy Heads.

        Message from OP: I'm not trying to troll.  one of the reasons
        I have is to see whether the priorities of conservatives and
        liberals are very similar or very different.
        \_ Mr. OP, in my opinion the difference between conservatives and
           liberals isn't priorities (they are often the same), but
           that they view human rights differently.  The set of human
           rights for a liberal is different from the set of human rights
           for a conservative.  Hence the vehement opposition, etc.  Rights
           are pretty basic stuff.  -- ilyas
           \_ are there rights when it comes to economic issues?
              \_ Of course.  For instance, a liberal might think everyone
                 is entitled to healthcare.  In fact, he might think this
                 right trumps the property rights of others.  A conservative
                 thinks property rights are more important.  It is in the
                 specifics of what rights trump what other rights that the
                 whole disagreement is rooted.  In some sense, liberals and
                 conservatives want the same thing (unless they are evil,
                 or sleazy political scumbags) -- for people to be happy
                 productive and free.  But the devil's in the details.
                 I think the ordering of rights is not entirely subjective,
                 and there is one natural one that is 'right.'  But some
                 might say that's naive platonism.  -- ilyas
                 \_ we may have to make a distinction between the
                    hardliners of each side versus the more moderate
                    conservatives or liberals.
                    \_ Still, I think the difference is the ordering of
                       rights, and not something else.  -- ilyas
                       \_ This might be true for the difference between
                          big business conservatives and liberals, but
                          you have to read the bible to understand the
                          religious conservative types. They aren't really
                          interested in the concept of "rights" at all.
                          It is more a matter of salvation and saving souls
                          to them.
                          \_ Religious conservatives may not be interested
                             in the concept of rights, but their position
                             implicitly defines how they view rights.  For
                             instance, most religious conservatives have a
                             very restrictive view of rights when it comes
                             to homosexuality, same sex marriages/unions, etc.
                             Even if their philosophical position had been
                                \_ [ Hi, deleting other people's replies is
                                     not cool. ]
                                     \_ FU. I always use motdedit, unlike
                                        you apparently, who frequently
                                        overwrites my posts.
                             reached by reading the bible, and not thinking
                             about it a whole lot, it's still a position.
                             Some religious conservatives can give a
                             thoughtprovoking defense of their position, so
                             it's not easy to dismiss them.
                               -- ilyas
                             \_ Are you agreeing me, or what? I am saying
                                the differences are a lot more complex than
                                just an "ordering of rights." Not everyone
                                agrees that being happy and free is the
                                goal of existence.
                                \_ Ordering rights is a lot more complex than
                                   you think.  In some sense, the whole of
                                   moral philosophy can be viewed as figuring
                                   out what human rights are, and how to
                                   order them.  I will go out on a limb here,
                                   and suggest than people who don't want
                                   others to be happy and free are bad people.
                                   I try not to talk to bad people.  -- ilyas
2004/2/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:12100 Activity:moderate
2/4     For whomever said that the VP candidate matters in a presidential
        election I have only two words for you: Dan Quayle.
        \_ VP candidate matters only when the Pres. candidates are closely
           matched. Bush won because the GOP convinced voters that Dukakis
           was soft on hard crime.
           \_ and because Dukakis looked like a twink in that oversized
              helmet and tank
              \_ I like that picture of Al Gore looking down a barrel of
                 a rifle.
              \_ No, because Dukakis said, "I will raise your taxes".
        \_ Dan Quayle was a good man.  If you knew anything about Dan you
           wouldn't say he was a negative for Bush.
           \_ He "was"? What happened to him? Did he die? Turn into
              a bad man?
              \_ I'm unaware of what he's done with his life since then.
                 He isn't dead AFAIK but he may be out raping nuns for all
                 I know.  I tell you he "was" because he "was" but it is
                 possible he may not be anymore.  I chose my words carefully.
2004/1/30-31 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:12036 Activity:high
1/30    The Real Way Presidential Elections Are Won:
        http://www.anesi.com/presname.htm
        \_ psb for President!
           \_ why doesn't psb use "\_" like everyone else? his "\-" is
              inferior and shows a selfish refusal to follow social
              convention. clearly not a team player.
2004/1/30-31 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:12034 Activity:nil
1/30    I really love how every thread that points out glaring faults with
        the Bush administration has as its response "Well, what about when
        Clinton did..."  Can we agree that both had their fuckups and their
        appearance of wag the dog and move on.  I think 500 dead troops and
        their families would want that. --scotsman
        \_ Except you are only admitting it retroactively.  Where was your
           foaming at the mouth when Billy was in power?
           \_ You call this foaming at the mouth?  Have you read some of your
              own crap below? --scotsman
              \_ This is beautiful, Ben.  You were just complaining about this
                 "well you do it too" line of reasoning a few lines above...
                 \_ You miss my point.  Again.  I reject you calling my
                    post "foaming at the mouth," and while I don't have proof
                    of who you are, because you don't sign, your rants on
                    Clinton are attrociously rabid. --scotsman
           \_ I for one WAS pissed when Clinton pulled this crap.  Clinton's
              wag-the-dog stuff was quite cheap by comparison and didn't cost
              any U.S. lives (not that Sudanese lives don't matter too) --!op
2004/1/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:11972 Activity:nil
1/27    Anyone have a recommendation for a decent digital sniper rifle scope?
        \_ What's the diff between a digital scope and your bog standard
           tube-with-lenses-at-either-end?  -John
        \_ just curious, what is wrong with an optical one?
                -- can't shoot anything beyond 150 yards
           \_ y00 sux0rz!!1  my gild w1l r0x0rz y00r sux0rZ gild! h@r!
        \_ how are digital scopes different?
           \_ they're kewler!1  i hav wun in doom3, d00de!
        \_ ask on http://www.freerepublic.com
        \_ what's wrong with a leupold vari-x?
           \_ my g1ld doom3 hax0rz sk0pe r0xrz y0r lamER lop0ld!
        \_ you are most likely a troll.  But to those who know,
           what is the advantage of a digital scope?
        \_ http://www.nightvisionplanet.com/atn-dgtlu.html
           \_ Seems like a waste.  You really only need one good reticle,
              and once you learn to use it well it'll be more than
              sufficient.  For those who have the time/interest, there's
              a book by Maj. John Plaster called, "The Ultimate Sniper,"
              that has a chapter on choosing and using various reticles.
2004/1/27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:11968 Activity:nil
1/27    Nerdtest: http://students.washington.edu/mmccain/nerdtest.html
        how do you score?    -61%
        \_ 42.85%
        \_ I don't have time for shit like this anymore.  :(
           \_ me either.  there's way too many idiotic javascript tests out
              there written by bored cs students or other bored cs students.
              \_ then U LOSE!  Seriously, part of being a nerd is having time
                 to waste on things like that.
        \_ 52.38%, with a couple guesses. Yay.
2004/1/23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:11900 Activity:nil
1/23    Cho: don't dish it out if you can't take it.
        http://www.nydailynews.com/01-23-2004/front/story/157605p-138358c.html
        \_ Haha, from Drudge?  This is the guy that's famous for excerpting
           words from speeches that are sometimes minutes or even hours
           apart and then using ellipsis to glue them together into whatever
           phrase he wants to publish.
           \_ "Cheney... gather... violent... law enforcement personnel...
               and... come all... over... my... face."
           \_ From anyone.  If you're going to spew, be prepared to get
              quoted, misquoted, and slammed.
2004/1/21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:11868 Activity:moderate
1/21    SOTU.  Thoughts?
        \_ That's an overly-obscure acronym.
           \_ On some other day than right after the State of the Union, it
              might be.  I think the SOTU should be modded -1 troll.
              I predict any mention of any topic from the speech will be
              deleted as a troll by someone within an hour of posting, hence
              troll.  It's hard to imagine a more divisive or blatantly
              political SOTU.
              \_ Talk about trolling.  You just trolled the motd on the same
                 topic you said others would be trolling.  A weak meta troll
                 at best.  You score -2 weak meta troll.
                 \_ there's an important difference between a bored grad
                    student posting to the CSUA motd and a US president
                    addresssing congress.  The former is expected to
                    troll, and the latter is expected not to.
                    \_ I shall clarify: expressing a different political
                       viewpoint from yours is not trolling.  Not outside
                       your tight nit little knee jerk circles, anyway.
        \_ Anyone remember Clinton's 1996 SOTU?  Was it nearly this political?
           \_ Clinton's SOTU addresses were mostly just boring.
           \_ It didn't include half as much DoubleThink and lumping of
              dubious claims with beneficial effects (i.e., reference to the
              Estate Tax as the "Death Tax" in the same sentence as expansion
              of the married-filing-jointly tax exemption).
              \_ You don't like the death tax?  Exactly what right do you
                 have to the money a man has made over his life time and
                 wants to leave to his family?  Why do you have more claim
                 to his hard earned wealth than his family?
        \_ CNN poll showed only 45% approved of the speech, compared with
           52% for Clinton's speech during the height of Monicagate.  The
           cracks are showing.
           \_ Dream on.  Your party is imploding.  Go waste a vote on that
              maniac, Dean.
              \_ In what way is he a "maniac"?
              \_ You are so right. 49% of America thinks that GWB is
                 doing a good job. The 50% who don't are just a vicious
                 minority:
                 http://www.zogby.coma
              \_ Let me guess, you are the same guy who assured us 100%
                 that there were WMD in Iraq. Your track record ain't too hot.
2004/1/9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:11725 Activity:nil
1/8     Hey, what a suprise, President Bush fudge the WMD report:
        http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1589731
        \_ NPR?  Don't even bother bringing that biased shit here.  You're
           no better than the freeper guy.  Find a real source and we'll talk.
           \_ How 'bout that liberal bastion, MSNBC?
              http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3909150
           \_ How 'bout USA Today?
              http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-01-08-report_x.htm
           \_ How 'bout reading the report yourself?
              http://www.ceip.org/files/pdf/Iraq3FullText.pdf
              \_ How about you see who the http://ceip.org is before taking their
                 'report' seriously?
                 \_ The administration obviously took it seriously enough
                    to offer a rebuttal. --scotsman
                    \_ Because it was reported everywhere even though the
                       source is trash but that never stopped the media.
           \_ How 'bout fox's take?
              http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107798,00.html
              \_ See, we need more fair and balanced articles on the motd.
              \_ All of these are clones of each other, some taking things
                 more out of context than others but none of them backs up
                 the garbage in the so-called "report".  Posting lots of links
                 that say the same thing doesn't prove the crap in the links
                 are true.
                 \_ You expect actual insight in journalism?  You expect
                    unbiased reporting in journalism?  Debunk it if you're
                    bored.
                    \_ Already debunked.  The source is more biased than
                       the freepers.
           \_ Like what?
        \_ Here we go.  NPR is just quoting a think tank.  Let's go see
           their website: http://www.ceip.org and then decide how likely it
           is that their 'report' is in any non-partisan or unbiased.  For
           those who won't bother, it's a ultra left wing .org that makes
           the typical motd leftist look like a right winger.
           \_ NPR is not "quoting a think tank".  They're reporting on a think
              tank's report and the response from the administration.  If you
              haven't noticed this sort of reporting comprises probably 90%
              of "journalism" over the last couple decades.  You don't
              complain like this when it happens in the other direction...
              And calling them ultra-left-wing is pretty knee-jerk.  Not
              all pacifists are left-wing, and vice versa.
              --scotsman
              \_ So you admit it is a pacifist .org?  What are the odds of
                 getting a "report" from a pacifist .org that there was
                 justification for any violent act?
              \_ I thought liberals didn't need tanks to think...
                 \_ Like I said, calling them ultra-left-wing is knee jerk.
                    They seem to have a platform of pacifism.  Who knows if
                    they have a fiscal policy agenda?  Who knows if they
                    supported LBJ but not Nixon?  Do the research and decide
                    for yourself. --scotsman
                    \_ Eh.  The 'religious right' is lumped with conservatives
                       for moderate coalition politics reasons.  I see no
                       problems with lumping irrational pacificts along with
                       irrational fiscal socialists.
                       \_ Quite seriously, calling them "ultra-leftist" just
                          makes you look like a kook. They publish Foreign
                          Policy, the most respected journal of International
                          Studies published. They are financed by such far
                          left organizations as Boeing, Citigroup, GE and
                          Boeing. Their chairman is a venture capitalist!
                          http://www.ceip.org/files/about/about_trustee.asp
                          \_ Indeed.  Have you noticed how campaign finance
                             reform is hurting _democrats_ more than
                             republicans?  Republicans get a lot of their
                             support from ordinary middle class and small
                             business owners.  Democrats rely on big business
                             with a case of white guilt and hollywood.
                             Orson Scott Card was right, liberals are the
                             modern status quo.  Warren Buffet's a liberal.
                             You can't be stupid enough to insinuate that
                             big business or venture capitalists would
                             necessarily fund conservative causes.
                             \_ I am saying that they are not "ultra-leftist"
                                Are you claiming that GE, etc are ultra leftist?
                                Did you look at their board of directors?
              \_ I agree with your comment about journalism 100%.  Now here's
                 the hard question: what the hell do we do about it?
        \_ So, you think this is the ultra-leftist conspiracy? give me a
           a break.  If Bush's WMD report was true, we would of find WMD
           long time ago.  Instead, Bush (and all your supporters) is saying
           that the reason to go to war is "not important" because Saddam is
           a dangerous man at first place.
           \_ No, I'm saying there are WMD and we either haven't found them
              yet, we're still going through millions of documents to find
              and prove them or they were there and moved and need to be
              tracked down.  We *know* he had them.  Everyone in the Clinton
              administration and almost every (D) at the time agreed.  Did
              they just suddenly evaporate when a (R) got into office?  That's
              just plain stupid.  If you believed Clinton, you must believe
              Bush as well.
              \_ Stop believing what politicans tell you.
2004/1/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:11709 Activity:insanely high
1/7   Hillary Clinton jokes about Mahatma Gandhi and Gas stations:
      http://tinyurl.com/3a6ch
      \_ Why are conservatives so obsessed with Hillary Clinton?
              \_ Well I dunno could it be she is the star of the
                 Democratic party and is fawned over by the media?
                 \_ Good one.  That had me going for ages...
                 Why do the commies obsess over Bush?
                 \_ Hey, didn't you get the memo?  You're suppposed to
                    call people "terrorists" now, not "commies."
                    \_ Hah! i knew it--you're a Soviet spy, aren't you?
           \_ Because they hate women and fear peace and understanding.
            \_ there are lots of good conservative women out there.
                 \_ Yes, barefoot and pregnant and in the kitchen, right?
                  \_ once again, leftists stereotypes persist.
                     \_ Surely they're only stereotypes if they're not
                        based on real-life examples.
                        \_ wow, what an asshole, even for a troll.
                           \_ Aw, did I hit a nerve?
                              \_ not at all.  you're just a troll and an
                                 asshole.  your stereotype is sexist and
                                 anti-intellectual as well as being just
                                 plain wrong which makes you stupid as well.
                                 \_ Please. The core Repub values include
                                    archaic gender roles and the recognition
                                    of male superiority. If you haven't
                                    figure this out by now, you're not paying
                                    attention.
                           \_ I agree.  you are a troll and an idiot.
                              I'm refering to 'Surely they're only
                              stereotypes if they're not based
                              on real life examples'
                        \_ why are you and far leftists so anti-pregnant?
                           is it so wrong to be pregnant?  Is it wrong
                           to have a family?
                             \_ it's only ok if you're republican.
                                \_ That's what the Repubs tell us.
         \_ I'm not.  She got a lucky niche in NY when the competition
            was forced to bow out for medical reasons.  That's as far as
            her political career will ever go.  She's not a has-been, but
            more like a never-was-or-will-be.  I say you boys should put
            her up for election every 4 years forever.  --conservative
            \_ So that's why she's the most admired woman in America?
               \_ One has little to do with the other.  It is *very*
                  common for the First Lady to get that title each year
                  yet none of them ever had a chance of being elected to
                  anything.  Apples n oranges.
                  \_ She got that "title" this year too, dunderhead.
                     \_ Uh yeah, go re-read what I said and seek the less
                        juvenile interpretation.  Assume I'm aware of who
                          juvenile interpretation.  Assume I'm award of who
                        the current President, FL, and Jr. Senator from NY
                        are at the present time.  Anyway, getting the most
                        admired title has nothing to do with election
                        chances.  It's only a measure of how many people
                        can name her from thin air.  She's done little that's
                        actually admirable, especially if you're one of her
                        White House Travel Office or other victims.
                  \_ the report I heard said that the First Lady doesn't
                     get most admired woman status (remember, First Lady
                     is Mrs. Bush).
                     \_ I said it is very common for her to do so in the past
                        which is not the same as 100% of the time.  Why must
                        I explain such trivial statements to college students
                        or possibly graduates?
                          \_ Because you make overreaching generalizations
                             and fail to back them up with anything resembling
                             sense.  Speak clearly, or stfu.
                           \_ It was neither overreaching or required a lot
                              of sense to understand.  The problem is the
                              reader, not the writer in this case.
                              \_ Actually, you said that many First Ladies
                                 win the title of "most admired." You did not
                                 expand to include ex-First Ladies.  Again,
                             sense.  Speak clearly, or stfu.
                                 speak clearly, or stfu.
                     \_ Clinton isn't still president?!
                     \_ Clinton isn't still president?!
                        \_ He is on TV.  Watch more West Wing.
            \_ You must be a very important man indeed to consider a
               United States Senator a nobody. Can I ask which billionaire
               or head of state is posting in the motd?
               \_ The Jr. Senator from NY who has written no legislation and
                 or head of state is posting in the motd?
                  co-authored nothing and chairs no committees and is a
                  member of the minority party?  Oh, please.  My dog's vet
                  is more important.
      \_ Once upon a time, prior to the great depression, the Hayes Code,
         gas chambers (and gas stations), in the era of the Thin Man and
         W.C. Fields, when America desperately needed a collective drink,
         there was a thing called humor.  It was funny.  Hillary Clinton
         is about as funny as plague.  The gas station joke, on the other
         hand, is very funny.  -John
         \_ I dunno... which plague are you referring to?
         \_ I didn't get the joke.  Can you explain it please?
      \_ Lets not forget about her "fucking jew bastard" comment.
         \_ That's ok.  She's part-Jew (it's very trendy these days to claim
              most admired woman so it's ok.
            some Jew blood but don't actually be a real Jew because we hate
            them) so she can say things like that.  And anyway, she's the
            most admired woman so it's ok.
<
2003/12/23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll] UID:29731 Activity:nil
12/22   Fuck you right winger nut bags for censoring my "Clinton can connect
        the Al Qaeda/Iraqi dots, why can't Bush?" thread.
        \_ I still don't get your fucking conclusion, perhaps you should
           study fucking basic logic. How the fuck does your article
           help your stupid commie cause? So what if you dems knew about
           Al Quida and Iraq, you didn't do shit about it like
           Bush did.
        \_ Bad Troll, no cookie.
        \_ actually, it was squished along with ~ 5 other threads by the
           perpetual motd political censor.  Then a friendly neighborhood
           motd restorer(tm), restored most of the threads but left out that
           one.
           \_ This is why I just post on http://www.pantsfactory.org - no evil censor,
              and the signup isn't manditory (you can post anon).
              \_ from looking at that site, i'd say you and about ten other
                 people are having a great time posting every other day or so.
                 I'm just going to nip off to the local golf course and watch
                 the fucking grass grow now.
                 \_ It looks like they've been posting every day.
              \_ Hi lye!
2003/12/22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11559 Activity:high
12/21   Hah!  Clinton managed to 'connect the dots' between Iraq and Al Qaeda,
        why couldn't your little bush leaguer do it?    Muahahahaha!
        http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp
        \_ Post the printer-friendly link if you're going to post a story:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3527&R=79F61E497
        \_ Okay, so now you are agreeing with the Iraqi war because we caught
           Saddam? Now it's cool to be Pro-War you're digging up articles
           showing that the dems are agreeing that there is an Al Qaida and
           Saddam connection? Boy, you commie left wing liberals sure are
           standing on your last leg... You were wrong about Afghanistan, you
           were wrong about Reagan, you were wrong about Iran, and you were
           wrong about Iraq. The only thing you dems are good for is dragging
           us into lost causes like Vietnam and Korea. Way to go.
           \_ Whoa, whoa, whoa there.  Since when was Korea a lost cause?
              Yeah, we failed to unite the whole country, but the part we
              saved sure turned out well.  You should have said Solmolia.
              (BTW the difference between Korean and Vietnam or Somolia,
              that while the S. Korean's didn't love our soldiers all the
              time, the did generally want us there.)
              \_ Apparently you don't read enough history. Korea was a lost
                 cause and it cost Truman the election. The only reason the reds
                 stopped attacking was that relations were breaking down between
                 the USSR and Red China. They would've whipped them off of the
                 peninsula if the USSR had kept on supporting the war (it was,
                 after all, their jetfighters and their pilots). And I didn't
                 say Somolia because that's small potatos compared to Cuba (yep,
                 you dems lost Cuba too, and you also technically lost China to
              after all, their jetfighters and their pilots). And I didn't say
              Somolia because that's small potatos compared to Cuba (yep, you
              dems lost Cuba too, and you also technically lost China to
                 the Reds, but then the Chang-Kai-Shek gov't was way too corrupt
                 to keep things under control).
                 \_ I pine for the days when they taught history in our
                    country's schools.  Do the phrases "third UN offensive",
                    1951, and "north of the 38th parallel" mean anything to you?
                    Note that this was previous to any serious Sino- Soviet
                    breakup.  -John
                 \_ While true that it cost Truman the election, that just means
                    it looked like a lost cause at the time.  Also, Truman was
                    running the war like an idiot, so just as well he lost.
                 \_ Appearently, you guys have forgotten how Korean was divided
                    at first place. It is you arrogant American decided to allow
                    USSR to occupy Northeastern China and north of 38 parallel
                    of the Korean peninsula (instead of Chinese Nationalist
                    Army) after Japanese surroundered in the Yalta Conference,
                    in exchange for USSR declare war on Japan.  Later, you
                    Americans decided that allowing USSR to declare war on Japan
                    and occupy Japanese islands was a bad idea after all, thus,
                    used nuclear bomb (read: WMD) on 300,000 civilians to end
                    the war quickly.

                    In all, USSR declared war on Japan for one day before
                    Japanese surroundered.  Number of shots fired upon Japanese
                    by the Russians:  ZERO.
                    \_ Except for the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-05 where Japan
                       kicked Russia out of Korea/Manchuria, started by a
                       Japanese suprise attack on Port Arthur.

                    If you guys had any respect of sovereignty of a non-
                    European nation at first place (i.e. China) , none of this
                    nuclear holocaust and Korean War would ever happen.
                    \_ So China would never have invaded South Korea and force
                       reunification as was done in Vietnam? Neato!

                    Then again, you guys at the time were still in that White
                    Supremist mode... not just Americans, but French and English
                    turned around continue to occupies Algeria and Indo China.
                    Democracy?  Human Rights?  give me a fucking break.
                    -kngharv
                    as well.  French, after crying foul for Nazi's occupation,
                    turned around continue to occupies Algeria and Indo China.
                    Democracy?  Human Rights?  give me a fucking break.
                    -kngharv
                    \_ Dude, EVERYONE has problems with Human Rights.
                 \_ Korea wasn't supposed to "defended" the US. It was a
                    mistaken statement by the US Secretary of War that included
                    Korea as a protectorate. After that it became a pissing
                    match once MacArthur decided to draw China into the war.
        \_ So now you are trying to pass off Clinton's bombing of the
              to keep things under control).
                \_ I pine for the days when they taught history in our
                   country's schools.  Do the phrases "third UN offensive",
                   1951, and "north of the 38th parallel" mean anything to
                   you?  Note that this was previous to any serious Sino-
                   Soviet breakup.  -John
                \_ While true that it cost Truman the election, that just
                   means it looked list a lost cause at the time.  Also,
                   Truman was running the war like an idiot, so just as
                   well he lost.
           asprin factory in Sudan as some kind of intelligence success?
           I guess it is about as real as Bush's WMD. At least Clinton
           didn't lose 500 brave Americans over his goof.
                       \_ That many died a week in Vietnam because of
                          LBJ's "goof"
           \_ No, I'm saying Clinton was able to successfully make the clear
              connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam's Iraq but that little
              bush leaguer couldn't even when he had access to Clinton's
              intelligence work.  Unable to come up with anything new he went
              in on the hope we'd find WMD because it was too embarassing to
              use the good intel from the previous admin on the Iraq/Al Qaeda
              connection.  Bill Clinton: connecting the Iraq/Al Qaeda dots!
              \_ Read the story. There is no "clear" connection, that is why
                 they call it connecting the dots. More like seeing things
                 that aren't there, if you ask me.
2003/12/20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11544 Activity:nil
12/19   Connecting the dots in 1998, but not in 2003.
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1043839/posts
        \_ hard facts would help.
2003/12/18-20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:11510 Activity:nil
12/18   Republican says 9/11 was preventable:
        http://csua.org/u/5b9
        \_ See, you can't win.  If we go in before something bad happens,
           we are unilateral imperialist aggressors.  If we go in after
           something happens, that something was 'preventable.'  I guess
           a republican just can't win if he's in office.  Not unless he can
           see the future.
           \_ or even if he can because it doesn't matter what he does, it is
              still wrong.
        \_ "the commission has navigated a political landmine".  Why can't
           even professional journalists use metaphors correctly?  It's like
           reading an all-kinney motd.
           \_ We live in the Age of the Mixed Metaphor.
              \_ We live in an age of ignorance and journalists are leading
                 the way.  Few people are more stupid than a journalist.
        \_ "As you read the report, you're going to have a pretty clear idea
           what wasn't done and what should have been done," he said. "This
           was not something that had to happen."
           Appointed by the Bush administration, Kean, a former Republican
           governor of New Jersey, is now pointing fingers inside the
           administration and laying blame.
           "There are people that, if I was doing the job, would certainly
           not be in the position they were in at that time because they
           failed. They simply failed," Kean said.
            ...
           Asked whether we should at least know if people sitting in the
           decision-making spots on that critical day are still in those
           positions, Kean said, "Yes, the answer is yes. And we will."
           \_ So do we go back and retroactively fire half the clinton admin?
        \_ Quick look! Micheal Jackson, over there!
           \_ What?  Where?!
2003/12/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:11395 Activity:moderate
12/9    If the president cannot serve over 2 consecutive terms, does that
        mean our beloved Bill Clinton could come back to serve?
        \_ It would be funny to see a Bill Clinton / Hillary Clinton
           presidential bid. (Gives new meaning to the term "running mate",
           though I'm sure those two haven't actually mated in 10 years).
        \_ No one can serve more than two terms, consecutive or not,
           short of a constitutional amendment (for details, see
           22nd Amendment).
           \_ It also says here that the manufacture, sale, or
              transportation of intoxicating liquors is prohibited.
              And ducks are required to wear long pants.
              \_ And dancing on the Sabbath shall be punishable by 40 lashes.
           \_ But he could be a Veepee.
           \_ But he could be a Peepee.
              \_ No, he can't.  One of the roles of the VP is to become
                 president if hte president is incapacitated.
                 \_ Really?  By the same logic, a VP must be US-born.  In
                    reality someone foreign-born is allowed to become the VP.
                 \_ The VP is 1st in sucession, but there are a lot of other
                    people further down the line.  The VP could be president
                    of the senate, and in the event POTUS dies, the VP is
                    passed over for a native-born person.
        \_ It's not that he can't do more than 2 consecutive terms, he can't
           do more than 10 years total. If someone is removed from office,
           a VP can become president for a partial term and then server two
           full terms... so if Hillary were assassinated, would Bill be able
           to take over as President for a while, assuming his total time in
           in office were less than 10 years?
2003/12/9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:11377 Activity:kinda low
12/9    I'm a registered democrat.  And I think Dean or whoever gets nominated
        will lose in 2004.  Our best hope for a comeback is Hillary in 2008.
        I want the Clinton days back!
        \_ the only hope for the survival of the democratic party is for
           new people to join and push aside the libermann-type democrats
           who have an appeasment policy toward republicans, and become more
           like them every election cycle.  Dean brings new people into
           the democratic party(i just registered democrat for the first
           time today, *only* because of dean), who can not only revitalize
           the democratic party in general, but who may well beat bush.
           \_ The impending American divide.
              \_ please elaborate
        \_ You're a Republican troll.  Dean is the real thing, the Clintons are
           plastic.
           \_ Dean blows and he will lose if he runs. I don't want to see
              Bush win. Why can't the Dems ever find a good candidate? Did
              they just get lucky with Bill?
              \_ Oh, he 'blows.' What an insightful analysis.
                 \_ I'll type up a document and post it to the motd. Not.
                    \_ That's ok, your opinion holds no water based on how
                       much you seem to love Bill, a man who was really good
                       for Bill Clinton but probably put the nails in the coffin
                       for the Democratic party.  Dean is a real person with
                       a good platform.  Do you think he 'blows' because he's
                       against the war?
                       \_ It has nothing to do with his position on the war, but
                          instead his record in Vermont, his stated platform,
                          his waffling on the Middle East, and his stupid
                          flag comment.
                          \_ His record in Vermont is commendable.  His platform
                             is cohesive.  He has not waffled on the Middle
                             East at all - in fact, he's the only politician
                             of note that has anything resembling a clear
                             position other than GWB.  And the flag comment
                             was great.  Anything else?
                             \_ You're a tool. Go look at what he did in
                                Vermont, not what he *says* he did. His
                                platform is not consistent with his claim
                                of being fiscal conservative and neither
                                is his opposition to free trade. He has
                                indeed waffled on whether support to Israel
                                should continue. The flag comment was offensive
                                and even his fellow Dems thought so. He will
                                not win middle-America's vote and so he will
                                lose just like Gore even if people in CA and
                                NY like him.
                                \_ *laugh* I love how you make these
                                   predictions based upon a few snide opinions
                                   about things that no one really cares about.
                                   The truth is that the Democratic nominee can
                                   lose the entire South and still win by only
                                   winning *one* more state than Gore did.
                                   Remember, Gore lost New Hampshire.  Dean has
                                   a stunning organization that represents a
                                   whole new way of doing things.  The last
                                   two elections, done the old way, have been
                                   a total disaster for the Democrats.  I'll
                                   enjoy making fun of you in November, almost
                                   as much as I'll enjoy Bush losing.
                                   \_ Bush losing would be great, but I'm
                                      not even sure Dean will win the Dem
                                      nomination.
                                      \_ He will.  He's the only one running
                                         a risky, fiery campaign, and that's
                                         a risky, firey campaign, and that's
                                         the only chance the Democrats have
                                         to win those swing states.  They've
                                         gotta take risks, because the number
                                         of sure-fire Democrat states is less
                                         than the number of sure-fire Republican
                                         states.
2003/12/9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:11367 Activity:nil
12/9    Clinton arrested with a crack pipe!
        http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/entertainment/gossip/7444864.htm
        \_ We elected the wrong Clinton.
2003/12/9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:11361 Activity:nil
12/8    Gore endorses Dean: http://tinyurl.com/ydad (sfgate.com)
2003/12/7 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:11346 Activity:high 60%like:11380
12/7    Bush regime pre-emptively kills 9 future terrorists:
        http://csua.org/u/567
        \_ Yeah, he knew they were little kids while sleeping in the White
           house, mentally took control of the A-10s, mentally imagined the
           Mavericks taking them out. Oh pluz! Why don't you say the Clinton
           regime took out two Chinese "spies" in the Serbian campaign while
           you are at it?!
           \_ What happened to taking responsibility for your actions?
              I thought that was a Conservative virtue. I guess not a Neocon
              one.
              \_ Yeah but you think we shouldn't even be in Afghanistan.
2003/11/22-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:11194 Activity:moderate
11/22   Any thoughts on the medicare bill on the house?  There was lots of
        discussion on the energy bill, but little on this one.  Good/bad?
        \_ The democrats are opposed and republicans in favor: it must be bad.
        \_ It has this really curious feature where beneficiaries with very low
           bills and very high bills are given lots of coverage, but those
           with bills within the median are given much less coverage.
           Anyway, both sides can go stick it where the sun don't shine - this
           is just more expansion of the entitlement system for immediate
           political gain, when they should be taking much more important
           (and of course, politically painful) steps to reform the system.
           Neither the Congress nor the President have displayed anything
           approaching the courage and integrity necessary to make that happen.
             --motd liberal
           \_ What is a liberal doing bitching about an entitlement system?
              You're no liberal.  You sound more like a libertarian.
              \_ Yup, agree.  -- another motd libertarian
              \_ I consider myself a liberal because of my opinions on social
                 issues and the workings of the justice system.  I recognize the
                 need for serious reform of our entitlement system for the
                 elderly, however.  From what I have seen, those than consider
                 themselves libertarians would like to dismantle the entire
                 entitlement system, rather than change the way that it
                 functions.  Also, I think corporate welfare (i.e, the ethanol
                 subsidy which amounts to a direct transfer of taxpayer money
                 to ADMs executives) is equally in need of reform, but I haven't
                 heard the same from many libertarians.  Not every liberal is
                 a raving Marxist/ANSWER loony, just like not every
                 conservative is a jingoistic dittohead.  BTW, the Economist
                 has a very nice graph on what may happen to the budget
                 deficit in the next 10 years:
                 http://economist.com/images/20031108/CSF889.gif
                   --motd liberal
                 \_ Whoa there, bucko.  If you haven't heard that corporate
                    welfare is bad from libertarians, you haven't heard from
                    any libertarians.
                    \_ that's the biggest load of shit on todays motd.
                       Libertarians blather about this, but when you look
                       issue by issue, they clearly favor the rights of
                       corporations over individuals, which will always lead
                       to corporate welfare.  Libertarians are quite possibly
                       the biggest threat to american society today.  if
                       libertarians continue to destroy the government,
                       issue by issue, they clearly favor the rights
                       corporations without any legal or ethical restraint
                       will rule our lives.  [formatd, big time]
                        \_ Please point to ONE single instance of
                           libertarians, or even the libertarian party
                           supporting "the rights of corporations over
                           individuals".  Libertarianism is ALL about the
                           the rights of individuals.  You don't know what
                           the hell you are talking about.  Your irrational
                           fear of what you clearly know nothing about is
                           disturbing.  -phuqm
                           \_ read their fucking platform
                              http://www.lp.org
                              in particular, see
                              http://www.lp.org/issues/program/health.html
                              Yeah, I can't wait till we eliminate the
                              evil FDA so we're free to take whatever
                              drugs the pharmas feel like marketing.
                              \_ Health Care is what i assumed you would say.
                                 I didn't consider opposition to the FDA.
                                 I didn't realize that not being able to buy
                                 drugs that have been legal in Europe for ages
                                 was one of the "rights" of individuals that
                                 you would be concerned with.
                                 For the record, I personally believe a Food
                                 and Drug admin. could play a valuable role
                                 in society.  But THE FDA is a net loss  even
                                 In terms of "rights" I don't see how any
                                 you just have no standing whatsoever. Exactly
                                 in terms of absolute benefit to society.
                                 In terms of "rights" I don't see how you
                       will rule our lives.  [formatd, big time]
                              drugs the pharmas feel like marketing.
                                 can make any argument whatsoever.  Exactly
                                 WHICH "individual" right do you think is
                                 being threatened by this position? -phuqm
                       \_ Just because you SAY libertarians favor the rights
                          of corporations over individuals, doesn't make it
                          true.  Personally, I am not even sure all
                          libertarians are willing to grant corps legal person
                          status.  At any rate, the libertarians don't
                          trust government much in the same way your amusing,
                          ranty little self doesn't trust Big Business.
                          Big Business is motivated by money.  What is
                       of corporations over individuals, which will always
                       lead to corporate welfare.  Libertarians are
                       quite possibly the biggest threat to american society
                       today.  if libertarians continue to destroy the
                       government,
                       corporations without any legal or ethical restraint
                         \_ You're not the only one, you should
                            http://www.freerepublic.com  Lots of libertarians.
                       will rule our lives.
                          Big Government motivated by?  Think about that.
                          Big Government motivated by?  Think about that.
                        \_ this libertarian thinks it's insane that corps have
                           legal person status and the rights that go with it.
                           that was a *huuuuge* mistake we'll be paying for
                           forever or until changed.
                    \_ agreed. It was primarily libertarians railing about
                        this in the motd previously. (e.g. me). It is also
                        mostly libertarians fighting eminent domain
                        abuses, where government orgs steal private
                        entity's property to give it to other (invariably
                        richer) private entities.  -phuqm
                         \_ You're not the only one, you should
                            http://www.freerepublic.com  Lots of libertarians.
                 \_ nice graph.  looks like we're just repeating the same
                    numbers as the clinton glory years of economic health.
                    anyway, it's easy to knock something.  how would you
                    reform the system if you had the power?
        \_ Just politicians spending more of the taxpayers money to
           buy votes.
           \_ Isn't that what all entitlement programs are?
2003/11/22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:11182 Activity:nil
11/21   Latest time/cnn poll: bush would crush any of the democrats if the
        election were held today.
        \_ Which is nothing more than a function of name recognition.
           Bill Clinton was in almost identical position in 1992.
           \_ Ross Perot isn't running this time around.
2003/11/21-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:11175 Activity:low
11/21   America vs. the World:
        http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2189509
        \_ Did this strike anyone else as somewhat double-speakish?  I would
           hardly classify the current state of American affairs as a vibrant
           democracy.  You can't speak out against the White House without them
           outing your undercover wife, the newspapers are afraid to ask tough
           questions because they'll be sent to the back of the pressroom and
           ignored...
           \_ I haven't seen/heard of any such problems. The papers are full
              of anti-White House/Bush articles as is tv.
              \_ but radio is full of rush limbaugh clones so we should censor
                 radio and get a tax payer funded left wing station going.  oh
                 wait, we already have npr.  nevermind!
                 \_ NPR gets around 2% of its funding from the government.
                    \_ They're cronies of the left anyway.
           \_ Hey is there any proof of the wife thing?
              \_ There is proof that the identity of an undercover agent
                 WAS leaked by at least one member of Whitehouse staff.
                 Draw your own conclusions from there.
                 \_ Ok, what proof?  Incidentally, the wife in question is
                    decidedly NOT an undercover agent.  Read the news.
                    \_ Sigh...must the motd continually revisit the same
                       endless arguments over and over again?
                       \_ as long as you keep repeating lies, yes.
                       \_ IFILE!
                          \_ no, ED!
        \_ Wasn't digging up yer past the Clinton method of
           sqelching "Bimbo Eruptions?"
2003/11/19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:11152 Activity:nil
11/19   Africa hasn't come up on the motd in months.  Here's my two cents:
        http://www.kimdutoit.com/dr/essays/essays.php?id=P82
        \_ So we're supposed to read the opinion of some random white South
           African dude who starts his second paragraph with the deathless
           cliche "In Africa, life is cheap."  I think not.
           \_ Yeah, how true, he isn't a clone of you so his experiences are
              totally meaningless and should be dismissed unread.
              \_ I read his "essay."  He's a terrible writer.  This is a good
                 indication that he's a dumbass.
                 \_ Ok, so he's a dumbass.  What's your answer to any of
                    Africa's many problems?
                    \_ I'm not sure.  I don't pretend to be an expert, unlike
                       the writer of said crappy essay.
        \_ From The Onion:
         African Leaders Still Treating Clinton As President
         NAIROBI, KENYAKenyan President Emilio Mwai Kibaki said Monday that his
         country continues to enjoy excellent diplomatic relations with former
         U.S. President Bill Clinton. "I have always enjoyed working with Mr.
         Clinton, and the recent international Agricultural Development
         Conference was no exception," Kibaki said. "And I know that
         [Democratic Republic of the Congo President] Joseph Kabila enjoyed
         meeting with him to secure an American commitment for humanitarian
         aid, as well." Kibaki said that none of the leaders have anything in
         particular against President Bush, but added that all the same, they'd
         rather stick with Clinton.
2003/11/19-20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:11144 Activity:nil
11/19   Does anybody remember that SNL TV Funhouse cartoon where Clinton,
        Dole, and Perot are all trying to talk at the same time to Congress,
        and a giant rabbit busts down the wall and screams "EEEAAAAWWWRRRG"
        and all the Congressmen clap?  That was so cool.
        \_ no.
2003/11/12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:11038 Activity:nil
11/11   8/10 want a new job:
        http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/11/pf/q_iquit/index.htm?cnn=yes
        \_ I blame Clinton!
           \_ the revolution is in my pants!
2003/11/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:10989 Activity:moderate
11/7    Liberal views force soldier out of military
        http://csua.org/u/4xk
        \_ There is no free speech in the military.  Good thing they got
           rid of this guy.
           \_ I'm ashamed to call you an American.
                \_ ITs the military, chain of command and all that stuff.
                   DUH.
                   \_ Just following orders?
                      \_ Non sequiter?
        \_ Here's a good line which motd leftists should take to heart,
           "The unfortunate aspect of this is not my demise, but their
           inability to understand or accept the opinions of others as
           different from their own."  And here we see a leftist of all people
           correctly describing the difference between the right and left in
           our little motd world.  As a conservative I understand and accept
           the opinions of the leftists here.  I simply disagree.  What I do
           not do is rant about how you're all automatically evil and wrong
           and stupid without discussion simply for thinking differently.
           Mostly I feel badly for you.  I have hope you'll one day think about
           the world with open eyes and see how it is for others and come
           around.  I'm not giving up on you.
           \_ What are your thoughts on Bush?
              \_ He's not a real conservative.  Mostly, I'm disappointed.
           \_ if only any of this were true....
           \_ I think you so-called real conservatives need to take a good
              look at how suppressing differing viewpoints is really starting
              to hurt America. Here is a case where a good, and it turns out
              accurate, young Marine was driven out for telling the truth.
              The Bush Administration is increasingly driven by ideology and
              not facts.
                        \_ There is no opinion in the military - don't you
                           understand this?  You follow the Commander in
                           Chief's orders - thats it.  If every soldier acted
                           on some whim based on the alignment of the planets
                           chaos would reign (not an effective military
              not facts.
                           machine).
              \_ We've been watching differing viewpoints get suppressed for
                 years in the media.  This is nothing new to us.  We're quite
                 aware how suppressing other viewpoints is bad for America.
                 Pot, kettle, black.  --conservative
                 \_ And your point is...?  Just because it's happened to
                    the conservative team (since all politics can clearly be
                    categorized by one of exactly two labels) doesn't make it
                    somehow magically okay or any more acceptable.  Two wrongs
                    & etc.
                 \_ When others do it, it is just as bad. It is just more
                    disturbing when those in power do it.
                    \_ Maybe you and the person above missed the other reply
                       where I said Bush isn't a real conservative and I'm
                       \_ Well, since you don't sign your fucking posts,
                          expecting people to automatically associate them
                       where I said Bush isn't a real conservative and I'm
                          as originating from the same source is a little
                          silly.
                       mostly disappointed with his actions/policy/whatever?
                       If you think Bush is a conservative, which he isn't,
                       and want to stick real conservatives with his policy
                       as if we all 100% believe in all 100% of it then you're
                       nuts.  That's a strawman argument.  I hope you can do
                       better than that.  Would it make sense for me to claim
                       that Al Sharpton represents all liberals and everything
                       he says and believes is something you all 100% believe
                       at all times, too?  Real conservatives disavowed Bush
                       about 30 days into his first term when one of his first
                       actions was to expand all government programs by 4%
                       across the board.  From that day forward he became
                       nothing more than the lesser evil of the Bush/Gore pair.
                       It's the very same media bias that conservatives
                       complain about that keeps people like you thinking that
                       conservatives like me are pro-Bush zombie ditto head
                       clones.  Real conservatives don't exist in the media.
                       We're just a caricature that your media kicks around.
                       \_ the Weekly Standard crowd aren't "real conservatives"
                          either?  ok, fine.  from now on I will identify all
                          my unusual opinions as those of a "real liberal"
                          and claim every liberal you've ever heard of isn't
                          really a liberal so you can't use any published
                          information on liberal ideology to disagree with me.
                          this is absurd.  why don't you start a new thread
                          and post the three to five most basic priciples of
                          whatever you're calling "real conservatism?"
                          I suspect you're the same person who signs their posts
                          "real conservative" periodically on the motd, and
                          some of us are genuinely curious.
                          -real transcendentalist
                          \_ I don't write for the weekly standard.  They have
                             nothing to do with anything.  It's a for-profit
                             publication of no interest to me.  Some basics:
                             1) smaller government, lower taxes 2) no
                             religious hijacking of government in *either*
                             direction which means the 10 commandments being
                             posted in a school or court room is not a crime,
                             but we shouldn't have prayer in school either, 3)
                             no business in people's personal lives which
                             includes sex, abortion, euthanasia, and other
                             medical decisions, however that also means being
                             gay or whatever doesn't make you a protected
                             class either, 4) the end of government created
                             poverty:  give a man a fish and he eats for a day
                             (and then comes back for another fish tomorrow).
                             There's more but that should give you some idea.
                             The core concept is the government stands in the
                             way of personal achievement and progress for all
                             people once it grows beyond a certain size and
                             exceeds it's mandate as laid out in the
                             constitution.  We need government, because
                             without it we'd have anarchy leading to
                             dictatorship, but we don't need a government that
                             has the power and the will to destroy and steal
                             our freedoms through the sheer size of government
                             and the average citizen's inability to fight
                             against it to protect our most basic rights.
                             Would you like to provide a few summary points of
                             what a real liberal is?
                             \_ actually, I don't consider myself a "real
                                liberal" at all, I just said that to point
                                out the flaw in your argument.  I basically
                                agree with most of the points you claim for
                                "real conservatism".  However, I don't
                                believe you can claim point (3) above for
                                coservatives.  If you look at the opinions
                                of the vast majority of republicans vs.
                                democrats, there is not question that the
                                republicans are the worse party for civil
                                \_   waco, elian, creating swat teams
                                     within virtually every Fed department
                                     (eg. IRS, Forest Service, FEMA)
                                     rural cleansing through endangered
                                     species, etc..... what Pres did this?
                                     The Patriot Act was written
                                     during the Clinton administration and
                                     contains provisions proposed much earlier,
                                     law enforcement has always wanted power.
                                     The Act merely codified actions
                                     used by law enforcement for decades.
                                     The problem is government, period.
                                     If you are concerned with government
                                     intrusion why do you insist on giving
                                     the Fed more power and money to pass
                                     more laws to regulate more aspects of our
                                     lives.  This is common sense, freedom
                                     and a social welfare state are
                                     irreconcilable.  The latter always
                                     marches inexorably towards tyranny.
                                        \_ How many Canadians do you know?  How
                                           many got sick?  The ones I know came
                                           to the US to get medical care
                                           because their oppressive government
                                           doesn't allow them to purchase
                                           better care than the government
                                           offers.  They are forced into using
                                           sub standard care and must cross to
                                           our country to restore their free
                                           access to western medical standards
                                           even though ours has sunk since
                                           HMOs took over and destroyed most
                                           of it, it's still better than there.
                                     \_ Yeah, like Canada.  Those Canadians
                                        with their welfare state and
                                        socialized medicine are so oppressed.
                                     Philosophical support for a small
                                     government inherently protects
                                     liberty... this always has been
                                     provenance of the right (though there
                                     are many, probably a majority, of
                                     RINOs in government).  The 'opinions
                                     of ...' is a very vague term.
                                liberties.  To claim otherwise is an analogous
                                arguement to that made by leftists who
                                claim all the evils of communism in the 20th
                                century were by governments that were
                                "not real communists."  I don't buy into either
                                argument.  Your claims for "real conservatism"
                                sound a lot like William Safire's brand of
                                 "conservatism."  Unfortunately, you and
                                 William Safire appear to be the only
                                 "conservatives" in America who give a
                                 damn about civil liberties.  My point about
                                 real liberals above was just this: just
                                 because I like to call myself a liberal and
                                 believe in smaller government and fewer
                                 \_ Once again, you only see the conservatives
                                    as the leftist media presents them.  It
                                    *really* pisses me off to read the pseudo
                                    right wing op/ed chick in the Chronical
                                    who makes the most idiotic points in the
                                    most illogical manner possible.  We exist
                                    and we are not happy with Bush but it's
                                    better than anything the minority party
                                    has to offer so we hold our nose and vote.
              not facts.
        \_ Here's a good line which motd right-wingers should take to heart,
           "The unfortunate aspect of this is not my demise, but their
           inability to understand or accept the opinions of others as
           different from their own."  And here we see a leftist of all people
           correctly describing the difference between the right and left in
           our little motd world.  As a liberal I understand and accept
           the opinions of the right-wingers here.  I simply disagree.  What I
           do not do is rant about how you're all automatically evil and wrong
           and stupid without discussion simply for thinking differently.
           Mostly I feel badly for you.  I have hope you'll one day think about
           the world with open eyes and see how it is for others and come
           around.  I'm not giving up on you.
           \_ if only any of this were true....
                             what a real liberal is?
                                 subsidies does not make that a liberal ideology
                                 no matter how much I wish it was. so I don't
                                 call myself a liberal.
2003/11/7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:29622 Activity:nil
11/7    Its time for a new verb:
        clinton (v), as in "to clinton," to assign blame for your own mistakes,
        or those of the people that you support, on someone wholly unconnected
        to the mistake in question.  e.g., "I screwed up the quarterly report,
        so I called my boss and clintoned Bob.  He totally fell for it."
2003/11/4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:10930 Activity:very high
11/3    One day my people will stop being victims of the left.  Unfortunately,
        that day has not yet come.  Sigh....
        http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001782176_clinton04m.html
        \_ Hey look, its a freeper posting a CONTEXT FREE LINK.  Who woulda
           thunk it?  I actually bothered to paste your link into my browser,
           and I wish I could get the three minutes of my life back that I
           spent reading this lame article.  They booked Clinton, they didn't
           get the ticket sales they wanted.  Big freakin' deal.  Happens
           ALL the time in concert promotion, but do you see whiny little
           bitches posting on the motd about how everyone is a victim of
           U2 or REM?  Stop obsessing over Clinton, he hasn't been the
           president for 3 YEARS.
           \_ Everyone who thinks differently than you is not a freeper.
              Anyway, since it was so obvious you missed it, this was supposed
              to be a charity event and when it didn't even break even due to
              his high fees, he didn't cut back and return any money.  Ya know,
              charity?
           \_ You know, it's still his fault...
              \_ Yup, everything is Clinton's fault.  You know that helicopter
                 that got shot down the other day?  Clinton's fault.  And that
                 enormous federal debt?  Clinton's fault.  Not to mention the
                 Kobe Bryant case - definitely Clinton's fault.  The Blaster
                 worm - without a doubt, Clinton's fault.  SARS too.
                 \_ wow, talk about missing the point.  Get back on your meds.
                    \_ There was no point to miss.  Just more Clinton-hating
                       hot air from the usual motd gasbags.
2003/10/30-31 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:10881 Activity:moderate
10/30   Man, if Clinton was doing this kind of shit the media and the GOP
        would have been screaming about it 24/7.  To elaborate, this is a
        Reuters article about how companies awarded lucrative contracts in
        Iraq have made very large Bush campaign contributions.
        http://csua.org/u/4uk
        \_ I'm not saying there's nothing dodgy about it, but using Bechtel
           as an example seems fairly weak--they are, after all, one of the
           world's biggest construction companies, and a really big company
           in its own right.  Wouldn't you expect them to have political
           connections, just like Microsoft, GM, US Steel, Exxon, and RJR
           Nabisco (among others) do?  And frankly, I don't think it would
           have gone over too well if we'd started paying the Binladin group
           to build roads in Afghanistan.  Although regarding the Clinton
           thing, I don't know if it would have started a real shitfest--
           don't forget, the GOP screams about everything.  That's what makes
           them so cuddly and lovable.  -John
           \_ There are contracts, and there are no-bid contracts. --aaron
                \_ And there are also Federal sole source regulations
                   that constrain the structure of no-bid contracts.
                   \_ Which have been violated in Iraq.
           \_ Halliburton is a great example, though.
              \_ Yeah, and Halliburton is one of the biggest oil engineering
                 firms in the world (or at least US.)  I'm not doubting the
                 potential for monkey business, but the examples given are
                 like saying "Red Adair has a good relationship with the
                 government, including giving campaign contributions, so it's
                 suspicious that he's given all those contracts to put out oil
                 fires."  -John
                 \_ This is what you get for 1. non-bid contracts, and 2.
                    the sheer fact that the Vice President, which a has
                    the shear fact that the Vice President, which a has
                    overwhelmingly influence in Iraq policies, was the
                    CEO of Halliburton.   Last time I check, Halliburton is
                    still paying for his compensation today.
                    \_ Which still doesn't address my point.  They are a big
                       company, with lots of references in their field.
                       Yeah, Cheney was on their board and probably still
                       has ties, which is wrong.  Are you saying that no
                       company, no matter how competent they are, with any
                       ties to politicians should be given any govt.
                       contracts?  -John
                       \_ They should be forced to compete in a fair and
                          competitive bidding process. Halliburton was
                          given a no-bid contract. And I personally believe
                          that politicians taking campaign contributions
                          should not be allowed to grant federal contracts
                          to those companies. But that is not the law, at
                          least not yet. -ausman
                           \_ While I agree with you that competition is
                              good and healthy, it is not always feasible.
                              One should be careful with statements like
                              "all bids should be through competition"--it
                              has the competition to create lots of
                    still paying for his compensation today.
                              inefficiency and other side effects.  -John
           \_ Also, Bechtel has had big government contracts for decades, under
              the administrations of Dems and Repubs.
              the administrations of Dems and Repubs.
                \_ Bechtel built the Hoover Dam.
        \_ So why don't I see any criticism of URS Corp., owned in part
           by Diane Feinstein's husband, which receives several billion
           annually in government contract?  They were just awarded
           4 billion dollar contract.
           \_ Because We Love Diane Feinstein!  She can Do No Wrong!  If she
              were a republican, however, her actions would be unspeakably
              evil and beyond redemption.
           annually in government contract?  They were just awarded
           4 billion dollar contract.
              \_ No, because those contracts were awarded after a fair and
                 competitive bidding process, while the Iraq contracts were
                 not. Are you honestly unable to see the difference?
2003/10/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:10799 Activity:very high
10/25   Republicans LOSE again:
        link:csua.org/u/4sx
        \_ Hmm, control all 3 branches of government, no electable minority
           party candidate emerging from the 9 dwarves for 2004, got bill &
           \_ wow, what news do you read? you're in a dreamworld if you
              think dean/clark/kerry aren't "electable". read anything
              but hard right opinion lately?
              \_ I'll wager $1000 that none of them get elected as
              President in 2004. Are you up to it? -williamc
              \_ What kind of odds will you give me? http://tradesports.com will
                 give me 60/40, can you match it? -ausman
           hillary lurking about screwing up the party for their own gain,
           and just lost the governorship of the largest state to an actor
           in an election where the majority party split their votes among
           two candidates but still won.  If that's what it's like to be a
           loser I can't imagine how much better winning feels.  Link unread
           because it's not worth the cut n paste effort to read a context
           free url.  At least tell us what's there, otherwise you just look
           like a partisan whiney little bitch.
                  \_ Uhm.  Pot, Kettle, Black.
                     \_ I think the emphasis was on WHINEY LITTLE BITCH,
                        not partisan.
                        \_ I think the emphasis was on the whole phrase.  Nice
                           try.
                        \_ right, and I'm sure that from 1992 to 2000 the
                           above partisan was totally respectful to the
                           President and never whined once.  People like that
                           on both sides are useless.
                           \_ Heh.  Clinton doesn't deserve respect.  The man
                              is slime.
                              \_ Clinton didn't sell a war on false pretexts or
                                 ignore his staff blowing the cover on a
                                 CIA agent, but he got a blowjob. What are
                                 your priorities? Sheesh.
                                 \_ Dude, did you listen to his speech?  What
                                    false pretexts?  Do you KNOW iraq has no
                                    WMD?  Tell us how?  You can be rich!
                                    \_ What, by reading the news?  Get serious.
                                       \_ I repeat, how do you know?  How do
                                          the reporters know?
                                          \_ Ah.  So this is a NHSG existential
                                             answer, "No, dude!  You totally
                                             3am-talking-with-my-stoned
                                             roomates thing.  I guess the right
                                             like a railroad spike!"
                                             answer is, "No, dude!  You totally
                                             can't KNOW anything!  Not unless
                                             it gets jammed through your head
                                             like a railroad spike!"  Of
                                             course, as a basis for a voting
                                             adult to make real-world decisions
                                             it's completely assinine.
                                             \_ See, this is what I don't get.
                                                3 billion dollars of Hussein's
                                                money magically slips through
                                                American fingers and ends up
                                                in Syrian banks, and no one
                                                thinks it's strange.  How
                                                much easier do you think it
                                                would be to slip some key
                                                laboratory equipment or
                                                ampules out of the country?
                                                \_ We didn't go to war over
                                                   a few ampules. Money can
                                                   be wired. 10000L of nerve
                                                   agent cannot.
                                                   \_ You really think they
                                                      wired those 3 billion
                                                      to Syria?  Are you
                                                      fucking nuts?
                                          \_ By paying attention in class?
                              \_ Clinton >> Bush. -independent
            \_ viewing a link is harder than ranting for 10-12 lines on the
               motd?
2003/10/11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:10588 Activity:nil
10/10   Sweatshop Protests May Hurt, Not Help, Poor Workers
        http://csua.org/u/4om
        \_ woo woo, prostitution
        \_ We should never protest evil because otherwise some other evil
           might happen in it's place.  It's better if we just don't worry
           our pretty little heads over it and let Bad Things Happen To
           Other People because ya know, hey, some economists said so!
           \_ Having trouble with arguing against that part that points
              out that "no one is forcing the workers to the factories,"
              aren't you.  News flash: Industrial Revolution NOT bad!
2003/10/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:10571 Activity:nil
10/10   Arafat dead soon.  All the lies and rumors and denials reminds me
        of how the Soviets handled their leaders being sick (or dead for a
        few weeks sometimes).  http://nypost.com/news/worldnews/7776.htm
        \_ while I agree in principle that the PA is likely to lie through
           their teeth about this, it's also clear that everything in
           this article is based on rumors.  If he's really about to die,
           wouldn't isreli spies know that?  And if they knew that, why
           the very recent public death threats against Arafat?
           That bastard should have been executed in public years ago,
           but he seems to be remarkably resiliant, and I'll believe he was
           at death's door only when he finaly dies.
           \_ yes, it's rumors.  that's all we ever got from the soviets
              until a few days after they each dropped dead.  that's all
              i was saying.  contrast to this country where we're told about
              carter's hemroids(sp) and every other disgusting personal
              health fact.  well except for clinton, but whatever.  -op
              \_ where is dick cheney?
                 \_ in hiding for security reasons
              \_ and reagan
                 \_ in his home slowly dying of a horrible disease.
              \_ or FDR, or JFK...
                 \_ dead. also dead but he met with Elvis on his alien ship
                    before they got him.  some would say that's why, too.
        \_ Well he was trained and financially backed by the Soviets...
2003/10/8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:29566 Activity:high
10/7    What do you so-called "real" conservatives have to say about our
        government selling bio-tech weapons to the lowest bidder?
        http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/10/06/gao.pentagon/index.html
        \_ you mean highest bidder?
        \_ Duh.  Obviously it's stupid and a bad idea and that's why your
           own link says they stopped and never should have in the first place.
           What does one's political philosophy have to do with this?
           \_ Duh, they thought it was a fine idea until they were caught.
              \_ caught?  it's called government stupidity.  read your own
                 link.  the retail value was $46k.  it was just stupid.  know
                 why they did that?  because stupid shit happens in big
                 governments under every administration.  i hope you're not
                 trying to claim this was a conservative plot.
                 \_ and of course you're not bothered that our government
                    will happily supply any whacko with a bio-lab as long
                    as they can pay the discounted price.  If this happened
                    5 years ago there'd be calls for Clinton's head.
                    \_ Yes I am bothered.  Where'd you see that I said it
                       was ok?  You're an idiot and trolling.  Go die.
        \_ supply side trickle down terrorism?
2003/10/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:10480 Activity:nil
10/5    I've already voted no on the recall, but I'm immensely annoyed with
        Davis' need to attack Ahnuld. It's just lame political strategy
        and allows Ahnuld to claim victim status-- precisely the same way
        AlGore gave away his lead by appearing to bully his weaker, less
        effective opponent.  When are the Dems going to figure out that
        rabid attacks only make you look rabid?
        \_ Never.  That's what makes them Dems.  They're rabid.  The more rabid
           they are the better they do in Dem polls and higher they clime in
           the party.  It feeds on itself.  As far as Davis goes, why does it
           surprise you that a man who lets loose the dogs of war in *every*
           election would do the same in this one?  You think Davis has
           suddenly seen the light or something?  He's still the same cynical
           PoS he always was, thus the recall's success.
        \_ Nice troll...
           \_ It's a valid point.
              \_ Anytime someone says something he doesn't agree with but can't
                 refute, it's automatically a troll.
             \_ no it isn't.  The republican party is much worse at being
                rabid, foaming at the mouth, and at making up shit jsut
                to attack people.  Need I mention a certain deaf, drug
                addict slimeball who made a career out of doing stuff like
                making fun of the Clinton's daughter and calling her the
                white house dog?
2003/10/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:10449 Activity:nil
10/3    "Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And so if
        people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused
        and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up," he
        said to his audience during the broadcast. - name that conservative
        \_ "Absurdly high levels of imprisonment, some might say, is
            destroying this country..."
            \_ You're right.  We need more executions.
        \_ If he was a liberal you'd be screaming that he's been framed by
           the VRWC which owns and controls all media and we shouldn't judge
           until there's been a trial by his hollywood peers.
           \_ Er.. When was the last time you heard a liberal saying that we
              should lock up more drug offenders.  And you miss the point.  The
              op is pointing out the hypocrisy.  Not the drugs.
              \_ You miss the point, intentionally I believe.  I'm talking
                 about liberal & liberal media hypocrisy, not drugs.
                 \_ And now you've missed MY point.  And no, liberals wouldn't
                    be screaming that one of their own was framed.  They would
                    realize that he had a problem and hope for his sake that
                    he could own up to it and get the help he needed.  And they
                    wouldn't have ranted idiotically about drugs being the
                    downfall of society at the same time as they were making
                    some side cash dealing.
                    \_ Simple counter point to the concept that liberals are
                       all enlightened and would hope the poor guy would seek
                       help: Bill Clinton.  Here's another: any Kennedy.  And
                       of course a liberal wouldn't bitch about drugs.
                       Liberals *like* a well drugged population.  It keeps
                       them stupid and passive.
                       \_ When did Bill Clinton or the Kennedys start posting
                          on motd.  And your so called counter point rests on
                          a proof by counter-example against a broad
                          generalization.  Doesn't hold water, pal.
                          \_ Who posts on the motd has nothing to do with
                             anything.  When you stop ducking, bobbing, and
                             weaving, come back.
                             \_ No, really.  Do you seriously not recognize
                                Rush's hypocrisy?  Was your initial lashout
                                borne from a deeply held respect for the man?
                                Or were you the one trying to deflect the
                                conversation?
                                \_ Duck, bob, weave.  You've already convicted
                                   the man based on what his maid from two
                                   years ago is alleged to have said.  I still
                                   believe in that quaint notion about innocent
                                   until proven guilty in a court of law and
                                   all that other fancy democracy and freedom
                                   stuff.  I'm not sure why but I put due
                                   process above whatever it is you're basing
                                   your unfounded claims on.  If the story is
                                   true then he's not a hypocrite but simply
                                   insane because anyone in this country can
                                   get any prescription drug they want without
                                   using their maid(!!!!) as a dealer!  Can
                                   you not see this story is idiotic on it's
                                   face?
           \_ Whoever it is, he's an idiot.  His logical premise is that
              because some people believe something, we should punish other
              people extra harshly.
              \_ Keep up with current events, dude.  It's Rush.
              \_ No, that's not the premise at all.  Try again grasshopper.
2003/10/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:10424 Activity:high
10/2    So Arnie groped women.  So what?  Clinton also groped women and used
        a cigar on Lewinsky.   I'm still voting for Arnold.
        \_ for me the "so what" is  that the same ultra-conservative republican
           power brokers that were willing to go to any lengths to bring
           down Clinton over this not only don't care, but are 100% behind
           him.  why doesn't that seem to bother anyone?
           \_ Will.  To.  Power.
           \_ Please name these nameless ultra conservative power brokers.
        \_ See, most people have this notion of "consent", and they think it's
           important.  Without "consent" it's called "assault".  Tune in
           tomorrow when we discuss what a "lie" is and why it's bad when used
           to start a "war".
                \_ They don't call it assault in france, italy, japan, etc.
                   It's just normal there.
           \_ Why are they speaking out only now? I mean, they never filed
              charges or spoke out (even anonymously) until now. Just because
              he's running for gov, it's only now important the truth be
              revealed? I guess being violated by only a big-shot actor is not
              enough to demand justice.
              \_ How long did it take for Flowers or Jones to come forward?
                 \_ A few weeks.
              \_ I hope someday a woman you love has a long talk with you
                 about what it can be like to come forward with this type of
                 allegation. That is if you know any women. --aaron
                 \_ My wife was grabbed on campus.  She went straight to the
                    cops and somehow isn't permanently psychologically damaged
                    for life.  She doesn't walk around calling herself a victim
                    or go to therapy 5 times a week.  Weird, huh?
                 \_ Several of the women came out anonymously, according to the
                    LA Times article, so it's not like we know who they are.
                    All I'm wondering is what the motivation is. It isn't
                    solely because of what happened to them.
                    \_ Stop pretending to be dense about it. You can't
                       imagine why a woman who felt taken advantage of by
                       Arnold might feel he isn't fit to be governor? How
                       she might consider paying the pain of coming forward
                       due to the prospect of him being elected? --aaron
                       \_ *laugh* Do you feel their pain, aaron?
                          \_ Have you ever actually talked with a real girl?
                             People are a lot more complicated than sheep,
                             even the blow up kind that you're probably more
                             familiar with.  Especially in regard to trauma
                             where the victim is often more socially
                             stigmatized than the criminal.    -sax
                             \_ Any reason you talk to traumatized girls, sax?
                                Are you looking for a cheap lay on the rebound,
                                or are you just that kind of sensitive new age
                                guy?
                             \_ Which still begs the question of why they came
                                out. You're saying they value politics more
                                than their personal pain.
                                \_ Stop Trolling.
                                   \_ It's a valid point.  Calling it a troll
                                      doesn't magically make it go away.  What
                                      you simple mindedly call a troll is the
                                      very thing being debated, fool.
           \_ Paula Jones charged that there wasn't consent.  While defending
              himself from the lawsuit, Clinton lied about Lewinsky and
              tried to get her to lie about it.  That's a bit worse.
              \_ technically, a bj isn't sexual intercourse, so he sort of told
                 a half-truth instead.
                 \_ Don't get all lawyerly on us.  You're now comparing a bj
                    of an intern that worked for BC to some random and nameless
                    women who, days before we vote, suddenly start claiming
                    he touched them.  Gee, what a shocker.
                    \_ did you miss the part below where this is old news?
                       It's only sudden news in the American media.
        \_ Let's put the woman issues aside for now.  Do you want someone
           spends $100k on car washes annually, $4k on haircut, etc to manage
           your state's budget?  If he's elected, I wouldn't be surprised
           if he authorizes a hummer for every elected officials.
           \_ 1)  you're stupid, there's a difference between what he does
                  with his own money, and our money . . . just like there is
                  a difference between how he runs his businesses and his
                  personal life.
                  \_ TBD.
              2)  if he authorizes hummers, then I'm running for office
                  (for either kind).
           \_ Does it bother you that BC held up airport traffic so he could
              get a haircut?
              \_ You know this never happened right?
                 \_ I know for a fact it did, thanks.  History isn't so easily
                    rewritten.
              \_ it didn't cost us $87b.
                 \_ good way to divert the topic and ignore the point.  well
                    no, not really actually since you're busted doing it.
           \_ i fear the candidate who wants to make money being Governor
             so he can do the things you describe
              \_ Arnold has lots of money and he is doing that already.
                 What I fear is not Arnold but his *advisors*.  You see,
                 Arnold is not going to run California.  He is just a puppet.
        "When your muscles feel like they are about to explode, when you are sure
        that you can't do another rep, you stop-  Only if you want to come in
        second place."  -Arnold Schwarzenegger.
                   \_ Uhm, no.  I don't.
                \_ gropes or not, you have to admire him.  -ax
2003/10/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:10408 Activity:high
10/1    Oh gawd.  Check http://latimes.com for an Arnold expose on his treatment
        of women.  I still might vote for him, though, as bad as it is.
        \_ Don't be a hater.
        \_ *laugh*  If it was ok for Bill Clinton, if it was ok for the entire
           Kennedy clan, then I say it's ok for Arnold!
           \_ Wow.  You have no idea what 'consent' means, do you?  I pity
              your SO.
              \_ Reading problem?  Don't they teach basic reading comprehension
                 to freshmen anymore?
           \_ For Clinton, it was consensual.  For Arnold, that's sexual
              harassment.
              \_ Monica worked for him.  It's called "sexual harassment" when
                 it's your boss's dick you're sucking or his cigar going into
                 your vagina.  I noticed you ignored the entire Kennedy clan's
                 many decades of rape and murder.  What about that?  Were those
                 rapes consentual?
           \_ What a bullshit rationalization.
              \_ Go look up "sarcasm".
        \_ The funny thing is this was on wall a month ago.  It was reported in
           a UK paper back in August.  See:
           http://tinyurl.com/kj1n
           And no new information in the Times.  Why is the Times reporting it
           now?
           \_ "The Times did not learn of any of the six women from
              Schwarzenegger's rivals in the recall race. And none of the
              women approached the newspaper on her own.
              Reporters contacted them in the course of a seven-week
              examination of Schwarzenegger's behavior toward women on and
              off the movie set."
              \_ So they didn't report or even refer to the UK paper's story
                 until the week before the election?  Because they wanted
                 in-depth info?  They didn't add any details to the UK story.
                 The timing is just a bit suspicious.
                 \_ My impression was that the LA Times reporters
                    re-interviewed the people from the UK story, and uncovered
                    new examples of Arnold's bad behavior.  As for the timing,
                    you could say they were trying to get as many examples
                    as they could before the election.
                    \_ Which means they planned to release it shortly before
                       the election, and hence timed it for most political
                       clout.  They could have easily issued a preliminary
                       story and then had a big followup.
                       \_ That wouldn't be politically expedient.
                    \_ Which means they planned to release it shortly before the
                       election, and hence timed it for most political clout.
                       They could have easily issued a preliminary story and
                       then had a big followup.
2003/10/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:10399 Activity:nil
10/1    http://www.drudgereport.com/matt.htm
        30 years?  damn.
        \_ hell, if she's not as sexy as the Alias girl who cares?
           \_ no, she's hotter
              "slim, blonde ... In the photos in his office, she has the
              looks of a film star. 'She is really quite amazing,' Wilson
              said." Wash Post
        \_ 30 years?  What about 30 years?
           \_ Valerie Plame has been undercover for 3 decades
        \_ 3 decades != 30 years... 3 decades could be 14 years: 1989-2003
         \_ 3 decades!  damn!  (Oh and given that she trained someone who
            quit in 1989 and was in the service for 4 years I suspect more
            than 14, but the whole Plame is 40 thing makes much more than
            18 years seem unlikely.)
        \_ another interesting perspective:
          http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20031001.shtml
          \_ jesus. novak's own column makes him look like an utter idiot.
             \_ I agree.  For one, he claims the Washington Post report about
                leaking the wife's name as "simply untrue" without providing
                any evidence.  Second, when the CIA rep asked not to publish
                her name, and said it would cause "difficulties" if it were,
                what does Novak expect?  For the CIA rep to say, "She's
                covert, so you can't report her name".
                \_ The CIA should just execute Novak.
2003/9/30-10/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:10388 Activity:kinda low
9/30    Guardian is reporting that several of the journalists have named Karl
        Rove as the source of the agent leak...and *doooooown* goes the ship.
        \_ urlP
           \_ link:csua.org/u/4ks
              Unfortunately this is a real audio link, sorry I can't do better
              as its a developing story.  The report is about 1:20 in.
              Also I should add, none of them have gone *public* with this
              information yet...
              \_ Is it because all the journalists Rove called are Republican
                 buddies like Novak
                 \_ Revealing your source is a big no-no for a journalist.
                    \_ Definitely.  However, if a subpeona is issued in the
                       course of a criminal investigation the reporter would
                       be obligated to name the source, or face contempt of
                       court.  We're a long way off from that, but you never
                       know.
                       \_ Journalists have First Amendment protection. Look
                          at the Pentagon Papers for precedent.
                          \_ they still get thrown in jail for not
                             revealing sources.  -tom
                             \_ not usually.  the exceptions get in the news.
                          \_ as in most things it's more complicated than
                             that. law is a balancing of rights and the
                             court has a track record of not weighing
                             journalist privilege as heavily as other types
                             of first amdmt privilege. not making a
                             judgment here, just pointing it out. --aaron
                             \_ I'm suspicious.  This thread has been
                                remarkably well-behaved, on-topic, and troll
                                free.  WHO IS THIS IMPOSTER, AND WHERE IS THE
                                REAL MOTD?
                                \_ With yermom. Happy?
                                \_ Because us conservatives take criminal
                                   activity very seriously no matter who did
                                   it.  We won't defend Rove if he turns out
                                   to be a criminal.  It's that whole thing
                                   about having principles.  Should I make the
                                   obvious comparison or let it be?
                                   \_ We liberals applaud your adoption of
                                      our principled stance.
                                      \_ So as good liberals and not as (D)
                                         party hacks, you were in favor of
                                         removing Clinton from office due to
                                         his crimes?  We have a very different
                                         idea of what principles are.
                                         \_ Many people (including enough
                                            Senators) didn't think Clinton's
                                            offences rose to the level of
                                            necessitating removal.  Time
                                            shall tell what comes of this.
                                            --scotsman
                                                \_ Yea... he was debarred in
                                                   Arkansas and debarred by
                                                   the USSC.  Lying under oath
                                                   before the US Congress.
                                                   Interesting.  Accused of
                                                   rape by at least two women,
                                                   and of philadering by
                                                   at least 1/2 dozen more.
                                                   \_ Paula Jones is angry
                                                      with her lawyers and
                                                      has said publicly she
                                                      believes they
                                                      represented the Repub
                                                      interests that funded
                                                      them at the expense
                                                      of her own. --aaron
                                                      \_ says nothing about
                                                         Clinton's crimes.
                                                   \_ Clinton was not debarred.
                                                      And I hate to break it
                                                      to you, BUT CLINTON IS
                                                      NOT THE PRESIDENT ANYMORE!
                                                        \_ Debarred from Arkansas
                                                           resigned from
                                                           USSC before he was
                                                           debarred.
                                                           http://csua.org/u/4l1
                                                           What now?
                                                           \_ Disbarred, for
                                                              chrissake.
  debar
       v 1: bar temporarily; from school, office, etc. [syn: {suspend}]
       2: prevent the occurrence of; prevent from happening; "Let's
          avoid a confrontation"; "head off a confrontation"; "avert
          a strike" [syn: {obviate}, {deflect}, {avert}, {head off},
           {stave off}, {fend off}, {avoid}, {ward off}]
       3: prevent from entering; keep out; "He was barred from
          membership in the club" [syn: {bar}, {exclude}]
       [also: {debarring}, {debarred}]
                                                           \_ CEASE! NO FACTS!
                                                                        \_ Thi
                                                                           s p
                                                                           ost
                                                                           is
                                                                           nar
                                                                           row
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/11/9/181815.shtml_
Jeeze you Clinton haters are pathetic, you can't even get the
basic facts right. Five year suspension is NOT disbarrment.
                                         \_ Or maybe a different idea of "high
                                            crimes"
                                            \_ Yes, leftists have no trouble
                                               selling out our country to get
                                               a few votes until some day we
                                               won't need to bother with all
                                               that pesky democracy and choices
                                               because we'll have the liberal
                                               elite making all the decisions.
                                               after all, when you're the
                                               smartest woman in the world, you
                                               don't have need for democracy.
                                         \_ What crimes?
                                            \_ Don't bait me.
                                         \_ Apparently my Lvl 5 Troll Summon
                                            spell worked.  Must have been the
                                            +3 Staff of the Magi.
                                \_ He's busy with the Falun Gong Republican
                                   Jew Asian woman fetishists.  And it's
                                   'impostor'.  -John the Troll King
                                   \_ CROM!
2003/9/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:10374 Activity:moderate
9/29    Sorry kids!  Better luck next time!  In Novak's own words,
        'Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this. In July I
        was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador
        Wilson's report when he told me the trip was inspired by his wife, a
        CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction. Another senior
        official told me the same thing. As a professional journalist with 46
        years experience in Washington I do not reveal confidential sources.
        When I called the CIA in July to confirm Mrs. Wilson's involvement in
        the mission for her husband -- he is a former Clinton administration
        official -- they asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it
        would endanger her or anybody else. According to a confidential source
        at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert
        operator, and not in charge of undercover operatives'
        \_ Sounds like a leak to me. Reread the second sentence over again.
           Just because Novak called the official doesn't mean that he didn't
           have a responsibility to keep her identity secret from the press.
           Plus, there are those six other reporters that were contacted
           by the White House....
           \_ Reread the last sentence you twink.
           \_ I agree:  Novak is telling it like it happened, and it still
              sounds bad.  There were no calls to Novak according to him,
              but two senior Bush officials did reveal her identity.  The
              CIA told Novak not to use Wilson's wife's name.  Novak found
              out -- possibly only recently -- that the wife was an analyst
              and not undercover.
              The effect is still to intimidate, the law still broken
              by the two senior administration officials, and someone may
              end up going to jail.
              \_ If she wasn't a covert operative then no law was broken and
                 there's no intimidation.
                 \_ sure, and analysts are desk workers who are never ever
                    in danger from foreign governments.
        \_ As the other person pointed out, Novak was told that revealing
           her name would cause problems. The real blame lies with the
           leakers, who according to a second SAO leak to WaPo, did this
           purely to indimidate. They broke federal law and anyone who
           knows about it and doesn't come forward is also guilty according
           to US Code (misprision of felony) --aaron
        \_ Let me quote DailyKOS: (--aaron)
           A couple of things:

           This changes nothing re: the law -- two senior administration
           officials still revealed the identity of an undercover CIA officer.

           Also, if Novak is correct, then what about the other reporters
           contacted with the information?  Novak has had a rocky
           relationship with this administration, but at the end of the
           day, he would rather have a Republican in the White House than a
           Democrat. He _is_ a partisan, and his statement (which remember,
           doesn't exculpate the administration from wrongdoing) is simply
           the first salvo of the administration's counterattack.
           \_ Now you're mix n matching to suit your agenda.  She worked for
        \_ Sounds like a leak to me. Reread the first sentence over again.
              the CIA pushing paper, not as a field agent.  One is a felony,
              the other is nothing.
              \_ BTW, I hope none of the impressionable young motd readers
                 out there actually believe this "analyst" spin.  Novak
                 himself was even backpedaling on that when Ensor stated
                 that his sources say she was undercover.  Wilson also stated
                 the same thing on NPR.
              \_ The reply to you above said it all. Your response are very
                 revealing. Let me guess, you were one of the many who
                 screamed about every Arkansas Project invention from
                 Troopergate (found to be fabricated with bribes from
                 Scaife) and Travelgate (found to be cooked up by RNC)
2003/9/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic] UID:10373 Activity:high
9/29    I keep having people tell me they prefer Republicans because the
        Republicans have "principles".  What "principles" do Republicans
        have?
        \_ Conservatives.  Republicans may or may not have principles.
           Conservatives have principles.  They are well documented.  No
           need to troll here.
           \_ Sigh.  Some people are principled.  Some people are not.
              Their political affiliation has nothing to do with it.
              Also, what's so great about principles if they are awful
              principles?  I hear Tom Metzger is quite principled.
              \_ Who said anything about great?  The question asked about
                 existence.  It was answered.  The op can draw his own
                 conclusions.  Move along, no pile-on here, lefty boy.
              \_ Also, saying some people are principled is true but unhelpful.
                 Being a conservative implies a certain philosophical
                 commitment, hence having certain principles.  It's what
                 being a conservative MEANS.  Being a republican entails nothing
                 except membership in a certain org.  Sheesh.  Why does this
                 need to be explained?
           \_ Well done.  -conservative and only sometimes republican
           \_ What principles do Conservatives represent?
              \_ "You can never be too rich."
        \_ Democrats have principles too.  Just not Davis, Clinton, etc.
        \_ From WordNet:
  conservative
       adj 1: resistant to change [ant: {liberal}]
       2: opposed to liberal reforms
       3: avoiding excess; "a conservative estimate" [syn: {cautious}]
       4: unimaginatively conventional; "a colorful character in the
          buttoned-down, dull-gray world of business"- Newsweek
          [syn: {button-down}, {buttoned-down}]
       5: conforming to the standards and conventions of the middle
          class; "a bourgeois mentality" [syn: {bourgeois}, {materialistic}]
       n : a person who has conservative ideas or opinions
           [ant: {liberal}]
       \_ Clearly this dictionary needs to be burned.
         \_ clearly this entire thread is pointless and uninteresting. - danh
2003/9/18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:10239 Activity:moderate
9/17    Wesley Clark: General Issues
        http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=9522
        Wesley Clark's command at Fort Hood lent 17 pieces of armor and
        15 active service personnel under his command to the Waco Branch
        Davidian operation.
        \_ food for thought- he's the Chairman of a electric car company.
           maybe the voters can help the environment by bringing in corporate
           influence from the opposite direction!
           http://www.wavecrestlabs.com/news/pr042103.html
        \_ He is a soldier.  Soldier doesn't make decisions.  They execute
           orders.
                \_ I imagine alot of German's said this during WWII.
                   \_ It's not a war crime to lend out personnel for a mission.
                   \_ And the Imperial Japanese.
                      \_ And the Americans in Vietnam.
                         \_ Vietnam is hardly comparable to Germany/Japan in
                            WWII.
                            \_ In scale, no, in principle, yes.
                                \_ Sorry, I normally don't reply to motd
                                   posts with insults, but this statement
                                   marks you as an idiot beyond the pale
                                   of the ordinary ignoramus.  -John
                                   \_ We are talking about the principle
                                   \_ We are not talking about the nature
                                      of the wars, but the principle
                                      that soldiers should not always
                                      blindly follow orders.  "It's my
                                      orders" had been used as part of
                                      legal defense for trials of Vietnam
                                      atrocities.  Don't get too excited.
                                        \_ Wasn't excited, was calling you
                                           an idiot.  My apologies, you've
                                           clarified yourself, I take it back.
           \_ Officers are expected to make decisions.
        \_ People accusing how China dealing with FaLunGong... The way
           USA dealing with cult within its territory is not all that
           different neither.
           \_ Uhm no.  The situation was largely unacceptable and there was
              a LOT of criticism and debate that resulted from that fiasco.
              Do you really think a situation like this would hit the chinese
              press as anything but glorious victory of chinese nationalist
              forces over subversive insurgent criminals???
              \_ Perhaps the better analogy for PRC-Falungong is US-Muslims.
                 \_ Perhaps not.  Where are Muslims being rounded up and put
                    in prison or insame asylums?  Take it home, Jack.  We know
                    about China.
                    \_ Perhaps the better analogy would be US-Mormons in the
                       past.
                    \_ Many muslims were rounded up and detained for weeks or
                       months post 9/11.
           \_ Do FaLunGong members stock up firearms?
               \_ no, firearms are hard to come by.  They did disrupt
                  TV signals, etc.  I guess anything they do is legit
                  because they are against a "communist" government, right?
               \_ Gasp!  Stocking up firearms!  They must DIE DIE DIE.
               \_ Since when is this illegal?  Koresh jogged daily
                  through Waco.
2003/9/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:10235 Activity:high
9/17    I refuse to accept the premise that surpluses are going to
        decline if I'm the president. I think they're going to
        increase, because my plan will increase productivity
        by cutting marginal rates. -GWB 12/7/1999
        \_ WOW, I can't believe that you are blaming the .com
           bubble and its side-effects on GWB.
           \_ Are you claiming that the .com bubble is what forced
              GWB and the Republican Congress to increase federal
              spending by 15%? Right....
                \_ Even if there was no spending increase the
                   surplus would have declined because of the
                   the .com bubble. I'm not saying that what
                   GWB is doing is right, I'm saying that the
                   state of the economy (and hence the budget)
                   is the way that it is due to circumstances
                   out of his control (he could no more have
                   stopped the .com bust than you or I).
                   The only way for GWB to restore the surplus
                   created by the .com bubble would be to cut
                   federal spending drastically, but this would
                   piss off the 'Republicans are Nazi's who
                   don't care about sick, infirm, aged and
                   poor people who aren't white christians'
                   crowd and they would go on national tv
                   crying about how if we just passed up one
                   sidewinder or a single aid pkg to Israel
                   we could have all the welfare and medicare
                   forever. Since Bush doesn't want that, we
                   are stuck with a budget that doesn't (and
                   cannot) properly reflect the economic
                   circumstatnces we find ourselves in.
                   GWB is doing is right, I'm saying that it
                   is largely out of his (or anyones) control.
                   \_ I notice you have avoided the question.
                      The tax cuts and spending increases have
                      done more to increase the deficit than the
        \_ Note: pre-9/11
                      revenue decreases since 2000.
                   \_ There was an article in the WSJ recently
                      plotting federal spending through the Clinton
                      and GWB years.  It was a very nice straight
                      line going down (about 15% total) during the
                      Clinton admin, and a very "nice" straight line
                      going up during GWB's admin, rolling back about
                      80% of what Clinton achieved.
           \_ ^GWB^Gray Davis
                   \_ Davis screwed the state over in the
                      "Energy Crisis". Sure the state was
                      hurt by the .com bubble, but the
                      major screw up was the "Energy Crisis".
                      \_ And sold out to how many different
                         unions?
        \_ Note: pre-9/11
2003/9/15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:29539 Activity:high
9/14    The tread regard to Iran has been censored again. Haha, I think
        I know why that particular thread is being targeted.  It exposes
        the failure of current administration's foreign policy.  And the
        Motd Censor think by deleting it, people wouldn't know about it.
        \_ LOL why censor why you Carter and Clinton to fall back on.
        \_ LOL why censor when one has Carter and Clinton to fall back on.
2003/9/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:10061 Activity:nil
9/3     http://www.business-standard.com/archives/2003/jan/50310103.016.asp
        Republican party outsources fund raising to India telemarketers.
        All hail bush!
        \_ Urban legend.
           \_ Cite!
              \_ Testify!!!
           \_ Anybody see The War Room, about Clinton's first campaign?
              They had video of Bush talking up jobs for Americans next to
              footage of GOP banners being printed in a S. American country.
           \_ http://www.differentstrings.info/archives/002552.html
              Probably some Republican but not the RNC.
              \_ awwwww.  the republicans are a victim of irresponsible
                 journalism by the washington times. cry me a fucking river.
                 \_ Nice to know where you stand.  I'd like journalistic honesty
                    to be non-partisan.
        \_ More obnoxious is the spamminess of the (verifiably) RNC sanctioned
           email campaigns.
2003/9/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, ERROR, uid:10044, category id '18005#6' has no name! , ] UID:10044 Activity:high
9/2     Finally.  A poll that's more than simple fluff and used more
        than a 1000 likely voters instead of the typical 529 random
        people who may or may not vote.
        http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential%20Ballot_Sept2.htm
        \_ it's the arnie effect.  people go for the name they recognize.
        \_ Wow.  Check out the poll where 72% of adults say Fox News is
           a reliable source of news.  Yup, Rasmussen Reports is definitely
           living in the REAL WORLD.  Sheesh.
           \_ That says nothing about Rasmussen.  I bet a fair percentage
              of people might believe that Onion is a serious newspaper.
              of people might get believe Onion is a serious news paper.
              Real people in the real world are real(ly) stupid.  Get REAL!
           \_ Idiot, do you really not know the difference between a polling
              service and the people they poll?  You may disagree with the
              people they talk to but that does not in any way make the service
              any less accurate.  Did I remember to call you an idiot?  Yes, I
              did remember to call you an idiot.
              \_ Its a valid criticism - polls can be based upon invalid
                 assumptions.  I noted absolutely no explanation of how they
                 determine "likely voters."  The love showered on Fox suggests
                 they poll only in rural South Carolina.
                 \_ I don't like Fox but I doubt on south carolinans look to
                    it as the source of the Truth.  Just remember that tabloids
              did remember to call you an idiot.
                 they poll only in rural South Carolina.
                    are sold in every supermarket.
        \_ It was interesting to note that "Democrat" faired better than all
        \_ Zogby uses 1000 likely voters and has a very good track record.
           the available candidates...
           \_ People like the concept but not the candidates presented?
                \_ welcome to the Democrats!
        \_ Zogby uses 1000 likely voters and has a very good track record.
2003/8/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:29500 Activity:nil
8/27    Add this to the Clinton historical legacy:
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A59136-2003Aug28?language=printer
        \_ you mean the Kissinger legacy? get a clue
2003/7/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:29113 Activity:moderate
7/23    http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/clinton.iraq.sotu/index.html
        I didn't like him as President but he was sure good at the politics
        thing.  It isn't what he says here but what he doesn't say to his
        fellow party memebers: "you won't win 2004 on Iraq and WMD, it's the
        economy, stupid!"  He was and still is a brilliant politician.  Too
        bad he had no character or I might have switched parties.
        \_ Wait, so you would have loved to be on the winning team, even if
           you're not a Democrat at heart?  Who's the one with no character
           here?
           \_ Put away the axe, man.  I don't think your interpretation
              matches what the OP was trying to say.
           \_ Character != blindly stick with one political party.  That
              would be *your* world view.  Me?  I actually vote for the
              more desirable candidates without looking at the little (R)
              (D) or (I) after their name.  You can go stick your head in
              a pig or whack yourself in the head with your axe, your choice,
              because I believe it's ok to make choices in life.  --op
              \_ He plays with woman, that is his personal issue.
                Kennedy, FDR, T. Jefferson also played
                with women.  Politicians are politicians, we should judge
                them by their effectiveness and their ideological alignments,
                not their personal characters.  If you judge leader by their
                personal life, Hitler would be a godsend because he doesn't
                drink, doesn't play with women neither.
2003/7/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:29012 Activity:high
7/11    What hypothetical scenarios has to happen in order for Bush to lose
        re-election in 2004?  I'll offers a couple:
        a) american soldiers getting killed by an angry iraqi mob and his
           body dragged through the streets.  All on live TV.  Just like what
           happened in Somalia.
        b) stock market goes back into the pre-war lows.  Dow has to go below
           7000.  And another big coporation collapsing like Enron.
        c) real photos of bush sniffing cocaine.
        \_ a) wont matter, been there done that, b) that'd do it, c) even if
           they were real most would think they were fake anyway, the public
           has seen way too many photoshop jobs by now.
        \_ Democrats get a clue and remove head from ass. Only the dumbass
           Dems would've let him win in the first place when he was the
           less popular candidate.
           \_ The opinions of dead people in Chicago don't count.
              \_ Nor do the opinions of black people in florida.
                 \_ nonsense.  completely made up.  however if you're on the
                    florida panhandle the press is likely to announce the
                    polls are closed and your state's voting is done an hour
                    early.  or maybe someone will enforce the local deadlines
                    and standards for military votes in violation of previous
                    federal law and agreement.  sorry, your feelings dont jive
                    with the facts on this one.  although if you're black and
                    in pennsylvania we count your vote many times in some
                    precincts where the total vote count for Gore was over
                    100%.  The New Math?
        d) Tenet took the blame for the uranium thing right?  Credible CIA /
           Bush administration underlings come out as whistleblowers.
           \_ This will be difficult for the dems to use since tenet is a dem
              who was initially appointed by clinton and kept by bush.
              Nothing like having an important member of the opposition on
              your side.  And don't forget, clinton already admitted he
              believed the same things bush did.
        e) Economy continues to slide, with unemployment going up until
           election day.
        f) A fucking miracle. GWB is the new Teflon President.
        \_ domestically, GWB is a lib, what are all you democrat ninnies
           complaining about?  On foreign affairs, he is reshaping the world
           and transforming our strategic objectives, we are in an era
           not seen since WWII.  You have worked yourselves into such a frenzy
           you completely miss this.
           \_ no, he is not a lib. in what way is this era like WWII?
              what a dumbass.
                \_ Please cite meaningful conservative policy he's
                   enacted - ooh a 30 $ billion a year tax cut out of
                   2++ trillion federal expenditures.  The US geopolitical
                   strategy has been redefined to fit the post
                   Cold War, this significant departure will shape the
                   world for 20-30 years. Clinton and GB I wasted
                   the peace dividend and their 12 years in office in
                   this respect.
                \_ I love how your idea of count point is to blurt out some
                   drivel and personal insult.  That may work in the dorms,
                   kiddo, but no one here with a brain larger than a pea is
                   reading that crap, nodding their head, and going "uh huh!
                   yeah! what he said!"  say something worth the bits or
                   don't bother at all.  Debate is much more enjoyable when
                   the other side actually shows up.
                   \_ i don't bother anymore. i've read the motd long
                      enough to know when it's useless to argue with the
                      people who express opinions like the above...
                      "democrat ninnies"? oh yeah that's intelligent.
                      i simply point out some of the more ridiculous
                      stupidity. the whole iraq thing was such a joke.
                      the tax cut was worse than a joke. bush's nepotism,
                      policies do not win elections in this country.
                      his stupidity in speeches, his tactless diplomacy...
                      like the poster below it makes me embarrassed for
                      the country.
                \_ George W. Bush is an embarrassment to our country.
                   He may have brilliant people on his staff or whatever,
                   but he's just plain stupid.
                   \_ You and Ann Richards should hang out sometime.  He may
                      be an idiot as a student, and I think his foreign policy
                      sucks, but to the extent that his job is to win elections
                      he is *very* smart and good at his job.  Good or bad
                      policies do not win elections in this country.  He's
                      not an idiot at all at the things he cares about.
                      \_ in what way did that require smarts of him? he has
                         been surrounded by coddlers and coaches all the time.
                         the man can barely talk straight. his connections got
                         him where he is.
                         \_ when he was a freshman rushing DKE, he was the only
                            person among the frosh who could recite the name of
                            every single member of DKE having just met them
                            once.  The ability to instantly network with people
                            and make the right kinds of friends quickly does
                            not qualify one to lead the free world, but to
                            deny that bush has this skill is a mistake.
                            that mbeing said, I should point out that
                            the Yale DKE guys are
                            a bunch of fucking hooligan criminals(I used
                            to live next to their house).
2003/7/7 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:28952 Activity:high
7/7     Justice Breyer: U. S. Constitution should be subordinated
        to international will.  A justice goes on television
        to argue his case.
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/941589/posts
        \_ Scalia's a homophobe!  (News bulletin!!1!)
           \_ At least he defined the homosexual agenda.
2003/6/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:28808 Activity:very high
6/22    Sandy Berger Defends Decision Not to Extradite Bin Laden
        http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/6/22/140449
        Paraphrase of recent Clinton quote - 'I was obsessed with
        bin Laden and terrorism'
        \_ It's true.  Look at how hard Clinton fought against terrorism after
           the first bombing at the towers, after the Cole, after the two
           embassies got blown up, after Monica hit the news.  We killed an
           aspirin factory and a tent.  I know *I* felt safer after that.
           \_ *I* felt safer after Reagan sold weapons to Iran for profit!
              FREE MARKET BABY!!
              \_ Irony = Free Market Conservatives grousing about Hillary's
                 book being a bestseller.  "How can people buy that crap?"
2003/6/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:28750 Activity:nil
6/18    Hillary is getting the full Lewinsky:
        http://www.msnbc.com/news/927756.asp?0cl=c1&cp1=1
        \_ "According to the survey, 63% of Democratic voters want Clinton to
            run for the 2004 Democratic nomination, while a whopping 100% of
            Republicans want her to do so."
2017/11/22 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
11/22   
Results 151 - 300 of 601   < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Domestic:President:Clinton:
.