Politics Domestic President Clinton - Berkeley CSUA MOTD
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Domestic:President:Clinton:
Results 301 - 450 of 601   < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2017/09/20 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
9/20    

2007/6/5-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:46861 Activity:kinda low
6/5     http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0605071libby1.html
        Mr. Libby takes one for the team ... too smart, and too loyal.
        \- this is disgusting. but on a mildly humorouss note ... "hi this is
           henry kissinger. i was secretary os state. scooter is ok. but let's
           get back to me. i am great. let me tell you some more about me."
        \_ There is a time when I thought blow the cover of an undercover
           agent is considered a threat to national security...  Then again
           I am not a Republican.
           \_ Let me guess. You think Clinton got impeached for getting a BJ.
              \_ That didn't came into my mind when I posted it.  IMHO, Libby
                 should get executed for what he is willing to do to advance
                 his party's political gain.
              And, now you mentioned, since we are willing to impeach someone
              for a BJ, then, may be we should impeach our current commander
                 And, now you mentioned, since we are willing to impeach
                 someone for a BJ,
                 \_ I was correct. You're an idiot.
                 then, may be we should impeach our current commander
                 in chief for treason.  AND/OR turn him over to International
                 War Crime Tribunal for all sort of war crime he has commited.

        \_ He'll write a book.  I think he was too dumb and too naive.  He
           didn't have to talk to the prosecutors.  He did so voluntarily
           and now is going to prison + $250k fine for trying to be a good
           samaritan, the fool.  And when he does *not* get a GWB pardon I
           have a $1 million bet with someone on the motd I'm going to put
           away for my early retirement.
           \_ I will bet you, anonymous h0zer. Not $1M but I am happy
              to put real money on this. Contact me. -ausman
              \_ I've already got my $1M bet.  If you can't play with the
                 big boys, you can't play.
                 \- fine, we can form a syndicate to bet again you.
                    who are you. --psb
                 \_ Uh huh.
                    link:www.csua.org/u/iv2
2007/6/5-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:46859 Activity:kinda low
6/5     Pathetic liberal attempt to sway borderline Republican voters:
        http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/05/democrats.religion.ap
        \_ Because everyone knows all libruls are godless atheists, duh..
           \_ Informal poll: who thinks Hillary Clinton is genuinely religious
              in a sense her quote meant -- someone who uses her faith in God
              to overcome difficult situations. -- ilyas
              to overcome difficult situations. (Yeah that's what I thought)
                -- ilyas
              \_ What, other than antipathy, leads you to think she doesn't?
                 What about the others?  If you believe in a strong separation
                 of church and state, does that invalidate your personal faith?
                 Too many people, IMO, would say yes.  This is a real asshole
                 comment.
                 \_ This is an amazing comment.  It's true I don't much like
                    Hillary Clinton, but I certainly don't dislike religious
                    people.  I find it amazing, though, that some folks can
                    seriously consider her earnestly religious.  That's just
                    not in her background or 'life trajectory' if you will.
                    Before this turns long and boring, yes I realize that
                    Hillary's religiousness is not a logical impossibility, but
                    statistically it's pretty unlikely.  -- ilyas
                    \_ Antipathy toward HRC and/or liberals, not toward
                       religious people.  "Statistically"?  You're gonna need
                       to explain yourself.  What percentage of Democratic
                       congress members would you guess self-identify as
                       Christian?  Or of Democrats in general?
                       \_ That percentage would certainly be very high since
                          being an admitted atheist is political suicide in
                          the United States.  I would guess the percentage of
                          genuinely religious people (in the sense of Hillary's
                          quote) is very low (it's not even all that high
                          in the general population).  Politicians lie to get
                          elected, fyi. -- ilyas
                          quote) is very low.  Politicians lie to get
                          elected, fyi.  Someone can lie about religiousness
                          and get away with it because it is extremely difficult
                          to falsify if you are careful.  The way I would
                          go about falsifying this claim is to look at the
                          people with similar life stories as Hillary, but who
                          chose to pursue careers other than politics.  If the
                          percentage of 'genuinely religious' people among
                          that population is low, then the professed religious
                          feeling is based on constraints of the job (politics)
                          not actual feeling on the matter (unless you feel
                          that pursuing secular power makes people turn to God).
                          Finally, I have never disliked someone based on
                          their politics.  -- ilyas
           \_ Because everyone knows that Hillary is a shameless
              self-serving carpetbagger who will do/say anything to get
              votes.
              \_ then you stopped at the headline.  edwards "lives with sin
              \_ She won her last election in New York by 2 to 1.  Claims
                 of carpetbagging get a bit dull after the people have ignored
                 it twice..
                 \_ She's not from New York.  She moved there so she could
                    run for Senate in a race she could win.  Whether her
                    constituents are happy with her or not, the term
                    "carpetbagger" seems appropriate to me.  Why do you think
                    it isn't?                           --alawrenc
                    \_ It may have been in 2000.  She represented the state
                       for 6 years after winning 55%.  She pulled down 67%
                       in 2006.  I think you're missing the point to call her
                       a carpetbagger the second time around.  The whole idea
                       of the carpetbagger is that it's someone who doesn't
                       represent the people.  The electorate spoke vociferously
                       in favor of her representing them.  How many terms has
                       Louise Slaughter served in New York?  Is she a
                       carpetbagger? --scotsman
                       \_ I see what you mean, but disagree.  I think the term
                          captures (appropriately) that it describes someone
                          to whom geography is merely a matter of political
                          expediency.  Frankly, I'm surprised we don't see more
                          of this from both parties (prominent politicians
                          moving to other states to get elected), given that
                          politicians tend to be very wealthy (mobile) and in
                          professions that aren't tied to particular areas
                          (not the way wealthy landowners were tied to their
                          home states 200 years ago, at least).  --alawrenc
                          \_ Because it takes time to build up a local name.
                             In her case she New York was an easy target with
                             an open seat and no competition from either
                             party.  She hasn't had to run in a real race
                             until now.
                          \_ So how many terms would she have to serve with
                             landslide victories before "carpetbagger" wouldn't
                             apply?  And back to the original point, how is
                             saying you relied on your faith to help you
                             through a difficult point in marriage shameless
                             and self-serving?  Maybe it would be if you had
                             spent the last few decades bouncing from spouse
                             to spouse..  --scotsman
                             \_ I don't think any number of elections would
                                change that she moved to New York as a matter
                                of political expediency.  I find it odd that
                                you think the appellation should go away after
                                two (and not one).  As for the rest, I think
                                you're confusing me with the original poster
                                (I just thought the claim that she's not a
                                carpetbagger because she got reelected was
                                interesting).                   --alawrenc
                                \- i hate hillary clinton and i agree she
                                   is a carpetbagger, however in the great
                                   chain of scum, carpetbagging is a lot
                                   less bad than corrupt, hypociritical,
                                   torturing evil cyborg. in fact just
                                        \_ You don't like Arnold?
                                   focusing on hillary, being sanctimonious
                                   and a soulless panderer are worse faces
                                   of her than her cappetbagger self. if you
                                   want to criticize hillary, focusing on
                                   "she went venue shopping for a senate
                                   seat" is lazy and proably just mindless
                                   labeling.
              \_ then you stopped at the headline.  edwards "sins
                 every day".  does that mean he's gay?
                 \_ "Edwards is uncomfortable with gayness"
                 \_ no, it means he's human. "He that is without sin among
                    you, let him first cast a stone"
                    \_ "It's a joke, son... Laugh..."
2007/5/30-6/4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:46797 Activity:high 90%like:46794
5/30    When did Hillary join the Communist Party?
        http://urltea.com/nwv (timesrecordnews.com)
        \_ Right about the time you applied your mad reading comp skillz to
           this article.
           this article. --scotsman
           \_ So I used a little hyperbole.  But at least I can read better
              than you.
              \_ Let me see if I get your point: any regulation of the Free
                 Market is Communism?
                 \_ 'it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one
                    based on shared responsibility and prosperity.'  Sounds
                    like communism to me. -op
                    \_ Then you're an idiot.
                    \_ Then you're an idiot.  You either have a fundamental
                       misunderstanding of what Communism is, or you can't
                       read.  Either way, your little jaunt here says that
                       you're an idiot.
                       \_ Trying to explain an idiot why he's an idiot is
                          kind of a waste of time.
                       you're an idiot. --scotsman
                       \_ Trying to explain an idiot why he's an idiot is kind
                          of a waste of time.
                       \_ I understand what Communism is.  I guess you just
                          can't defend your point. -op
                          \_ You haven't made a point at all.  You've called
                          \_ I haven't made a point at all.  You've called
                             HRC a member of the Communist Party, with no
                             basis.  You don't do this whole "thinking"
                             thing too well, do you?
                          \_ I haven't made a point at all.  You've called HRC
                             a member of the Communist Party, with no basis.
                             You don't do this whole "thinking" thing too well,
                             do you?
                             do you? --scotsman
                             \_ And you simply call me an idiot.  I posted a
                                quote which is part of why I believe she's
                                pushing towards a communist agenda.  You called
                                me an idiot again.  You'll pardon me if I don't
                                see this as the height of debate.  Oh, and then
                                more ad hominem.  Yawn. -op
                                Here's another quote:
                                "Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the
                                right government policies."
                                more ad hominem.  Yawn. -op Here's another
                                quote: "Fairness doesn't just happen. It
                                requires the right government policies."
                                \_ Explain how that quote is in any way untrue,
                                   or "pushing towards a communist agenda".
                                   Your wink-and-nod approach may win you
                                   points at freerepublic, but you're making
                                   little sense here.
                                   \_ Having the government define
                                      'fairness' and then enforce it
                                      sounds a lot like communism.  If
                                      you don't understand, I'm afraid
                                      I can't help.
                                   little sense here. --scotsman
                                   \_ Having the government define 'fairness'
                                      and then enforce it sounds a lot like
                                      communism.  If you don't understand, I'm
                                      afraid I can't help.
                                      \_ you're an idiot.
                                      \_ You obviously do not understand what
                                         Communism is, in spite of your earlier
                                         claim. Where is the classless society
                                         or the government ownership of all
                                         means of production? What about the
                                         dictatorship of the proletariat? You\
                                         are not an idiot, you are insane.
        \_ Thank you for reminding why I gave $1000 to the HRC for
           President campaign. Hint: it isn't because of her political views,
           it is because I love watching Freepers squirm.
                                         dictatorship of the proletariat? You
                                         are not an idiot, you are nuts.
                                         \_ tom, you're the idiot.  You don't
                                            need this to be part of the CPUSA.
                                            See:
                                            http://www.cpusa.org
                                            See: http://www.cpusa.org
                                            \_ That wasn't my post, idiot. -tom
                                            \_ You still haven't shown where
                                               defining and regulating the
                                               marketplace means that the
                                               government owns the players in
                                               it.  You keep talking, yet you
                                               say nothing.
                                               marketplace means owning
                                               the players in it.  You keep
                                               talking, yet you say nothing.
                                               --scotsman
                                               \_ My original statement was
                                                  about the communist party,
                                                  not an academic definition.
                                                  Go back to your cage. -op
                                                  \_ This doesn't help your
                                                     point, as noted below.
                                            \_ From your source:
        "All Communists are for socialism, seeing it as a transition stage to
        communism, a higher stage of economic, political, and social
        development. All socialists arent for communism; some see Communists
        as too radical.
        Socialism is social ownership of the main means of production
        (factories, transportation) and the commanding heights of an economy
        (banks and other financial institutions) and runs them in the
        interests of the working people, using part of the value that
        workers produce to build up the social institutions and benefits
        for the whole people."
        Is that what you claim that HRC is supporting with her statement?
        \_ Thank you for reminding why I gave $1000 to the HRC for President
           campaign. Hint: it isn't because of her political views, it is
           because I love watching Freepers squirm.
           \_ A fool and his money are soon parted.
              \_ Funny, my net worth goes up every year.
                 \_ Are you getting a VIP dinner for that money?
            e.g. <DEAD>contribute.hillaryclinton.com/events/paloalto0531.html<DEAD>
                    \_ I'd rather have $1k than eat dinner with Hillary.
        \_ Maybe I read a different article that you did, but Sen. Clinton's
           comments suggested to me that she prefers a strongly regulated
           market. At most she would be advocating a socialist position, not
           a communist position. A communist position would not allow for any
           private enterprise.
           In addition, it is not at all clear what level of regulation that
           Sen. Clinton feels is necessary. She merely states that some add'l
           rules are needed to protect workers, &c. In light of Enron, &c.,
           one needed not be a socialist to think that perhaps some add'l
           regulation or supervision of the market is needed.
           Of course, if one were a Ferengi, then perhaps one would not see
           any difference between the two b/c either one would prevent you
           from maximizing your horde of gold-pressed latium, which would
           violate countless rules of acquisition.
           violate countless rules of acquisition. And we all know the Rules
           of Acquisition are the ultimate way to run a free market b/c they
           work so well for the Grand Negus.
           work so well for the Grand Negus. -stmg
           \_ Regulating markets is not socialism or communism.  Until the
              government, under the direction of the people, steps into the
              marketplace, either as an unfairly subsidized player, or as
              a strongarming force to takeover and shut down private players,
              it's not socialism.  Seriously, everything you add to this
              discussion further betrays your misunderstanding of the subject.
              --scotsman
              \_ Really? I always thought that socialism existed where the
                 government imposes its judgement in place of what the mkt
                 under reasonably unrestricted conditions would provide.
                 But then again everything I know about economics comes from
                 E120, DS9 episodes and broad generalizations in my Contracts
                 class, so its not surprising that I'm completely wrong. -stmg
                 \_ Socialism is where the government/society imposes OWNERSHIP
                    not judgement.  Regulating capitalism is not "socialist".
                    It's "necessary".
                    It's "necessary". --scotsman
                    \_ Is this really true? I was always that Sweden was a
                       socialist country but they still have private business
                       over there.
                       over there. -stmg
                       \_ Here's a succinct little snippet from a critique
                          of Swedish Socialism:
                          http://www.namyth.com/SocialismWORKS!/index.php?sw=Sweden#third_way_home
                          http://urltea.com/o8e (namyth.com)
                          Medicine is socialized.  Schools are socialized.
                          The state holds large chunks of the marketplace,
                          and highly regulates the rest.
                          I personally believe health care and education
                          should be considered rights and therefore should
                          be guaranteed by the state.  I also personally
                          believe that outside of those "common good" bits
                          of the economy, the government's primary duties
                          are making sure the marketplace is fair, and that
                          workers are protected.  For that, would you call
                          me a socialist?  Because, really, I'm not.
                          me a socialist?  Because, really, I'm not. --scotsman
                       \_ They also have some government owned business. But
                          then, so do we. But actually "socialism" is not as
                          well defined as the know-it-alls here think. I think
                          any schemes where the government causes resources
                          to be redirected to the poor can be classified as
                          socialist. Countries with high tax rates that provide
                          lots of public services fit that description
                          perfectly. It's a matter of degree. Public schools
                          and libraries ARE socialist institutions. Same with
                          welfare, medicare, progressive income tax, subsidized
                          housing projects, food stamps, etc. Government owning
                          businesses or regulation etc. isn't socialist per se
                          unless it has socialist goals. (e.g. the gov't could
                          run the something like the postal service completely
                          unsubsidized).
                          \_ Please provide a reference for your know-it-all
                             definition of "socialism."  Preferably one which
                             includes reference to public libraries being
                             socialist institutions.  -tom
                             \_ The part after "I think" was merely my opinion.
                                But some dictionaries and other references will
                                support my opinion. See:
                         http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109587/socialism
                                "there is no precise canon on which the various
                                 adherents of contemporary socialist movements
                                 agree"  "property and the distribution of
                                 income are subject to social control rather
                                 than ... market forces"  "The uses and abuses
                                 of the word socialism are legion".
                                 Some apply the term interchangeably with
                                 communism. However, in my opinion the term is
                                 most commonly applied today in reference to
                                 "welfare-state" type policies such as those
                                 in Sweden. A public library, ok it's arguable,
                                 but they provide access for the poor to things
                                 the rich can afford to purchase. They take my
                                 tax dollars and buy books for the use of
                                 others.
                                \_ Okay, so now that you've actually thought
                                   about it, and had your wikipedia brushup,
                                   let's go back to Hilary's quotes.  What in
                                   there, without putting words in her mouth,
                                   says "welfare-state"?  Though if you think
                                   public libraries are socialistic, there's
                                   really no hope for this discussion.
                                   --scotsman
                                   \_ Hey I just jumped in on this socialism
                                      definition subthread. I wasn't involved
                                      in the HRC stuff. But it is arguable that
                                      "shared responsibility and prosperity"
                                      can imply things like social "safety
                                      nets" and wealth redistribution. How
                                      would you interpret that quote? What
                                      specific political options other than
                                      welfare-state principles would you
                                      infer from that quote? Re: libraries,
                                      \_ As a reassertment of the Social
                                         Contract, a la Rousseau.  As a
                                         rejection of the lassaiz-faire
                                         bullshit that Bush et al. espouse.
                                         That we don't change all our
                                         regulations to voluntary guidelines.
                                         That we actually run inspections on
                                         our food supply, workplaces, etc.
                                         That we make decisions rather than
                                         "make reality". --scotsman
                                         \_ You mean we can't count on "The
                                            Invisible Hand" to take care of
                                            everything?!? That sux. He was
                                            my favorite super hero.
                                      I consider them in the same category
                                      as public schools. If they didn't exist,
                                      private citizens could establish their
                                      own libraries either as charity,
                                      private purpose or commercial operations.
                                      Having the government take my money "at
                                      gunpoint" as ilyas liked to say and use
                                      it for a library fits communist views
                                      of the role of government. Note that I
                                      am not arguing about whether they are a
                                      good thing or not.
                                      \_ I don't think I can take credit for
                                         that particular turn of phrase.
                                           -- ilyas
                                      \_ Read Jack London's People of the Abyss
                                         for first-hand accounts of how an
                                         unregulated society treats its poor.
                                         Cf. Low Life, an account of the
                                         history of the poor in NYC around the
                                         same time period. Also review the
                                         plight of shanty-towns in African
                                         countries where industry operates
                                         unregulated. Wealth-based altruism is
                                         nice, but it doesn't work on its own.
                  http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=11134
                 \_ See now, you just admitted "reasonably unrestricted" which
                    is a fancy way of saying "reasonably restricted" from the
                    other side. Regulation != communism.
                    \_ Um, so? My original point was that regulation !=
                       communism && at most (lots of regulation) == socialism.
                       \_ Apologies! I must have confused you with op.
           \_ Don't you understand, regulating the market is exactly like
              building a Gulag and killing millions of people. The SEC
              is secretly in the employ of Kim Jong-il. If you believe
              otherwise, you are an apologist for Stalinism.
              \_ Don't forget the FDA which (until recently) tried to prevent
                 us from gaining the superhuman strength that Salmonella
                 confers
2007/5/30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:46794 Activity:very high 90%like:46797
5/30    When did Hillary join the Communist Party?
        http://www.timesrecordnews.com/trn/local_news/article/0,1891,TRN_5784_5560488,00.html
        \_ Right about the time you applied your mad reading comp skillz to
           this article.
           \_ So I used a little hyperbole.  But at least I can read better
              than you.
              \_ Let me see if I get your point: any regulation of the Free
                 Market is Communism?
                 \_ 'it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one
                    based on shared responsibility and prosperity.'  Sounds
                    like communism to me. -op
                    \_ Then you're an idiot.
2007/5/23 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:46733 Activity:nil 50%like:46725
5/22    Lurita Doan is BLOWJOBS BLOWJOBS BLOWJOBS
        http://www.federaltimes.com/index.php?S=2777859
2007/5/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:46682 Activity:moderate
5/17    http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/17/candidates.wealth/index.html
        7 out of 18 Presidential candidate are millionaires. "All of the
        candidates are seeking to lead a country where the median net worth
        is about $93,000, and the median yearly income is about $46,000."
        Hold on. How the hell do you make $46K but save only $93K net worth?
        Don't most of us own homes that are at least 3-4X our income?
        \_ Two words:  CREDIT CARD.  More words: HOME EQUITY LOAN
        \_ 1) because the saving's rate hovers around zero, 2) no.
        \_ "most of us" don't own homes.
           \_ 68% is "most".
           \_ 68% is "most". (Correction, 2000 census, 66.2%)
              \_ You mean there are 200M homes in the USA?
                 \_ There sure is a big helping of the stupid piled on motd
                    today.
                    \_ here in America, we like big helpings.
2007/5/16-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:46658 Activity:moderate
5/16    Interesting that Larry Flynt shows more class than most on motd
        regarding Falwell's death.
        http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_135185122.html
        \- why exactly are we supposed to be shamed or impressed by
           larry flynt. i think his reasoning is specious: "My mother
           always told me that no matter how much you dislike a
           person, when you meet them face to face you will find
           characteristics about them that you like." ... so if you
           meet somebody who is say a racist but tells good jokes and
           cooks a mean steak you shoild try to focus on that? i wonder
           if david duke is a good BBQer.
           \_ He had a very long and bitter fight with Falwell.  And was more
              charitable to him in death than you are even though you've never
              met him.
              \- look, to me "charity" and "tolerance" toward a bigot is
                 no virtue. yes i am well aware of the the Hustler v. Falwell
                 case and i think it is quite an interest case because of
                 case and i think it is quite an interesting case because of
                 the inclusion of his mother, who was not a public figure.
                 since somebody mentions the hst nixon obit, my first thought
                 on hearing oh his passing was "he should be burned in a
                 trash can".
                 on hearing oh his passing was "he should be burned in
                 on hearing of his passing was "he should be burned in
                 /bin/trash". "he was an american monster".
                 \_ psb the Bengali, do you have a bigger penis than
                    Pujabis or other southern Indians?
              \_ Fuck this.  Falwell made his career on the backs of the less
                 fortunate or powerful, whom he routinely demonized.   He was
                 slime, and the public fellating he is currently recieving
                 is in need of a counter.  It's too bad HST isn't around - c.f.
                 his Nixon obit:
                 http://www.counterpunch.org/thompson02212005.html
                 \- this is more like it:
                    http://www.slate.com/id/2166337/nav/tap2
                    [and rememeber among non-xtians, the jews are the best of
                    the lot in thwir view. people like pat robertson say even
                    the lot in their view. people like pat robertson say even
                    worse things about people of other religions]
                    \_ Gotta love the Hitchens. "It's a shame that there is no
                       hell for Falwell to go to..."
                       \_ Speaking of whom, did you catch his latest appearance
                          on the Daily Show? He looked even more drunk than he
                          usually does.
2007/5/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:46554 Activity:nil
5/8     Clinton v. Obama voters:
        http://preview.tinyurl.com/24yqxr (youtube.com)
2007/3/30-4/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:46151 Activity:nil
3/38    Out of 69 senate votes on the war, Clinton and Obama differ on only
        one vote, the confirmation of Casey:
        http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/mar/29/comparison_of_hillary_and_obama_votes_on_iraq
        \_ I am going to vote for the one that pisses off the most Republicans.
        \_ I am going to vote for the one that pisses off the most Freepers.
           \_ I'm pretty sure that would be Clinton.
           \_ Or (shockingly) you could vote for who you honestly think would
              be the best President for the country....
2007/3/29-4/2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46141 Activity:nil
3/28    "Bush's long history of tilting Justice"
        by Joseph D. Rich, JOSEPH D. RICH was chief of the voting section in
        the Justice Department's civil right division from 1999 to 2005. He
        now works for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
        http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rich29mar29,0,3371050.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
        \_ This man is a hypocrite because not even once did he mention
           Bill Clinton's c*ck.
2007/3/28-29 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Reference/Law/Court] UID:46134 Activity:moderate
3/28    Attorneys fired for performance, not political reasons?  It depends on
        what "performance" means:
        "The distinction between 'political' and 'performance-related' reasons
        for removing a United States attorney is, in my view, largely
        artificial" -Kyle Sampson, chief of staff to Gonzales
        http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/28/fired.attorneys.ap/index.html
        \_ The administrations can define the meaning of any words in the
           language as needed.  For example, "sex".
           \_ Yes, clearly the incompetence and corruption of the current
              administration is the fault of Clinton's penis.
        \_ The only crime taking place is the political stupidity of the admin
           who should hav come out on day 1 and said, "We fired them because
           we can, tough shit" and walked away.  At least KS is finally, but
           too late, sort of kind of saying it.
           \_ There is a reason they lied about it in the first place and
              I am kind of surprised that you don't understand why.
2007/3/23-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46065 Activity:kinda low
3/23    L.A. Times leans right.  Notice how the top 3/4's of the story spews so
        much irrelevant chaff, focusing on how Reagan/Clinton/Dubya fired
        most/all attorneys when they came to power.  Only toward the end do you
        get:  "When you have a transition between presidents - especially
        presidents of different parties - a U.S. attorney anticipates that you
        will be replaced ... the unwritten, No. 1 rule ... is that once you
        become a U.S. attorney you have to leave politics at the door."
        http://tinyurl.com/2na94k (latimes.com)
        The perversion of truth -- especially the willful, disingenuousness
        attitude that permeates the Republican Party today -- disgusts me.
        \_ I think most politicians are like that. Except guys like Nader
           who cannot get elected.
        \_ Seriously, do you really believe one party is all beauty and nice
           and the other the sole benefactor of all evil?  They are the same.
           The Democratic party is absolutely in no way shape or form ethically
           or morally superior to the Republicans.  You have one party with two
           names.  And btw, how dare the LAT actually tell it's readers that
           all USAGs expect to be replaced?  Let's not tell anyone anything
           that might soften the political damage to the evil Bush even if it
           is the truth and relevant to the story.
           \_ Answering your first two lines: No. I think both parties are
              guilty of stupidity and petty politics designed to keep them-
              selves in power; this is the nature of our current political
              system. That said, the Bush Admin has done so in a much more
              blatant and egregious manner. I expect corruption, but I would
              prefer some decorum and a modicum of circumspection along the
              way. The current firings are simply insulting. -!op
              \_ You have Democratics currently in office in positions of
                 great power, even holding Chair positions who were caught red
                 handed in bribery scandals, in land scams, in having $90k in
                 cash stuffed in their fridge, using the IRS to punish
                 political enemies, etc, etc, ad nauseum.  Don't come on here
                 and try to tell me the Bush Admin is more blatant and
                 egreious about anything.  I don't find bribery, theft, fraud,
                 and fridge stuffing to be less corrupt or more circumspec or
                 providing more decorum than what the Bush admin has done with
                 the USAG firings.  In comparison the USAG thing is trivial BS
                 and I find it ridiculous and insulting anyone cares *at all*
                 about this compared with everything else going on in *both*
                 parties.  Do any of the things I mentioned about the Dems
                 upset you at all?  Or would they only be worth mentioning if
                 they were Republicans?  And hey, how about stuffing that Iraq
                 funding bill with Democratic pork?  That's cool, too, huh?
                 Take off the blinders.
                 \_ What part of "both parties of are guilty of stupidity and
                    petty politics" and "I expect corruption" didn't you get?
                    Jail anyone, Dem, GOP, or Ind. who's engaged in corruption,
                    bribery, or abuse of power. How can your outrage over
                    Dem corruption not spill over into the arena of egregious
                    abuse of the US Atty system to punish political enemies?
                    Before pointing out the mote in my eye, howzabout dealing
                    with the beam in your own?
                    \_ The part where you find firing a few USAG worse than
                       stuffing $90k in your fridge *and* *still* *keeping*
                       *your* *seat*.  I'd like to see a URL that says why
                       they were fired and not from a NYT op/ed piece.  Show
                       me a reliable source that says they were fired for not
                       punishing political enemies.  You continue to weigh
                       (R) ethical violations much heavier than (D) ethical
                       violations even when the actual events don't match up
                       like that.  Example: Which is worse ethically?  Canning
                       a few prosecutors who server at your whim and aren't on
                       the same political page (and understood the deal when
                       they accepted the job) or stuffing bribe money in your
                       fridge as an elected representative of the American
                       people at the highest levels of government?  Go ahead
                       and say the fridge stuffing isn't as bad and we can stop
                       right there.  The firing is just hard ball politics and
                       although unfortunate for the guys sacked, TS.  It's a
                       political event.  The fridge stuffing is a felony.  How
                       is that investigation going, huh?  It's not.  The guy
                       will be in office until he retires 'honorably'.  *That*
                       is truly sickening.
                       \_ For the love of G_d, get this: They're both bad.
                                          \_ of what now?
                                             \_ "God".  for some level of
                                                orthodoxy among jews, to
                                                write the name of god on
                                                anything that might be erased,
                                                destroyed, damaged, etc, is
                                                profane.
                                                \_ But God is not the name of
                                                   god.
                                                   \_ ...than to open it and
                                                      remove all doubt.
                                                      \_ KNEEL BEFORE YAHWEH
                       \_ For the love of YAHWEH, get this: They're both bad.
                          I appreciate that you're frustrated that the fridge
                          investigation has faltered (and yes, it should be
                          investigated fully), but it's not being held up
                          just because Congress is investigating Presidential
                          abuse of power (i.e., firing USAtys for not pursuing
                          political opponents). If fridge-stuffer is guilty of
                          accepting bribes, jail his ass. If AG fired the US
                          Atys because they wouldn't persecute the opposition,
                          can his ass. Also, didn't the FBI say they had
                          Jefferson on video taking a bribe? Then they should
                          arrest him for it! Right now, there appears to be
                          more evidence of dickery in the White House than in
                          Jefferson's fridge!
        \_ I guess I don't understand why this is a story.  Almost every
           president fires all the attorneys and replaces them with their own.
           W decides to just replace a few.  Therefore W is bad?  huh?
           \_ He decided to replace a few on the basis that they weren't using
              their power to hound and harrass the political opposition. An
              across-the-board replace wouldn't have raised eyebrows;
              demanding loyalty oaths to The Leader is another thing entirely.
              \_ Why do you think they normally fire them all?  To get loyal
                 ones. Duh.  I see no difference.
                 \- a company can close a plant and open one a town over.
                    but they still cant fire all the black people.
                    you are allowed to hire who you want. you can
                    fire them for incompetence or if they are not
                    "getting with the program" but the program cannot
                    be political prosecutions. a second issue is the
                    be partisan prosecutions. a second issue is the
                    "cover up". at this point there is probably nobody
                    guilty of a legal crime in the executive branch, but
                    certainly people can be tried in the court of
                    public opinion for being mendacious, unprincipled
                    sacks of shit. it is reasonable to hypotheteize
                    "ALBERTO has made the DOJ a wing of the white
                    house" ... i think people are free to hold that
                    against BUSHCO just like they are free to hold
                    CLINTON being a serial adulterer against him.
                    much of this turns on the relatively simple distinction
                    between political and partisan. the doj can have
                    poltical priorities like going after sodomites and
                    drug fiends instead of antitrust, but it cannot be
                    a partisan enforcer like a party whip of chairman who
                    withhold appointments or $$$ from you. this is not
                    an especially subtle argument.
                    \_ I guess you're welcome to hold it against him if you
                       like. Seems pointless to me, there are pleanty of
                       actual things he's done wrong to hold against him.
                       Your "firing the black people" analogy is obviously a
                       completely false analogy.  But, still.  You think it's
                       morally superior to fire everybody, then only rehire
                       white people?  I would argue the opposite.  If you only
                       want to get rid of a few people, don't make everyone go
                       through the unemployment ringer.
                       \- you cant hire "only white people". yes, i commented
                          early on it is odd congress is fixating on this
                          when there is katerina incompetence, iraq
                          incompetence, not catching osama, the plutocrati-
                          zation of society etc. at least w.r.t. to the
                          iraq war, congress feels they have "clean hands"
                          here. and of course the dems are in agenda control.
                          you're also caught in the "93 > 8" mentality.
                          \_ No crap.  You also can't only fire black people.
                             That's why this is a false analogy, as I noted.
                             Also: So, 93 < 8?  Must be that "new math." :)
                             \_ Obtuse little fucker.
                       \_ I don't think it's morally superior. It think it's
                          Better Form. It implies an understanding that the
                          appearance of propriety, while not sufficient in
                          and of itself, is necessary.
                          \_ Another way to say this is "The first is easier
                             to prove."  I can't argue with that, I just don't
                             see any moral difference.
                             \_ Out of curiousity, so you see a moral diff
                                between this and, oh, using postage to send
                                mail out as Socks the Cat?
                                \_ Had to look that one up.  Yes, there's a
                                   difference. I can't see anything wrong at
                                   all with using postage to send out mail as
                                   "Socks the Cat."
                                   \_ Okay, then what about the christmas card
                                      list "scandal".  That warranted 140 hours
                                      of testimony UNDER OATH to determine that
                                      nothing improper happened.  Is there a
                                      moral difference between that possible
                                      impropriety and this?
                                      \_ Seesh, are you just going down a list
                                         a dem talking points, trying to prove
                                         I'm some rep stooge?  I can't even
                                         find this story, just dem blogs
                                         whining about it.  I never said the
                                         lame-o Rep attempts to get Clinton
                                         were ok, so get off it.
                                         \_ Are you saying, though, that the
                                            firing of the USAs was proper, and
                                            therefore should not be looked
                                            into?  That's what you seem to be
                                            saying with "I guess I don't
                                            understand why this is a story."
                                            I think you may be too short for
                                            this discussion.
                                            \_ Sheesh, sorry I'm too young for
                                               you.  Somehow pulling out old D
                                               talking points I don't recall
                                               that then saying I'm too "short
                                               for this discussion" seems
                                               amazingly lame though. I'm done.
                                            \_ I'm saying the firing was
        standard enough politics to not be worth looking into.  I don't like
        hardball politics to begin with, so I'm not going to say firings were
        'proper,' but they aren't unusual.  The Dems are playing lame-o gotcha
        games with Bush, just like the Rs did with Clinton.  Niether case was
        worth the time and money.
        \- do you know what united states attorneys do?
        \_ So do you prefer the last 6 years of 0 oversight out of congress?
           What you call "gotcha games" is what most people call "Congress's
           job".
        \_ They were unusual _because_ they were firings singling out very
           specific individuals on the basis of "performance issues" after all
           8 received good evaluations. The LCD here is suspect. And then
           they're unusual in that the AG lied in his testimony on the subject.
           \_ We've come full circle, just read from the top for replies to
              these posts.
                             \_ I think that the difference in morality
                                between two different acts of corruption is
                                a complicated matter of ethics that has been
                                wrestled with for thousands of years.
        \_ Let's see if the American people agree with you or not. I think
           the Democrats obviously think they have a winner here or they
           would not be pushing so hard.
2007/3/21-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46040 Activity:low
3/21    Once again Dems are pussies.  Gore first got the Senate to waive the 48
        hour rule (receiving written copy of testimony 48 hrs before hearing)
        for a 24 hour rule.  Then he failed to submit his testimony until this
        morning, a few hours before the hearing.  Oh, and then the Dems got it
        hours before the Repubs.
        http://csua.org/u/ia3 (cnsnews.com)
        \_ At a time when the President is vowing to fight congressional
           subpoenas up to the ussc, it's funny that you hold this up as
           "news".
        \_ Wow, if only I had a forum for my slanted view of the world; wait,
           that's what the Internet is for! And if I call it News, it must be
           so!
           \_ So are you saying that Gore *did* submit his testimony before
              this morning? -op
              \_ I'm saying that a gossipy slagfest is not a news source.
           \_ So is senate.gov good enough for you?  http://csua.org/u/ia4
              \_ What you mean is, is Senator Inhofe's blog good enough for
                 me? And even more to the point, is a staffer on Inhofe's
                 blog good enough for me? And the answer is, not without
                 further corroboration. But WAIT! It gets better: Marc
                 Morano, the source in question, was "previously known as
                 Rush Limbaugh's 'Man in Washington,' as reporter and
                 producer for the Rush Limbaugh Television Show."
                 http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano
                 Please, if you're going to post stooges, at least include
                 Larry, Moe, and Curly.
                 \_ I'm fascinated by the refusal to accept reporting of fact
                    simpy because of the name Limbaugh. I can understand your
                    not accepting his analysis perhaps, but the basic facts?
                    -emarkp
                    \_ Much like we trusted the Bush Administration's report
                       on the "fact" that Saddam had WMD?  I can't fault this
                       guy for not accepting some politico's "facts".  --PeterM
                       \_ Wow, this is such a red herring.
                       \_ You do know the difference between an intelligence
                          report and reporting a fact that has occurred in
                          front of witnesses and will be a part of the senate
                          record, right? -emarkp
                       \_ There's reporting of fact and there's stirring shit
                          up. If the source is a known shit-stirrer, anything
                          the source reports is automatically suspect, esp. if
                          it is, on its face, true, because there's plenty of
                          reason to believe that it's only being reported to
                          stir up more shit. If I report that the sky is
                          blue, that's true; if I report that the sky is blue
                          despite claims that Global Warming is going to
                          result in smog smog smog, that is also true, but
                          it's presented in a way that makes GW seem like a
                          myth. Your professional shit-stirrers, like Mark
                          Morano, do this for a living, and sifting nuggets of
                          truth from the shit that they're stirring up is
                          about as reqarding as actually sifting through
                          feces for gold.
                          \_ http://csua.org/u/ia6
                             LA Times quotes Joe Barton as saying the they
                             didn't receive his written testimony more than 2
                             hours before the hearing.  Is that a lefty source
                             enough for you? -emarkp
                             \_ "lefty enough" is the level of immaturity that
                                I expect from shit-stirrers, emarkp, not you.
                                \_ When a dog craps on the floor, you rub his
                                   nose in it.  Same for these nutjobs. -emarkp
                                   \_ The only nutjobs I see here are the ones
                                      that think a slagfest from a propaganda
                                      hack constitutes a real news source.
                                      \_ Oh, so a senator's office stating
                                         what's happening in the Senate TODAY
                                         is a nutjob?  Go back to your hole
                                         anonymous nutjob. -emarkp
                                         \_ If you're trying to defend someone
                                            from being called a nutjob, Inhofe
                                            is just about the most difficult
                                            defendant.
                                            \_ So you don't like his politics
                                               so he's a nutjob and what his
                                               boy reported on his Senate
                                               blog is suspect?  Tin foil and
                                               blinders.  Better than plastic.
                                               I'm going to be rich.
                                         \_ Read who posted the account. It's
                                            Mark Morano, a hack. That Inhofe
                                            is letting him use his blog is
                                            simply shameful. --erikred
                                            \- how could you be unaware
                                               inhofe is shameless.
                                               \_ The irony of my shame in
                                                  needing to be reminded of
                                                  this is not lost on me,
                                                  Partha. --erikred
                             \_ LA Times leans right, now, when it used to
                                be a neutral reporter of facts, which is
                                why I cancelled my subscription last year.
                                \_ Haha.  I don't know about now, but 8 years
                                   ago the LA Times could out do the Cron on
                                   lefty bias.  I assume what you mean is,
                                   "The LA times used to agree with me."
                                   \_ Perhaps this is a confusion of Pro-
                                      Israel (as LAT seems to be) with either
                                      the right or the left.
                    \_ Unless reported by dailykos, http://moveon.org, or some other
                       neutral and unbiased site, it doesn't count.  Having to
                       respond to factual statements is annoying.  It is much
                       easier to just say 'neener! it never happened because
                       your source is biased! nyah!'
        \_ Desperate attempt to change the subject. Won't work, America
           has woken up to Roveian tactics and is mostly immune right now.
2017/09/20 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
9/20    

2007/3/21-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46038 Activity:nil
3/20    Tom DeLay, moral center of the Republican Party:
        http://www.csua.org/u/ia2
2007/3/19-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Finance/Investment] UID:46015 Activity:low
3/19    Ben Stein:  It's A Good Time To Buy
        http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/yourlife/26744
        \_ useless article with no analysis.  Typical.  -tom
        \- you should read the BEEN STEIN smackdown from paul krugman.
           "i won the john bates clarke medal. you are a game show host."
           \_ Ugh, Krugman is an idiot--and Stein isn't a real estate expert.
              \_ dont you feel the slightest bit reticent calling a person
                 well-acknowledged by their peers an idiot? i mean maybe his
                 comments on march mandness are stupid, but in his area?
              \_ Krugman may be a bit gloomy, but could you point me
                 to where he has been dead wrong?  Thanks.
                 \_ http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/luskin032003.asp
                    http://www.poorandstupid.com/chronicle.asp
                  http://www.onthefencefilms.com/commentary/stuart/krugman.html
                  http://www.thenewsocialsecurity.com/Library/129.html
                    \_ the first url isn't very convincing, spending the first
                       three paragraphs on an ideological rant
                    \_ The third one does not contain any evidence of factual
                       errors, just a difference of opinion as to how scarce
                       resources should be allocated. The author thinks that
                       medical resources should be allocated on the basis of
                       ability to pay, Krugman thinks they should be socialized.
                       Just because someone disagrees with you, it doesn't
                       make them "dead wrong."
2007/3/15-20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:45984 Activity:nil
3/15    LGFers supporting Muhammed's assasination plots against Carter, Clinton
        http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald
        \_ But... but... Anne Coutler is an entertainer.  And MoveOn thinks
           Bush is hitler.  And... and... it's all Clinton's fault!
           Bush is Hitler.  And... and... it's all Clinton's fault!
2007/3/14 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45963 Activity:kinda low
3/14    torture:  eh
        extraordinary rendition: whatever
        illegal wiretapping: yawn
        crazy executive signing statements saying 'i dont have to
        follow your laws, Congress, piss off': no one cares
        HR problems in the Justice Department:  THIS WILL NOT STAND
        \_ There is one huge differance.  There is a democratic congress
           and senate willing to actually investigate the issue.  That
           makes it a lot harder for the administration to wave their arms
           about and say "there is nothing to see here".
           \- i suspect the OP isnt mystified about the outcome
              but is making a comment about priorities. we understand
              why monica lewinsky looms larger than say the rwandan
              genocide, but it's worth reflecting on that.
        \- i actually had a pretty similar reaction to what the OP is
           saying. over dinner maybe a week and a half ago when somebody
           was gleeful about this being another "front" for BUSHCO to
           deal with, I was wondering "well this might also crowd out
           the actual really horrible stuff with wide, wide impact ...
           like say the iraqi contracting scandals and shutting down any
           auditing ... which has cost billions." now i guess i'm glad
           i didnt say that. although another way to look at it might be
           anything to keep the heat on to make bombing iran less likely.
           btw, let's add to the list above: hurricane katerina, osama got
           away, taliban is back, and above anything else, there may be
           500,000 iraqis who are "dead men walking". re: comment below ...
           nobody is trivializing it, but it is smaller than "the loss of
           american credibility for a generation". i'd love it if it caused
           ALBERTO to get canned, and then we can start scrutinizing
           cheney again ... in a sense we've taken our eye off the bald-
           headed satan.
        \_ Your attempt to trivialize political corruption has been found
           wanting.
2007/3/10-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45927 Activity:kinda low
3/10    "Poll: Character trumps policy for voters"
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070310/ap_on_el_pr/ap_poll2008_traits
        S Voter: "H Clinton has a bitchy character"
        S Voter: "Edwards is a libural"
        S Voter: "Obama is a negro"
        \_ I find this funny when leading R candidates are Gingrich and
           Giuliani
        \_ I'm all for Gingrich winning the R nomination, because he
           will LOSE.
           \_ Gingrinch cheated on his wife, married his lover and is still
              with her.  Giuliani moved out, and started dating someone else
              during the divorce.  Is there something else you were talking
              about besides their failed marriages?  I'm unaware of other
              character issues such as $90k in their fridges, stealing
              national security documents, having fabulous 'good luck' in
              the markets, or lying about their past.
              \_ These other issues you mention relate to the D candidates
                 how?  Gingrich divorced his second wife while she was in
                 the hospital for cancer treatments.  He was pulled from the
                 speakership by his own party while dogged by multiple ethics
                 charges.  Giuliani announced his separation from his second
                 wife in a press conference before telling her.  He's widely
                 seen as a petulant tantrum thrower in his political life.
                 And who can forget Bernie Kerik?
2007/3/9-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:45922 Activity:kinda low
3/9     My memory sucks.
        Was there a big debate years ago about whether a special
        prosecutor is able to call a sitting president to testify?
        How did Kenneth Starr manage to get Clinton on the stand
        to testify in his investigation of Whitewater, then ask him
        non related Whitewater questions like "Have you inserted
        a cigar in the vagina of a woman not your wife?" and "Please
        list the names and SSNs of every woman you have had an affair
        with in the last 10 years, ok tnx".  I would think that if
        a special prosecutor tried to get Bush on the stand now
        holy hell would break loose.
        \_ The original Lewinsky testimony had nothing to do with
           Whitewater or Starr. Clinton was testifying in a civil case
           for sexual harassment brought by Paula Jones.
           \_ Really?  Starr was able to force the sitting president,
              Clinton, to come on down and testify in a pretty minor
              sounding civil case?  Not to demean sexual harrasment
              cases, ok fine I am demeaning them, who cares right now.
              Can you imagine any prosecutor trying to force gwbush
              or Cheney to do such a thing?  I think Cheney would
              blow a valve laughing.  I'm not saying you're wrong,
              I just don't remember the details anymore.
              \_ Read again. Starr (nor any other prosecutor) had nothing
                 to do with it at that point. It was a civil case.
           \_ which, should be noted, was thrown out for lack of merit.
              \_ As the Plame leak should have been as well.
                 \_ I think it became a case of "I am prosecuting
                    you for lying to various branches of the
                    government and giving me some bullshit story that
                    you didn't know Plame was an agent when we are all
                    adults and we know full well Cheney is sending you out
                    to tell reporters this little tidbit", instead of
                    OH NO YOU HAVE REVEALED AN UNDERCOVER AGENT!   I
                    admit it's really hard to keep it all in your head,
                    a mighty river of bullshit has been spread.  I'm more
                    pissed off about the fact that any undercover ops
                    that Plame was involved with now had to be dismantled,
                    and no one seems to care.
              \_ Funny, I don't remember that and can't find anything to
                 verify that.
                 \_ Are you daft?  Google("paula jones" merit)
                    http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/04/06/jones.appeal
                    http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/04/03/jones.opinion
                    \_ Are YOU daft?  She was appealing that decision when
                       Clinton settled with her.
 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/jones111498.htm
                       http://csua.org/u/i7g
        \_ FYI, Ken Starr was an Indepedent Counsel and the law that
           authorized his appointment was not renewed by Congress in
           1999.
        \_ FYI, the Indepedent Counsel law that Ken Starr was appointed
           under lapsed in 1999.
2007/3/9-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:45913 Activity:nil
3/9     Newt Gingrich admints extramarital affair during Clinton-Lewinsky
        probe:
        http://csua.org/u/i7e (hosted.ap.org)
        \_ F*cking hypocrite!
2007/3/8-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45905 Activity:low
3/7     Bush will pardon Libby and am happy to take any bet to the
        contrary, since I can just arb it on Tradesports. -ausman
        \_ Loyalty is a one way street in that world.  He won't do it.
        \_ No money down, but I'll take that as a gentleman's bet.
           Bush won't pardon Libby. -aspo
           \_ Why wouldn't he though? I think he will. Those who don't
              already hate him won't care if he does it.
              \- any bets the VP will "discover" he can issue pardons too?
                 anyway, unless the issue is moot for some reason, i will
                 also bet he gets a "and turn the lights out" pardon, although
                 if a "i have a pardon in my pocket" scenario is legal,
                 that is a possibility. --psb
                 \_ Just not seeing it.  Not today, not at light's out.  Bush
                    doesn't care about some dumb jerk like 'Scooter'.  Why
                    would he pardon him?
                 \_ what?
                    \_ E,MFDYSI?
                       \_ sorry i'm not familiar with "and turn the lights out"
                          pardons or "i have a pardon in my pocket" scenarios
                          \- lights out pardon: last minute before leaving
                               office [presidents pardon many people all the
                               time, but you typically only hear about con-
                               troversial last minute ones]. this isnt a std
                               term, it is my term]. clinton's patty hearst
                               and marc rich pardons are "lights out" pardons.
                               [the marc rich pardon was one of the worst
                               things clinton did. other interesting pardons:
                               reagun:steinbrenner, raygan:deep throat,
                               nixon: jimmy hoffa]
                             pardon in my pocket scenario: i am not sure if
                               a pardon must be announced. it is clear that
                               a president can give a pardon before you have
                               been found guilty even [most famously ford's
                               nixon pardon]. so the question is can he quietly
                               slip somebody a pardon they can carry around
                               like an immunity idol or joseph conrad's
                               secret agent ... and only whip it out if
                               needed, or never at all. YMWTGF(trust johnson
                               pecker).
2007/3/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:45887 Activity:nil
3/5     Bahahahha have you guys checked out the ads on
        http://csua.com/24/?incr=1&local=0 ?
        "Guaranteed Herpes Cure"
        "Herpes healing is here"
2007/3/4-7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45869 Activity:moderate
3/4     60 Minutes: PSB > TOM (Medicare > Defense)
        http://tinyurl.com/yrtors
        \_ Synopsis: Clinton=surplus, Bush=deficit, Republican=bad.
                     We're fucked thanks to fiscal irresponsibility.
                     \_ A surplus co-oping Republican bills. Who started
                        the first surplus? Are you one of those "Politics
                        began with Clinton newbies who's been around
                        only the last 14 years" to answer that?
                        \_ Too bad Bush didn't come up with the same brilliant
                           strategy of co-opting Republican bills!  -tom
           Political slant: CBS, anti-Republican
           Fact check: this is a political smear.
           \- The earlier motd discussion was not very partisan or
              ideological. It was about 3 things:
           \- The earlier motd discussion was about 3 things:
              (0. distinguish between liabilities and payments)
              1. medicare liability >> SS liability
              2. non-discretionary entitlements >> defense liability
              3. holub ought not be dismissing other people's writings
                 when unaware of either the details of the accounting
                 used or the $numbers involved. While this backs up
                 my numbers, there was plenty of evidence provided
                 used or the $numbers involved. While this backs up some
                 of my numbers, there was plenty of evidence provided
                 earlier [particlarly the KC Fed study].
              BTW, I thought the tuition analogy was pretty good.
              The Comptroller General is a Clinton appointee, but is
              hardly a communist or a partisan hack.
           \- The earlier motd discussion was largely about
              a single statistic, the NPV value of medicare
              liability >> SS liability >> long range defense costs.
              (we didnt discuss debt service ... that highly depends
              on future fiscal policy rather than just actuarial
              numbers)
              It wasnt so much a partisan discussion or one very
              involved with interpretation. The CBO fellow, as
              well as the pointers I left present plenty of
              evidence for this. Holub shouldnt be dissing other
              people for being ignorant of facts when he's
              wrong about them. BTW, the Comptroller General
              is a Clinton appointee, but is hardly a
              communist or a partisan hack. BTW, I thought
              te tuition analogy was pretty good.
              \_ I think there are a number of flawed assumptions here,
                 a major one being that our health care system could be
                 completely different even by 2011, let alone by 2040.
                 Another is to describe military spending as discretionary
                 and Medicare as long-term liability; military spending
                 has alwyas grown faster than federal health care spending,
                 and fundamentally represents a liability due to current
                 military posture.   -tom
                 \_ Can you stop saying meaningless things like: "military
                    spending has alwyas grown faster than federal health
                    care spending".
                    \_ How is it meaningless?  It's verifiably true.  What is
                       meaningless is the distinction between Medicare as
                       a liability and the military as discretionary spending.
                       We can choose to change Medicare benefits at any time,
                       despite the prescription drug bill and other "promises."
                       And while we theoretically could decide to stop
                       spending gobs of money on the military, there's no
                       evidence that we will.   -tom
                 \_ By 2011, no, but 2040 is very far away.  Our current
                    system is very much not like it was 34 years ago.  In fact,
                    I'd say it's completely different.
                    \- forget 34 yrs. do you know how much the BUSHCO
                       prescription medicine benefit is considered to have
                       have added to liabilities. all the reasonable people
                       doing projections consder maybe 4-5 optimistic to
                       pessimistic projections. but some of the basic facts
                       are not in dispute in any scenario short of "the big
                       asteroid vaporizes half the country". BTW, it is fairly
                       "standard" to use 75yrs as the "infinite horizon"
                       projection number. i dont know why, but it is.
                       it's probably a case of "you have to agree to something
                       for consistency". i assume somebody has done the
                       sensitivity analysis around that number. --psb
                       [By "SA" i mean:
                       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitivity_analysis]
2007/2/22-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45798 Activity:nil
2/22    Carville to Hollywood:  Open your wallet and shut your mouth.
        http://csua.org/u/i3i
2007/2/21-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, ERROR, uid:45789, category id '18005#16.7588' has no name! , ] UID:45789 Activity:high
2/21    http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=1344
        http://mediamatters.org/columns/200702200003
        Dems begin to eat their own.
        \_ I would vote for literally any Democrat instead of
           the Republicans in power now.
           \_ What if the Governator could run for President? Would
              you vote for any Democrat over him?
              \_ Yeah, probably.  Arnold has been really centrist
                 lately.  The State senate/house is a pit of despair.
        \_ This being the CSUA, you may not have spent much time studying
           politics, and this would explain why you think there's a story
           here.  Seasoned political observers will recognized this for what
           it is.  They even have a term for it.  It's called a Presidential
           Primary Campaign. -dans
           \_ And this is dans's bid for Biggest Soda Asshole.
              \_ Awesome!  I thought signing my posts disqualified me!
              \_ Awesome!  I thought signing my posts disqualified me! -dans
                 \_ Think again, dans.
                    \_ Wow.  Oh anonymous motd snark god, teach me your
                       secrets!! -dans
                       \_ That would imply you're willing to listen.
                          \_ Oh snark master, what must I do to be worthy of
                             your wisdom? -dans
                 \_ Where'd you get that idea from?  There is no crime to
                    being anonymous or moral high ground to signing.
                    \_ I didn't imply as such.  I merely posit that anonymity
                       opens entire avenues of assmastery that attribution
                       cannot hope to traverse.  And, actually, yeah, there is
                       a high ground to signing, perhaps not a moral one, but
                       certainly a trust one: I am more likely to believe
                       something from a trusted source, less likely to believe
                       something from an untrusted source, and, mostly
                       neutral, though slightly less likely to trust something
                       from an anonymous source.  Of course, wanking is
                       wanking, regardless of the attribution or lack thereof.
                       -dans
                       \_ I don't add/subtract value based on who signed.  I
                          use my brains and the net to check on anything posted
                          if it is important to me.  If it isn't important,
                          then it doesn't matter who said what.  I prefer to
                          judge the message not the messenger.  Otherwise, one
                          is doomed to only reading that which only reinforces
                          what one already believes.  I see no point to that.
                       \_ That cuts both ways.  I'm sure I'm not the only one
                          who rolls his eyes and keeps scrolling anytime he
                          sees "dans" at the end of a post which I might
                          otherwise read.  Hell, if I see your name more than
                          once in a thread, I assume the whole thing's noise,
                          and this thread is a perfect example.  Had you
                          posted anonymously, I might be fooled into reading
                          more noise.
                       \- while i think it is true "anonymity opens entire
                          avenues of assmastery" for some gaylords, i am dont
                          think you are using the word correctly. maybe you
                          mean assholishness?
                          \_ If you like.  I think my meaning is pretty clear,
                             and, evidently, you got it.  Besides, assmastery
                             is a far more amusing word than assholishness.
                             -dans
                             \- do you pay words extra to mean what you want
                                them to mean?
                                \_ Yes.  Though given that assmaster doesn't
                                   even appear in the wiktionary, I think
                                   you'd be hard pressed to come up with a
                                   dictionary (slang or otherwise) that
                                   supports your definition.  It's not like
                                   I'm trying to argue the definition of `is'
                                   -dans
                                   \_ humpty-dumpty@soda: dans
                                      \_ Why am I not surprised this thread
                                         went waaaaaay off topic almost from
                                         the beginning?
2007/2/13-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:45726 Activity:low
2/12    GKEILLOR delivers a beatdown to BHLEVY ... he pretty much shoves
        BHL's head up his ass:
         http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/books/review/29keillor.html
        The last line is pretty funny.
        In the "with friends like these" dept, CHITCHENS follows up
        here: http://www.slate.com/id/2136056
        \_ Wow, Hitchens might have had something intelligent to say there,
           but he's done a pretty good job of covering it up.
           \-i havent read the daniel pearl book by BHL but that might have
             been a reasonable point about BHL's "seriousness" but of course
             CH was largely interested in just his faux-'mercun bloviation.
        \_ These projects always have a touch of orientalism about them
           that makes them intolerable, but GKEILLOR's response decends
           unnecessarily into the same territory: "As always with French
           writers, Le'vy is short on the facts..." I'm sure the book is
           crap, but do we need to take on the entire history of French
           lit here?
2007/2/7-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:45681 Activity:nil
2/7     http://www.csua.org/u/i0d
        (The Economist on Hillary Clinton)
2007/1/26-2/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:45596 Activity:kinda low
1/26    Test 123 123. Yay it works. Time to move all the files out.
        Time to move out for good. Good bye soda. You've been good to
        me for the past 15 years.
        \_ Same here.  You've been good to me for about 11.5 years and not
           so good for 1 year.
           \_ Just curious... how much did you pay for the service?  I got
              the alum special rate.
              \_ Not everyone on here is a freeloader.
                 \_ You're right.  The people who got jobs through me *only*
                    because of soda being here, my technical postings and
                    past hardware donations have no value.  I've still paid
                    nothing for the service.  What have *you* done for soda?
                    \_ I've donated $$$.
                       \_ So?  This is a community and a community service.
                          Your $50 doesn't entitle you to a whole lot of
                          service.  Go talk to any hosting provider and see
                          what they'll charge you for a lot less than soda
                          provides.
                          \_ I think you missed the point here. I said
                             "Not everyone on here is a freeloader." The
                             implication was that the "alumni special
                             rate" is free. For many of us, the "alumni
                             special rate" was not free, whether it be
                             in dollars, time, or whathaveyou.
                             \_ The 'price' paid by almost every soda user is
                                near zero over time.  I've had a soda account
                                for 18 years.  In that time I've helped with
                                hardware donations (a long time ago), got at
                                least 1 person a job they still have 2-3 years
                                later, and provided technical advice several
                                times.  During that time soda has been down a
                                few times for a total of a few months.  Big
                                deal.  The alumni special rate is "I help you
                                when I can, you do your job to keep the host
                                up so I can be here".  It's a fair trade.  The
                                moment the box goes down it hurts the ugrads
                                more than it hurts the alumni.  Unless you're
                                one of the itty bitty tiny number of people
                                who has been physically there helping to
                                rebuild soda and carefully guiding the org
                                through these dark and woeful times </sarcasm>
                                you have little to bitch about.
           \_ I would argue that the one year of 'badness' is due to VP
              hozage. To misquote Lennon: All we are saying is give
              darch a chance.
              \_ Uh, didnt "we" give him +3 weeks?
                 As to the freeloading comments: there are plenty of people
                 here to have already "served."  I think they are entitled
                 to comment.  And the comments about they are not being
                 paid is silly.  If you volunteer, you are on the hook.
                 Nobody is forcing you to volunteer, but if you accept the
                 job, you shouldn't be a flake.  Additionally, some of
                 the people in charge now are fools, like putting up a
                 message like "W00T" when the web server came back rather
                 than something informative.
                 \_ 3+ weeks?  Have you ever stepped into someone else's mess
                    and had to clean it up?  3 weeks is nothing.  I agree that
                    more information would have been good though.  I didn't
                    even know anyone was working on it and assumed it was not
                    coming back.
                    \_ Not to mention that these were 3 weeks, DURING THE
                       HOLIDAY, alone, while entirely refactoring the machine
                       room, fixing someone else's mess, and dealing with the
                       department -- also on holiday (and you know how gov't
                       institutions run...). Many all-nighters were pulled.
                       Respect darch's authori-tay! --michener
                    \- heh: [n.b. i am laughing at hillary, not with]:
  http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/01/28/america/NA-POL-US-Clinton-2008.php
                       \_ What did you expect?  This is business as usual
                          stuff.
  \_ Commander-In-Chief Hillary Rodham Clinton. Kind of has a nice ring to it.
     \_ The first thing she'd do is send troops somewhere to show everyone
        she can be "as tough as any man, no wait, tougher!  I'll send twice
        as many!"
                       http://preview.tinyurl.com/2z4e28 (iht.com)
                       \_ Commander-In-Chief Hillary Rodham Clinton. Kind of
                          has a nice ring to it.
                         \_ The first thing she'd do is send troops somewhere
                            to show everyone she can be "as tough as any man,
                            no wait, tougher!  I'll send twice as many!"
2007/1/20-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:45562 Activity:nil
1/20    "I'm in to win" - Hillary Clinton
        http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/20/clinton.announcement/index.html
        \_ Thank you, Goog^H^H^H^H MOTD News. Now what else do you have to
           say about it?
        \_ Dang it, I was hoping she was smart enough to stay out of it.  Can't
           stop that ego I guess.
           \_ I'm not running for president.  Does that make me smart?
              \_ Only as smart as John Kerry:
                 http://preview.tinyurl.com/ywk3g8 (nytimes.com)
2006/12/27-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:45503 Activity:moderate
12/27   Gerald Ford, Jr. dead (formerly Leslie King Jr.)
        http://www.ford.utexas.edu
        \_ How history would have fared had he been in power instead of
           Carter who sold out the Shah. Sure the Shah was corrupt.
           But Ford would not have been forced to sell them out as he
           was to the South Vietnamese. Now we get to deal with a nuclear
           Iran. I'm glad the 4th estate is so objective vs. how history
           ultimately judges. Hopefully it'll still be in English.
           \_ You speaky English? How fuck you got into Berkeley?
              And next time I catch you responding to your own post
              it'll be deleted automatically.
        \_ When people die, regardless of what they have and have not
           done in the past, do we EVER say anything bad about them?
           \- in re: nil nisi bonum, judge for yourself:
              http://home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/Articles/Politics/NixonObit-HST.txt
2006/12/21-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:45483 Activity:high
12/21   Sandy Berger--oops
  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/21/ap/politics/mainD8M5AV780.shtml
        \_ Damn those evil Democrats, you can't trust them! They say they'd
           do something and the next minute they're having oral sex with
           the interns! Vote for righteous Republicans and support our
           glorious War in Iraq! We are good and spread freedom YA BABY!
           \_ I know it is slow aroudn here but a four line troll should
              provide more entertainment than this.  What I don't understand,
              Young Troll, is why you think it's ok for *anyone* to steal
              and destroy national security documents?  Clean your own house
              before looking at your neighbors'.
        \_ Any reports/rumors on what the stolen documents said?
           \_ A good guess is something that makes Clinton look bad.
        \_ Hang 'em -Nader voter.
2006/11/8-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:45260 Activity:moderate
11/8    FoxNews (cable) keeps showing Schwartzegenner's victory party
        and not really covering the rest of the election. What's up?
        \_ One red spot in an ocean of blue?
           \_ I bet you think politics (or got interested) in politics
              after Clinton.
              \_ Actually I was interested in politics before Clinton
                 and then I graduated from high school and grew up.
        \_ Bah.  The Governator is pretty damned liberal for a republican.
           A popular centrist getting elected isn't much of a story.
           \_ Yet our politics are so partisan.  What the Dems should learn
              from this election is that being a far left/right idealoge is
              a recipe for failure.  Unfortunatly, with Pelosi as speaker of
              the house...
              \_ I can't stand Pelosi. Why give her and her nutjob status
                 such power? As you say, someone more moderate would be
                 better.
                 \_ Pelosi is not a nutjob, unless you define nutjob as
                    anyone that Rush Limbaugh doesn't like. She is actually
                    pretty much in the middle of the Democratic Party:
                 \_ Pelosi is about in the middle of the Democratic Party.
                    It says much about you and your extremism, that you
                    consider her a "nutjob".
                    http://www.csua.org/u/hen
                    \- i dont know much about pelosi but so far like her
                       more than i like hillary, or ALGOR ... but right now
                       i woudl settle for somebody who didnt torture people,
                       invade countries on false intelligence, appoint
                       partisan hacks to formerly technocratic civil
                       service positions, think religion has equal footing
                       with science as a way to understand the world,
                       and has some respect for article 1 and artcile 3 of the
                       constitution, and doesnt think governing is about
                       sloganeering [cut and run, change hourse midstream,
                       "i am a constituional orginalist" etc], drag us toward
                       plutocracy ... i can live with some differences on
                       immigration policy or afformative action etc.
                    \_ "But the Democratic caucus has gone so far to the
                       left that, hell, she's in the middle." She has a
                       95 ADA rating. No, she's not a moderate at all.
                       Maybe compared to a communist.
                       \_ You aren't paying attention. I did not say that
                          she is a moderate: there are almost no moderates
                          left, in either party. I am saying that she is
                          about in the middle of the Democratic Party.
                          She is as far left as Frist or Hastert are Right.
                          Do you call these two gentlemen "nutjobs"?
                          http://www.csua.org/u/heu
                          \_ Being in the middle of a bunch of ultra leftists
                             does make her an ultra leftist nutjob.
                             \_ So you think anyone who doesn't want to suck
                                George Bush's dick and lick Bill O'Reilly's
                                ass is a leftist extremist or "ultra leftist"
                                or whatever it is you want to call us?
                                \_ isn't an ultra-leftist a communist?
                                        \_ no. not necessarily.
                                   they are self-evidently not communists.
                                        \_ not in name.
                                   ergo they are not ultra leftists.
                                        \_ no. not necessarily.
                                   ergo ppp is a moron.
                                        \_ work on your logic and reading comp.
           \_ I actually feel sorry for Lincon Chaffe...
              \_ don't.  the senate GOP has been voting like robots, and
                 chafee was never the difference.
2006/10/31-11/2 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:45062 Activity:nil
10/31   "Now the government is targeting unmarried adults up to age 29 as part
        of its abstinence-only programs, which include millions of dollars in
        federal money that will be available to the states under revised
        federal grant guidelines for 2007."
        http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-10-30-abstinence-message_x.htm
        Goddamn tax-and-spend liberals, always spending money on utopian
        social...err, oh.
        \_ Well, the government provided subsidised loans for me to be in
           Berkeley studying science for four years, which clearly furthered
           the abstinence-only agenda--and that was during the Clinton
           administration.
        \_ As a conservative I no more approve of this than the billions of
           dollars of liberal waste in the yearly budget.
                \_ There already is a program for astinence for young adults: it\
s called marriage after the first 10 years or second kid.
                \_ There already is a program for astinence for young adults: its
                   called marriage after the first 10 years or second kid.
        \_ Abstinence before age 29 isn't the kind of utopia I want to live in.
2006/10/30-11/1 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:45037 Activity:nil
10/30   I'm still waiting for the October Surprise. What's up?  -GOP #1 fan
        \_ Dems win the election, show up at Congress to discover that the
           GOP has pried up everything of value and skipped out on the rent.
           \_ Ah, so all that'll be left behind is their moral superiority
              \_ of the GOP?  No, that was sold for crack long ago.
           \_ Dem's win the election, show up at congress to find the govt with
              taxes slashed, spending levels raised, and a massive debt built
              up.
              \_ Whereas the Dem plan is to raise taxes, raise spending levels
                 and build up a massive debt.  Vote third party.
                 \_ Ah, you're describing the platform of legendary Democratic
                    candidate Dumbshit McDoesntexist.
           \_ Is that anything like the Clinton's trashing the Whitehouse
              on their way out?
              \_ As in, it didn't/won't happen?
2006/10/30-11/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45033 Activity:nil
10/30   Murdoch NY Post endorses Hillary:
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061030/ap_on_el_se/ny_post_clinton
        \_ It must be that NY tax surplus
           http://news.google.com/news?q=new+york+tax+surplus
2006/10/27-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:45011 Activity:moderate
10/27   http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/27/dixie-chicks-advertisement-nbc
        Tell us again about how liberal the media is.
        \_ http://csua.org/u/hbe
        \_ [URL without comment deleted]
        \_ http://csua.org/u/hbe (example of liberal media bias)
        \_ Don't call them Brownshirts.
        \_ What a progressive blog, sterilize anyone that doesn't agree.
           Where are all the people that that the freepers are nuts?
           \_ http://tp.org is run by the Clinton crowd.  It has a specific agenda.
              It is not an independent political site.  Think of it as the
              semi-official organ of the "third way Clintonian Democrats".
           \_ Umm, do words mean different things to you than other english
              speakers?  Are you insane?  What the fuck?
              \_ "Anyone who still talks about the liberal media should be
                 sterilized. They are clearly too stupid to breed."  I'll
                 let everyone decide what that means independently.
                  \_ If you think that's even remotely on the same level
                     of outrageous as the freeper bullshit you, well, are
                     too stupid to breed.
                     \_ Just because the freepers are nuts doesn't make it ok
                        for this site to say someone should be sterilized for
                        having a different belief.  Take a step back, a long
                        breath and try to justify a comment like that.  It
                        can't be.  It certainly isn't a 'progressive' thing
                        to say unless the word now means 'closed minded and
                        vicious'.
                        \_ Take a deep breath, step back, and remember that
                           no one is actually advocating the surgical or
                           chemical sterilization of people who post to the
                           Free Republic's forums. The statement is one of
                           hyperbolic outrage. This is not the same thing as
                           Ann Coulter calling for the the murder of USSC
                           justices, although in a way it is, because no one
                           with an ounce of sense believes anything she says
                           anyway.
                           \_ So when a lefty says something vicious and
                              stupid it is just hyperbolic outrage.  When
                              anyone on the right says something they're
                              evil and need to be sterilized.  Ok.  Got it.
                              Nothing like a double standard to help
                              rationalize away those logical inconsistencies.
                              \_ No, it's still vicious and stupid. It's just
                                 that those of us with sense know to take it
                                 as what it is: hyperbole. Same with Ann
                                 Coulter, really, only it's everything she
                                 says, not just those choice little nuggets.
        \_ Is this a hoax?  This would be the first time I've seen any media
           outlet anywhere (except maybe Fox News) have trouble "disparaging
           President Bush."
           \_ They don't want you to know this.  Shh.  -John
2006/10/27-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:45006 Activity:low
10/26   I really want to see Al Gore and Hillary run. Al Gore=pres, Hillary=
        vice, or the other way around. In either case, the pair would
        totally kick some serious ass.
        \_ Yeah except they've always hated each other.  And oh yeah, neither
           of them is electable.  And uhm, Hillary would never run as VP.
           And Gore's ego couldn't take a second loss and he knows it so he'll
           never run again.  And Hillary has 40+% negative ratings so the
           opposition candidates start at the 40% mark in the race to 50.1%.
           And Hillary has pissed off the left, the center and the right over
           the years.  Now that I think it, I agree with you.  I'd like to
           see them run together so we never have to see either of them in
           front of the camera again after they crash in a giant flaming pit
           of electoral failure.
        \_ yes, then we could have the second 'jewish' presidency, or would
           that be third (or fourth?)
           \_ wtf?
        \_ Are you trying for the least charismatic ticket possible?
           \_ Yes, but we couldn't get permission to dig up the corpse of Adlai
              Stevenson.
           \_ Hillary has quite high favorable ratings, especially for a
              politicians, so obviously a large minority find her charismatic.
              She also has quite high unfavorable ratings, but that is
              a different story...
              \_ No one finds her charismatic.  They like her politics (that
                 week).
        \_ ain't no way.  hillary was veep when bubba was pres.  who wants
           that again?  hillary is posturing along the m. thatcher model.
           \_ Uhhh, are you comparing Hillary Clinton to Margaret Thatcher??
              I think Thatcher might just rise from the grave to kick your
              ass.
              \_ I wish she would rise from the grave so I could kick her ass!
                 "Dad, you killed zombie Flanders!"
                 "Flanders was a zombie?"
2006/10/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Finance/Investment] UID:44972 Activity:nil 66%like:44988
10/25   http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/10/30/8391806
        Revolt of the fairly rich
        \_ Because they can best see the broken promises of the prior social
           order where "go to school, work hard = good retirement".
2006/10/24-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:44941 Activity:nil
10/24   Finally!  The Truth Is Out There!  http://www.uncoveror.com/index.html
2006/10/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:44933 Activity:nil
10/23   Daschle predicts Dems will take Senate with seven seats
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1724541/posts
        \_ He couldn't predict his own loss.
2006/10/23-25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:44931 Activity:nil
10/23   Rahm, DNC pitbull, stacks the deck in favor of conservative (D)
        candidates:
        http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/21/AR2006102101049_pf.html
2006/10/21-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:44904 Activity:nil
10/21   Maybe Clinton should have inhaled:
        http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/health/289205_alzheimer19.html
2006/10/20-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:44888 Activity:nil
10/20   Economic Hypochondriacs?  (George Will)
        http://csua.org/u/h9o
2006/10/12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:44798 Activity:very high
10/12   Give me a reason to not vote NO on every
        single Proposition on the ballot.
        \_ Because "no" really means "yes."  -Mike Tyson, Kobe Bryant, William
           Kennedy Smith, Arnold Schwarzeneggar, and John Mark Karr
           Kennedy Smith, Arnold Schwarzeneggar, and John Mark Karr (don't
           forget Bill Clinton)
           \_ Two of them are related.  Coincedence?
              \_ Mike Tyson is related to John Mark Karr?!?!?
2006/10/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:44698 Activity:nil
10/5    It is all Bill Clinton's fault:
        http://www.csua.org/u/h4e
        (But you knew that already, right?)
2006/10/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:44697 Activity:nil
10/5    http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/three_more_form.html
        "Three more former congressional pages have come forward ... Foley
        told [one page] that if he happened to be in Washington, D.C., he
        could stay at Foley's home if he 'would engage in oral sex'"
        \_ Now that Foley resigned, why are we still hearing about this?
           \_ Hastert still hasn't stepped down.
           \_ Because instead of acting like the conservatives they claim to
              be the (R) leadership acted like political party hacks instead
              and ran around covering their own hides instead of doing the
              right thing (which would've happened when they first found out
              about it, not a year later).  The sooner they're gone the better.
              \_ Hastert's defense is something like, "All I knew about were
                 about the inappropriate e-mails (asking for the student's
                 pic).  Foley was warned and we didn't hear anything more,
                 so that was it.  We had no idea he was talking about dick in
                 the e-mails / Internet messages."
                 \_ Hastert has no defense.  His term was wasted.  Time to go.
2006/10/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:44694 Activity:moderate
10/6    Oops, looks like the lurid IM messages ABC revealed with Foley were
        with an 18-yr old, not a minor:
        http://passionateamerica.blogspot.com
        \_ First of all, this is yesterday's news.  It is also yesterday's
           news that the messages occurred both before and after the
           kid's 18th birthday.  -tom
           \_ I've not seen anything with proof that any lurid messages
              happened before his 18th birthday.  Can you point me there?
              Also, the salacious details that are being used as ammo happened
              after the 18th birthday AFAICT.
              \_ Gee, no one has to prove anything to you.  The fact that
                 Foley resigned is sufficient proof.  -tom
                 \_ Maybe he resigned because he was trying to bang an 18
                    year old guy?  He isn't a Dem from the north east.  Where
                    he's from that sort of thing isn't ok even if legal.  You
                    have no idea why he resigned, just conjecture.  There's
                    also an issue of power here similar to Clinton with his
                    intern and every exec who has ever banged his secretary.
                    It really does matter how old the page was and when Foley
                    said what to him but I'm not surprised that someone looking
                    for the truth would get brushed off.  The truth is just
                    never as fun as making shit up.  --someone else
                    \_ well I'm sure the attorney general and the congressional
                       ethics committees will be sure to consult with all
                       the anonymous MOTD cowards, to be sure we get to the
                       truth.
                       Yes, my conjecture is that this is a big deal, or
                       else a self-righteous twerp like Foley would never
                       have resigned.  Anonymous coward's conjecture is
                       apparently that no messages to minors exist,
                       everyone who is saying there are messages to minors
                       is lying, and Foley resigned because he's a man of
                       such high moral standing that even the appearance of
                       impropriety was unacceptable.
                       Occam's Razor.  -tom
                       \_ Asserting things doesn't make them true.  -tom  9/28/06
                          \_ That's not an assertion, it's a line of reasoning.
              \_ If you think this is going to defuse the scandal, I've got an
                 excellent bridge in Brooklyn for sale.
                 \_ I don't care about the scandal.  I care about figuring out
                    what really happened.  ABC seems to be playing up the lurid
                    emails for ratings (putting politics aside), and
                    dishonestly connecting the minor-status of the page to the
                    IMs.
        \_ uh, like yesterday's post, age of consent is 16 in DC.  In DC, it's
           legal for a 50-year-old to have consensual sex with a 16-year-old,
           and it wasn't even real sex, and the cybersex was R-rated at worst.
           It should also be noted that the minimum age to become a page is 16.
           </troll>
           \_ I know people on the motd like to keep age-of-consent lists
              for all 50 states, but answer this: why is the FBI investigating?
              \_ see newest post at top
                 \_ That's what I was getting at.
                 \_ What post? I still don't get it. The biggest deal here
                    seems to be that this guy is gay. I thought democrats
                    like gays.
2006/10/4-6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:44678 Activity:nil
10/4    Bill Clinton endorses ubuntu:
        http://tinyurl.com/ky3ep (bbc.co.uk)
2006/10/4-5 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:44673 Activity:kinda low
10/3    The "Internet" will offer instant verification of claims made
        by politicians w/in 5 years according to Google's Schmidt:
        http://tinyurl.com/l4hsp (reuters.myway.com)
        ... "unless you're in China".
        \_ http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22the+largest+island+in+china%22&btnG=Search
        \_ http://tinyurl.com/jad3z (google.com/search)
        \_ The underlying assumption is that those telling you it is
           true or false are acting objectively.
        \_ Internet:  Did Bill Clinton have sexual relations with Monica
           Lewinsky?
        \_ Internet:  Did GWB plead out to a DUI to avoid a drug conviction?
2006/10/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:44657 Activity:high
10/3    I can't believe there exists gay Republicans. It's like, cows have
        wings and can fly.
        \_ Hello to David Dreier.
        \_ Are you kidding?  The hypocrisy of politicians is legendary.
           Republicans in particular.  The most anti-gay of them are
           gay themselves.  The most anti-corruption are taking bribes.
           The most 'pro family values' are the ones with mistresses.
           The anti-substance ones are addicts.  And so on, and on, and on.
           And even more so if they're religious.
           \_ Mmmm mmmm!!  I love the smell of a good rant in the morning!
           \_ and the former co-chair of the House Caucus on Missing and
              Exploited Children regularly engages in cybersex with high school
              students
        \_ Paging Andrew Sullivan.
        \_ Wealthy white males without children. I read somewhere that more
           and more gays are turning to the Republican party. It really
           represents their interests better than the Dems do. 25% of gays
           (lesbians included) voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, and the
           numbers are creeping higher: see Log Cabin Republicans.
           \_ "Really represents their interests?"  Are you insane?  Have you
              READ the Republican Party platform?
              \_ Reclaim the Panama Canal! Woohoo! *bang* *bang*
              \_ Their priorities are not what you think they are. Their
                 priorities are often national defense, small government
                 (which is *supposed* to be a Republican ideal), lower
                 taxes, big business, etc. Think Merv Griffin here.
                 \_ sorry, "keeping my sexual preference legal" trumps all
                    of that.
                    \_ is it preference or born like that?
                    \_ That's your own personal opinion not shared by all
                       gays and lesbians.
                       \_ right, and some poor blacks vote Republican, too.
                          The stupid ones.  -tom
                          \_ Such tolerance from the left. The Republicans
                             are, after all, the party of Lincoln.
                             \_ I'm sure blacks voted Republican in 1860.
                                (To the extent they were allowed to).  Let's
                                try to keep the discussion within the
                                most recent century.  -tom
                                \_ What makes you think you know what's best
                                   for poor blacks - all poor blacks, in fact?
                                   That's the main problem with liberals.
                                   They always think they know what's best
                                   for you.
                                   \_ Ah, right, and the conservatives are
                                      constantly responding to the needs of
                                      the people.  You're a moron.  -tom
                                      \_ Conservatives prefer to let people
                                         respond to their own needs and
                                         not call them 'stupid' if they
                                         have different priorities.
                                         \_ URL?  -tom
                          \_ Stupid because... the dems would make them not
                             poor? Or maybe not black?
                             \_ Stupid because the dems don't view poor
                                people as self-evidently lazy, criminal, or
                                both.  Stupid because Republicans constantly
                                attack social programs intended to help the
                                poor, because by conservative ideology, the
                                poor just don't work hard enough, so all they
                                need to succeed is fewer social programs.  -tom
                                \_ So you actually believe people are poor
                                   because they're lazy? Please look at the
                                   a documentary called Rebels With a Cause
                                   and The Weather Underground. A bunch of
                                   young leftists tried to help out the poor
                                   and for whatever reason (pride, resentment,
                                   etc) the poor simply rejected help from
                                   a bunch of rich yuppie kids. There's a
                                   saying that Republicans are Democrats
                                   that have yet to be robbed, and there's
                                   a lot of truth to that.
                                   \_ uh, no, I think that the conservative
                                      ideology is that the rich are rich
                                      because they worked for it, and the poor
                                      are poor because they don't work hard
                                      enough.  That ideology has no connection
                                      to reality.  -tom
                                   \_ I think the opposite is true. Democrats
                                      are Republicans that have yet to be
                                      robbed. Once they are robbed then
                                      see how quickly they are against gun
                                      control, light prison sentences, etc.
                                   \_ You got that saying backwards.  Carry on.
                                \_ Like Clinton's welfare reform which kicked
                                   how many people off the lists and put caps
                                   on how much help someone is allowed?  Or
                                   like how Dems are opposed to school vouchers
                                   because the fewer crappy public schools
                                   there are the less the teacher's unions can
                                   give to the Dems?
                                \_ Intended to help them, perhaps. They did
                                   pass that prescription drug plan so they're
                                   not as different as maybe you'd like to
                                   think. Anyway, this would be more useful
                                   if we chose one specific program that
                                   Rs attack and Ds support (or vice versa) and
                                   discuss the merits. I guess school vouchers
                                   is one. I used to be on the fence for that
                                   but now I think they'd be good. I know
                                   enough people who do home-schooling that I
                                   see a lot of potential for innovation in
                                   private education. Maybe you can offer some
                                   other examples. I've grown to be very wary
                                   of giant grabby bureaucracies which is what
                                   large government agencies or school systems
                                   become.
                          \_ The stupid and poor ones have more to gain from
                             meager tax cuts, because any amount will
                             largely affect their lifestyles.
                             \_ yeah, I'm sure removing the estate tax and
                                the capital gains tax will have huge impact
                                in Harlem.  -tom
        \_ this thread so needs to be jived, but I'm a coward
2006/10/3-5 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:44651 Activity:nil
10/3    Breaking news on http://abcnews.go.com:
        "FORMER CONGRESSMAN MARK FOLEY WAS MOLESTED BY A CLERGYMAN AS A
        TEENAGER AND IS GAY, ACCORDING TO HIS ATTORNEY"
        \_ And the Clergyman was a hardcore left-wing Democrat who supported
           evil Clinton so it is Democrats' fault afterall!
        \_ They're not sticking with the stock-and-trade conservative "alchohol
           made me do it but we should still be outlawing pot, but I'm checking
           myself into rehab so we can all forget about it" approach?
           \_ So, any kind of misconduct is excusable provided the committer
              was a victim?
              \_ Nahh, this is likely an attempt to turn this into a "gay"
                 scandal thus getting MORE Republicans to the polls rather than
                 less.
              \_ Maybe the priest was a Democrat, see it is the fault of the
                 Democrats after all!
           \_ Actually, they are - but with a twist.
2006/10/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:44637 Activity:nil
10/2    I knew somehow the Scientologists were involved
        in this Foley business:
        http://forums.dailyrotten.com/920/00022854/_index.html#287052
2006/10/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:44634 Activity:kinda low
10/2    Michael Scheuer (former head of the bin Laden unit) calls Clinton a
        flat-out liar.
        http://newsbusters.org/node/8034  (transcript and video clip)
        Last week, he also criticized Clinton's interview with Wallace (which
        Harry Smith of CBS was a bit flustered about):
        http://newsbusters.org/node/7871  (transcript and video clip)
        \_ i guess scheuer's views of the truth were insufficient to be
           included in the 9/11 report.  anyway, the report said Clinton had
           a "capture or kill" policy, and left it up to CIA (Tenet) to
           determine whether "capture" was feasible, and if not, the memo
           gave permission to kill.
           also note that the first opportunity to kill bin Ladin that Scheuer
           cites is one in which well over 200 innocent bystanders were
           estimated to have been killed, and that later intelligence appeared
           to show that bin Ladin left before the strike would have occurred.
           \_ The report was a political product.  I'm sure there's a fair
              amount of truth in it but you'll never get the whole truth from
              a public report like that.  Which is not to say that this guy
              is in any way honest or truthful.  I know nothing about him.
              But being included or excluded from the 9/11 commission report
              is insufficient to question his credibility.  --DA
              \_ Maybe he's been hanging out with Orson Scott Card,
                 Mr. "When Clinton Attempted to Kill Bin Laden, it was
                 Tryanny, but when Bush attempted it, it was awesome!!!!"
              \_ actually, he is in the report, as "Mike".  Search for
                 "wikipedia" in the first newsbusters link.
2006/9/28-29 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:44590 Activity:very high
9/28    Socialist Republican Gay Giuliani defending Democrat Commie Clinton:
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060928/ap_on_re_us/giuliani_clinton
        \_ Giuliani is as much of an R as Schwarzenegger -- in other words,
           not.  However, if his defense were legitimate, I'd accept it (not
           because I'm an R, but because the issue needs to be more important
           than partisanship).  Both Clinton and Bush deserve blame for 9/11,
           but Clinton should get the larger share since he had a lot longer
           and more opportunites to prevent it.
           \_ go read the book by Richard Clark.  He worked under Clinton
              and yes, he is a Republican.
           \_ Riiiight. since clinton has so much support "to prevent it".
              \_ Leaders lead.  Whiners whine.  "Ohn0es! I'm the most
                 powerful man on the planet but I can't do anything
                 because people might get upset and it might ruin my
                 legacy!"  Whatever.  Clinton as a retired President
                 would best serve his nation as most previous Presidents
                 have: go fishing, write a book, take a phone call here
                 and there and otherwise stop pretending he's still
                 President.  The endless defense of his "legacy" is
                 tiresome.  History will decide his legacy long after
                 we're all dead and it'll be whatever it is.  History is
                 not so easily spun.
                 \_ Clinton is (and has been) more productive as a former
                    president than your darling GW has done as president,
                    so there's no need even to look back at his legacy.
                     \_ You assume much.  Clinton has done nothing but nail
                        various women aroudn the planet and ass cover.  I'm no
                        cheer leader for anyone, unlike yourself.
                        \_ Proof-of-any-type for thatP
                           \_ Tell us what he's done that's been so productive.
                              You're not seriously disputing his running all
                              over nailing various women are you?  Or are you
                              saying he's restricted himself to his Canadian
                              lover?
                              saying he's restricted himself to his gya Canadian
                              Communist lover?
                              Socialist lover?
                              \_ From a purely proof-related perspective, this
                                 problem is best approached by defining what
                                 GWB has accomplished and then reviewing
                                 whether Clinton's accomplishment as a former
                                 President have exceeded that measurement.
                                 \_ From a purely proof related perspective
                                    you said Clinton had some sort of
                                    accomplishments in his post Presidency.
                                    Prove it.  Name some.  Name any.  Name one.
                                    Thanks for playing.  Play_Again_(y/N)_?_
                                    \_ If the value x of GWB's accomplish-
                                       ments is negative, then Clinton wins by
                                       doing nothing.
2006/9/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:44472 Activity:kinda low
9/20    http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2465303&page=3
        "Brilliant. I think he did a good job as president ... Had a little
        problem with the fucking honesty deal. And that gave me pause. But his
        presidency was successful." -O'Reilly on Bill Clinton
        \_ The invisible hand needs to give O'Reilly a spanking.
           --the invisible hand
           \_ What the hell is the invisible hand and why is it post so much?
           \_ What the fucking hell is the invisible hand and why is it post so much?
              \_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand
                 Those who pursue their own selfish interests also promote
                 the good of their community through a mechanism called "the
                 invisible hand. For example, Enron execs and the War
                 the fucking good of their community through a mechanism called "the
                 invisible hand. For example, Enron execs and the fucking War
                 in Iraq have helped countless individuals to become
                 millionaires.  The invisible hand theory is popular
                 amongst free-market believers like the Reagan and
                 amongst free-market believers like the fucking Reagan and
                 Bush worshippers.
                 \- see URL for berkeley connection to "rigorizing"
                    the invisible hand:
                    the fucking invisible hand:
            http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/01/05_debreu.shtml
              \_ It's like a Swiss Army knife.  It lest you make fun of the
                 motd's wingnut libertarians, make random mastrubation
                 references, and bizzare threats all at the same time!
                 references, and bizzare threats all at the fucking same time!
2006/9/19-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:44453 Activity:nil
9/19    http://csua.com/?entry=44444
        We broke the fucking 44444 barrier on motd! Horray for all Trollers of CSUA!
        \_ 4 means death in Chinese. That means the subject of thread #
        \_ 4 means death in Chinese. That means the fucking subject of thread #
           44444 must die die die die die!!!
           \_ 4444 would be a good name for a Chinese death metal band.
2006/9/19-22 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:44446 Activity:low
9/19    Coup attempt in Thailand:
        http://tinyurl.com/f6bj4 (bbc.co.uk)
        \_ Looking more and more like coup accomplished.
           \_ Funny thing, when I was there, one of our friends--a former
              army officer and the daughter of one of the governor--gave us
              the impression that the army wasn't really happy with Thaksin.
              Of course she was also an opposition politician, so YMMV.  -John
        \_ Can our military do the same thing to outst Bush?
           \_ Why would they?
           \_ I hope not. With Bush out of office, where will John
              Stewart and Stephen Colbert get their material?
                \_ The comedy sector of the economy recovered after the
                   great loss of Dan Quayle as VP.  There is always a more
                   clueless leader in our future.  Never give up hope.
           \_ Can the military do it? Probably. Will the military do it?
              Probably not. There are no MacArthurs in today's military.
              \_ Whoa there cowboy!  Mac was no coup attempting anti-American.
                 He was a loyal patriot who did his duty and stepped aside
                 when ordered so.  Wth did you get the idea Mac had any ideas
                 about taking over the US government or was in any way opposed
                 to the government?  He was GI all the way.
                 \_ There is plenty of evidence that MacArthur wanted to
                    defy the orders of his President
                    \_ "wanted to defy" is nothing like "wanted to overthrow"
                       and in any even it is established historical fact that
                       when he was essentially 'fired' and called home he
                       went with no real fuss.  he wanted to nuke china but
                       wasn't allowed to.  he wanted to do a lot of things
                       but followed orders.  sheesh, i cant believe this is
                       subject to debate.
                 \_ I am not saying that MacArthur had any designs on taking
                    power extra-constitutionally. I am saying that if a coup
                    was required, only MacArthur could have pulled it off.
                    \_ MacArthur could not have.  He did not want to.  He did
                       not try.  He did not talk in those terms.  He would not
                       have had the support of his generals, his staff, his
                       officers or his soldiers.  The very idea is completely
                       ludicrous from top to bottom.
                       \_ Think of the incident of the Bonus March. No one
                          but MacArthur would have done that.
           \_ None of you have served. Your oath is to the Constitution
              not to one man.
              \_ What do you mean?  You're saying the oath is not to Bush, so
                 the military can outst Bush?
                 \_ Does the const. give the military the power to
                    replace the CinC? No, that power rests w/ the
                    people via the Presidential election.
                    A more complex question is present if the Pres.
                    acts unconstitutionally (ie defies a USSC order).
                    \_ If you want to be really anal about it, the power to
                       elect the President comes from the states, not the
                       people.  "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as
                       the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of
                       electors..."  The Constitution does not mandate that
                       states hold elections to determine their electors.
                       \_ True.  Furthermore, the Constitution does not mandate
                          that the electors cast their votes for the
                          Presidental candidate which the majority of the
                          state's people prefer, or divide their vote
                          proportionally among candidates, either.  -- !PP
                    \_ Not much.  The same thing happens if the USSC or
                       Congress screws up.  Pretty much nothing.  Later
                       courts and congresses and presidents reverse earlier
                       decisions and life goes on.
                    \_ The const. in Thailand doesn't give their military the
                       power to replace their head of govt. either.  Yet it
                       still happens.
        \_ "The coup went largely unnoticed in Bangkok's popular tourist
           districts, where foreigners packed bars and cabarets, oblivious to
           the activity about two miles away. ...... Hundreds of people
           gathered at Government House taking pictures of themselves with the
           tanks."
        \_ Has the navy or the air force taken any side?
2006/9/11-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:44347 Activity:nil
9/11    "Path to 9/11" tanks.
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060911/ap_on_en_tv/aap_sept11_film
        'The movie was beaten soundly in the ratings by the regular-season
        debut of NBC's "Sunday Night Football," matching Peyton Manning of
        the Indianapolis Colts against younger brother Eli of the New York
        Giants.'
        \_ It's a shame we'll never know how it would have done before removing
           every reference to Lewinsky.
        \_ See the clips ABC removed because of Clinton's pressure:
           http://www.redstate.com/911clips
           (You don't have to read the commentary if you don't want to.)
        \_ I think this whole episode was just a threat by Clinton's
           jew handlers to keep Hillary and Bill in line.
2006/9/8-12 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:44322 Activity:nil
9/8     Where's the ACLU when you need 'em?
        http://reid.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=262624&&year=2006&
        \_ I see no traces of censorship.  Maybe you need to take off your
           blinders.
           \_ Agreed.
           \_ You don't think it's a bit odd that the senate leadership should
              recommend what a TV show should air or not air?
           \_ You don't think it's a bit odd that the democrat senate
              leadership should recommend what a TV show should air or not air?
              \_ You mean like when the republicans urged CBS not to air the
                 Reagan film?  Calling something "Based on the 9/11 Commission
                 Report" and then putting in crap that directly contradicts
                 their findings is utter crap, and they're right to call them
                 out on it.  This is walking the line of propoganda (which is
                 illegal, by the way).
              \_ Ever heard of Tipper Gore?
              \_ There is a huge difference between saying "I don't think this
                 is the right thing to do" and saying "You can't do this".
                 The former happens all the time in politics.  The latter is
                 censorship.  If you can't tell the difference, well you've
                 been living in a cave for what, 200 years?
                 \_ Oh, I can tell the difference.  But I think if Rebpublican
                    leadership did the same thing, the ACLU would be releasing
                    out the hounds.
                    \_ And I think I'm the Emperor of Mars, that doesn't make
                       me right.
                    \_ Not unless the GOP leadership actually had the show
                       banned. There hasn't been any actionable action taken
                       on this.
              \_ Hee hee.  http://www.tv.com/story/story.html&story_id=6213
                 "ABC/Disney acknowledges this show is fiction and in direct
                 contradiction of the 9/11 commission report and the facts,"
                 Clinton Foundation spokesman Jay Carson said in a statement.
                 "No reputable organization should dramatize 9/11 for a profit
                 at the expense of the truth."
                 So I guess Michael Moore sitting next to Jimmy Carter at the
                 DNC was....
                 \_ I didn't see F9/11. Did it somehow involve dramatizations
                    of 9/11?
        \_ You know, I've heard that the second night hammers the Bush
           administration pretty bad.  And yet I've heard of no objections from
           the right side of the aisle.
           \_ Is it accurate?  Is it false enough that it could be easily
              repudiated without exposing them to further, possibly unwanted,
              scrutiny?
2006/9/7-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:44303 Activity:nil
9/7     http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,212743,00.html
        See, it's Clinton's fault. Clinton was preoccupied with Lewinsky
        and thus failed to kill Bin Laden.
        \_ In at least one case, that's true.  The Clinton administration did
           miss several chances to get bin Laden.  Not because they wanted to,
           but because the risks at the time weren't considered worth it, and
           during the Lewinsky mess Clinton was in fact distracted.  Read
           "Dereliction of Duty" and "The Cell" for some of the details.
           \_ So Republicans sacrificed national security at the altar of
              Lewinsky by distracting the president?  Nothing new.
              \_ Wow.  Can you actually think for yourself, or are you this
                 bitterly partisan all the time?
              \_ Have you even read the Constitution? National security
                 falls under the Executive Branch.
              \_ Yes, playing "gotcha" with Clinton was more important to
                 the Republican Congress than national security. They are
                 still playing this game, it seems.
                 \_ Apparently, the Plame story was more important to the
                    lefties than security.
                    \_ what is the Plame story about if not security?
                       what is the case about?  REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION
                       INTENTIONALLY COMPROMISES AGENT.  Anyone NOT concerned
                       with this story is the one not interested in security-
                       you can't have it both ways, liar
                       \_ The Plame story was about the left wing media
                          inventing a story, an overzealous special
                          prosecutor who knew the truth persecuting innocent
                          people, and the non-victim and her lying husband
                          finally getting caught and the very very quiet
                          follow up from the media who owe Karl Rove and a
                          lot of other innocent people an apology.  What did
                          you think it was about?
                          \_ You know, I actually agree with this assessment
                             and I am a Bush hater.
           \_ As I understand it, every single time Clinton had a chance
              to kill bin Laden (other than Infinite Reach), the information
              was single-sourced or there were other circumstances inhibiting a
              clean kill.
              http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch4.htm
              \_ As well as having a standing order with the CIA to execute
                 kill or capture on actionable intelligence.
                 \_ You mean capture, and if CIA judges this is not feasible,
                    then kill.  But it's still a big deal anyway for the
                    President to order killing someone, but that was Osama
        \_ Two Buddhist monks, one young, one old, were walking when they
           came to the banks of river. A young woman, too small to ford the
           river by herself, was waiting for anyone to help her across. Without
           saying a word, the old monk put the woman on his back and carried
           her across. After he'd dropped her off, he and the young monk
           continued walking. Some miles later, the young monk said, "I can't
           believe you broke your vows and carried that woman." The old monk
           replied, "I carried her across the river and then I put her down.
           You've been carrying her in your mind ever since."
           Clinton got a blowjob and suffered. You're still suffering because
           you're jealous.
        \_ Clinton was preoccupied with occupying Lewinsky.
2006/9/7-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:44302 Activity:kinda low
9/7     http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/07/poll/index.html
        Clinton is Dem's favorite with virtually no chance of winning,
        and Gore is Dem's second favorite with Gore virtually no desire
        of running. This is the story of how Dems fuck it up for the
        third time. This is the story of '08.
        \_ As with Bill Clinton and Dubya, it is quite likely that the actual
           Democratic nominee in 2008 will be someone who is not on the radar
           screen in 2006.  -tom
        \_ Who is the GOP going to run against her? Rice? Clinton would win.
           John McCain is not nutty enough for the Religious Right, so he
           won't get the GOP nomination. Guliani is pro-choice and pro-gay
           rights, so he is too *gasp* "liberal." Who else does the GOP have?
           \_ George "Macaca" Allen. Rick "Don't get it on the sheets" Santorum
        \_ This isn't much, but my picks are:
           Hillary > Mark Warner, Edwards >> Feingold, in that order.
           (fyi, it turns out that the first three are tops on tradesports
           other than Gore, but I came to this independently)
           I would say Hillary in front with VP Warner; alternatively, Warner
           with VP Obama.
           Barbara Boxer is my secret "average American" Democratic candidate
                \_ If Barbara Boxer wins the Democratic nomination, the
                   Dems should just pack up and disband.  Nominating her
                   with her out-of-touch views and shrill personality would
                   be the stupidest thing the Dems have ever done.  Boxer
                   is so polarizing that she makes Hilary seem like a quiet
                   reasonable, helpful librarian type.
                   \_ yeah, and the Republicans have succeeded with
                      moderate, collaborative centrists like...uh...tom
                      delay and dubya.  -tom
                      \_ Sorry, pops, but recent history has shown that the
                         GOP can get away with ultra-conservatives and still
                         appeal to the unwashed masses of the South, Midwest
                         and Rocky Mountain states.  The Dems, however, have
                         to run a centrist candidate to have a shot.  Bill
                         Clinton is the only Dem to win the White House in
                         the past 30 years, and he did so as a centrist.
                         Real liberals like Mondale and Dukakis tried to
                         succeed...and were completely humiliated.  I foresee
                         something even more drastic if a born loser like
                         Barbara Boxer gets the nomination.
                         \_ To suceed in the long run, the Democrats need
                            to articulate and pursue their own agenda, not
                            become Republicans.  -tom
                            \_ Of course, but if that agenda only appeals
                               to 1% of the population, they will still
                               lose, no matter how well the pursue it.
                               lose, no matter how well they pursue it.
                               I'm sorry, but comprimising and coming to
                               the middle to form a consensus is what
                               democracy is all about.  If you
                               represent many Dems in beliving that
                               means "becoming Republicans", then the
                               party is truly hopeless.
                               \_ How many people do you think support raising
                                  the minimum wage?  National Health care?
                                  Keeping Social Security as it is?  Ending
                                  the war?  Take your 1% and shove it.
                               \_ Comprimising and coming to the middle is
                                  not how the Republicans got into power,
                                  and it won't be how the Democrats reclaim
                                  it.  I do not think it should be difficult
                                  to come up with a platform which is both
                                  truly distinct from the current Republican
                                  platform, and attractive to a large number
                                  of Americans.  -tom
                                  \_ That's exactly what they did, they
                                     didn't compromise with YOU, but they
                                     compromised with > 50% of the
                                     population.
                                     \_ No, that's not what they did at all.
                                        Republican policies do not serve the
                                        interests of most of the people who
                                        vote Republican.  Republicans did
                                        a lot of work on getting people
                                        to identify with their agenda; that's
                                        not compromising.  -tom
                                        \_ You're confusing what's going
                                           on now (when the Republicans
                                           are losing) with what was going
                                           on when they came to power.
                                           Remember the Contract with
                                           America?  The Rs are failing
                                           now because they aren't finding
                                           the issues that the majority
                                           people care about.  The Ds can't
                                           capitialize on it because
                                           they're even worse.
                                           \_ Voters *identified* with
                                              the rhetoric around the
                                              Contract With America--they
                                              didn't *care about* the
                                              Contract With America.  It's
                                              an important distinction.  -tom
                                              \_ I guess you're going to
        have to explain this more carefully, because I have no idea what
        you're talking about.
                \_ Most people don't vote on the issues; they vote for
                   the person they identify with most closely.  A
                   typical red-state hick doesn't really *care* about
                   flag burning, or gay marriage, or welfare moms.
                   When you survey people and ask what their most
                   important issues are, those are not the things that
                   come up.  But conservatives use those kinds of
                   issues to project an *identity* for themselves
                   which red-state hicks comprehend and identify with.
                   The liberal challenge is to come up with an identity;
                   right now there is no clear liberal identity which
                   voters can align with.  -tom
                   \_ What I can't understand is how they did that with
                      an Ivy league cheerleader rich boy from Connecticut
                      who used his dad's infulence to avoid military
                      service.
           who knows exactly what's going on and deserves a chance
           Definite no's:  Biden, Clark, Daschle, Kerry, Richardson
                \_ These guys are each superior by 10 times over the
                   opinionated, self-absorbed dunderdead that is Barbara Boxer.
                   \_ I think the key word here is your opinion that she is
                      a "dunderhead".  All those guys you mentioned are
                      opinionated and self-absorbed, except maybe not
                      Daschle on the self-abosrbed part.
           Gore isn't going to run.
           \_ I disagree.  Gore is starting at running back for the 49ers
              this season.  That's why they traded away Kevin Barlow to the
              Jets.
2006/8/25-29 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:44151 Activity:nil
8/25    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0609.dreyfuss.html
        Very interesting article on the Iraq Study (!Survey) Group
        "if the Democrats win back one or both houses of Congress in November,
        they would unleash a series of investigative hearings on Iraq, the war
        on terrorism, and civil liberties that could fatally weaken the
        administration and remove the last props of political support for the
        war, setting the stage for a potential Republican electoral disaster"
        (I came to the above conclusion some time ago, as well)
        \_ On the other hand, it could totally backfire on the Democrats as
           the Clinton impeachment did on the Republicans.
           \_ Dubya doesn't have Clinton's general popularity, but then again
              Bubba didn't have Dubya's mushroom cloud.
              \_ you mean the type of general popularity that got Clinton a
                 whopping 43% of the popular vote in 1992? Or the type that
                 got him 49.2% of the popular vote in the lowest voter
                 turnouts in decades? At least Dubya got >50% once.
                 \_ your first example is stupid.  you don't need me to
                    tell you why.
                 \_ ob stronger 3rd party candidates and pre-9/11 world
                    ob "general popularity" == approval rating
                    ob http://csua.org/u/grk (crooksandliars.com)
        \_ Why do the Democrats hate America?
           \_ Please explain to me how the Clinton impeachment backfired on
              the GOP. Although it did not achieve the stated goal of removing
              him from office, it sure did distract from his attempts to get
              his policies pushed through. -confused (and bitter) libdem
              \_ Well the GOP came across looking mean and spiteful and then
                 proceeded to take over all 3 branches of government for six
                 years.  That'll learn em!
2006/8/17-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:44062 Activity:nil
8/17    George Bush loves pigs
        http://youtube.com/watch?v=yBxbuweRFQQ
        \_ I think Merkel was having a flashback of when he molested her
           during this press conference.
           http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-wvX5tdVDc
           \_ I'm sure Clinton would have shown his 'staff'
2006/8/1-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:43861 Activity:nil
8/1     Bush successfully destroys the Army's readiness even more than
        Clinton was able to:
        http://www.csua.org/u/gl7
        \_ There was an article a little while back where a major (Marine?)
           base was unable to pay its electric bill because their funding had
           either been redirected, or not been approved.  Go go Republican
           Congress!
        \_ Yes.  Mission accomplished!  -proud American
2006/8/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:43857 Activity:nil 66%like:43880
8/1     Is Mel Gibson a NeoCon?
        \_ That depends on wheather you like him or not.
        \_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocon
           But don't forget, Neocon also == Jew according to some. So Mel
           probably isn't a Neocon. I doubt he thinks about politics much.
           \_ The only people who claim neocon == jew are people who are
              trying too hard to paint anti-neoconers as anti-semites.
              \_ I think there are also some members of the extreme right
                 who associate both the neocon project and Jews with the
                 New World Order, and so probably equate them.  That particular
                 breed of right wing nut does not appear on the motd, though.
        \_ Mel Gibson is an Aussie.  Foreigners out!  -proud American
2006/6/29-7/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:43526 Activity:kinda low
6/29    Supreme Court rules 5-3 that Dubya-installed GTMO military tribunals
        violate Geneva Conventions and U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice
        http://tinyurl.com/fmkxg (findlaw.com)
        \_ Sure, the court interprets laws, but... our new government,
           a different type of executive and the legislature will make
           the law.
        \_ John Yoo must be having a bad day....
           \_ Christopher Yoo is ready to bat
              http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=1969&wit_id=5481
              "First, I believe that the use of Presidential signing statements
              as legislative history is inherent in the system of checks and
              balances embodied in our Constitution. Second, I believe that
              Presidential statutory interpretation is also inherent in the
              President's role as Chief Executive. Third, I suggest that
              recognizing Presidential signing statements as legislative
              history would better promote the democratic process."
              http://law.vanderbilt.edu/faculty/yoo.html
              "A History of the Unitary Executive: Executive Branch Practice
              from 1789 to 2005" (Yale University Press, forthcoming 2007)
              \_ This would put an inordinate amount of power to ignore two
                 branches of goverment in the hands of the Executive Branch.
                 I agree that the Pres. needs power to make commentary on
                 legislation passed by Legislative, but to go beyond this
                 to dictating law is dangerous.
                 \_ Note also that the Executive is obliged to execute
                    faithfully the laws of the land.  His signing statements
                    have stated explicitely that he has no intention to do so.
                    People should be fucking pissed.  Some are.  Not enough.
                    \_ Don't worry.  This will all be corrected forthwith as
                       soon as a Democrat is elected as head of the Executive
                       Branch of govt.
                       \_ go look up the phrase, "stroke of the pen, law of the
                          land. cool!" then come back and tell us how dems are
                          morally superior and the great protectors of the
                          constitution.  power corrupts.  period.
                 \_ go look up the phrase, "stroke of the pen, law of the
                    land. cool!"
                    \_ Why do you hate Paul Begala?
                    \_ Go look up Washington Times, UPI, Moonies.
                       The quote is solid, yes; the implication that what Bush
                       has done through Exec Orders and signing statements is
                       somehow mitigated by Clinton's use of same is asinine.
                       \_ Bullshit.  You're putting words in my mouth.  Go
                          see all of 3 lines up where I made it perfectly
                          clear that "power corrupts".  The implication is
                          that this crap has been going on and will always go
                          on so long as there is power to be had.  If you don't
                          want abuses of power then there has to be less power
                          to abuse which means smaller government with less
                          federal control.  Having a Dem in office will change
                          absolutely nothing regarding power abuses.  What is
                          asinine is believing that members of the one party
                          are somehow saintly while the other party is full
                          of devils out to kill and eat people's children.
                          \_ While I will gladly apologize for mischaracter-
                             izing your use of a quote oft-used by GOP flacks
                             to demonize Clinton as an attempt to do just that,
                             I think your solution to shrink government is
                             short-sighted and will cause more problems than
                             it will fix. My original point (the one you
                             replied to with your quote) was that Bush has
                             used Exec Orders and signing statements to
                             place himself above the ability of the other
                             two branches to contradict him. This is much more
                             dangerous than what previous presidents have
                             done.
                             \_ Corruption builds upon itself over time.  One
                                guy gets away with X because we like him or we
                                like X that makes it ok, so the next guy does
                                X+1.  I don't think any one branch should be
                                put above any other beyond what the const. says
                                about checks and balances.  Thus, one abuse of
                                power is no 'better' or worse than any other.
                                It is an abuse of power.  As far as a large or
                                small government goes, the less there is to
                                abuse the less abuse there will be.  That seems
                                obvious to me.  If you're saying that there are
                                other problems a weak federal system would
                                cause, maybe so, that would have to be weighed
                                against the harm a strong federal system
                                causes.
                                \_ The problem with absolutes is that they're
                                   absolutely fallible. While I would agree
                                   with you that 99.9% of power abuses are bad,
                                   I think it's simplistic to say that there
                                   are no degrees of better and worse in
                                   regards to abuses of power. But better and
                                   worse are utterly subjective, so here's a
                                   clarification: Bush's abuses of power have
                                   done more to weaken oversight of the Exec
                                   Branch by the other two Branches than prev.
                                   abuses of power. In my mind, this is worse
                                   than prev. Admins' abuses of power because
                                   it robs the citizenry of a mechanism to
                                   ensure that such abuses are stopped; YMMV.
                                \_ As for smaller/no government (new thread),
                                   sure, the current fed system has problems,
                                   but I don't think those problems outweigh
                                   its benefits. I have yet to see an alterna-
                                   tive suggested that wouldn't lead to either
                                   anarchy, plutocracy, or corporate robber
                                   barons; if you have one that benefits all,
                                   I would be very receptive.
              \_ He will get spanked by the USSC, too.
2006/6/26-28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:43505 Activity:nil
6/26    Austrian Writer Peter Handke: Send my award to the Serbs
        http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1655863/posts
        \_ Please tell me why do you change it to an IP? Are you
           embarrassed about the source?
           \_ I sure as heck would be.
2006/6/23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:43488 Activity:nil
6/23    Khobar Towers
        http://www.iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2006&m=06&d=23&a=5
2006/5/30-31 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:43226 Activity:nil 80%like:43211
5/28    http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/11718.html
        Carter and Clinton the worst administration ever!
        \_ Well one guy started an illegal, unwinnable war, but... but...
           BLOWJOBS!
           \_ Yeah, we left Kosovo long ago. Such a cheery speech,
              National Malaise.
              \_ With full NATO involvement and cooperation.
                 \_ And a humanitarian goal that was actually achieved.
                   \_ By this you mean entrenching Iran and other
                       Islamicists in Albania's government and Montenegro?
                       Humanitarian indeed.
                       \_ had a bad day at the golf range, jblack?
                        \_ I was thinking more along the lines of stopping
                           ethnic cleansing.
        \_ Wow, Carter and Clinton on one ticket? I'd vote for that! --erikred
        \_ Wow, Carter and Clinton on one ticket? I'd vote for that!
           Also, I can understand IP addresses for freerepublic, but
           http://www.theconservativevoice.com Have some pride, child. --erikred
           [Posted because someone originally posted an IP address instead of
            the FQDN. Don't steal words from my mouth.]
2006/5/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:43211 Activity:high 80%like:43226
5/28    http://65.111.28.94/article/11718.html
        Carter and Clinton the worst administration ever!
        \_ Well one guy started an illegal, unwinnable war, but... but...
           BLOWJOBS!
           \_ Yeah, we left Kosovo long ago. Such a cheery speech,
              National Malaise.
              \_ With full NATO involvement and cooperation.
                 \_ And a humanitarian goal that was actually achieved.
                   \_ By this you mean entrenching Iran and other
                       Islamicists in Albania's government and Montenegro?
                       Humanitarian indeed.
                       \_ had a bad day at the golf range, jblack?
                        \_ I was thinking more along the lines of stopping
                           ethnic cleansing.
                           \_ We took the wrong side, if that isn't clear
                              by now.
        \_ Wow, Carter and Clinton on one ticket? I'd vote for that!
           Also, I can understand IP addresses for freerepublic, but
           http://www.theconservativevoice.com Have some pride, child. --erikred
2006/5/23-25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:43163 Activity:nil
5/23    RIP Lloyd Bentsen:
        http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5009840.stm
2006/5/22-28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:43146 Activity:nil
5/22    Ebert's amusing, positive, Da Vinci code review.  (spoilers)
        http://csua.org/u/fya
        \_ I watch ALL of Hanks' films. Why? Because Hanks is a Democrat and
           has supported many candidates, including Hillary Clinton, Dianne
           Feinstein, Al Gore, and John Kerry. Hanks is also a noted
           environmentalist who drives a hybrid car and is a member of the
           Nature Conservancy. He has appeared in radio and television public
           service announcements for the organization and even serves on the
           board of trustees in Idaho, where he has a home.
           \_ So you'd watch a Hanks film even if it sucked because you like
              his politics?  Why not just send a check to your favorite
              candidates?
        \_ that movie blew chunks, although the cut scenes to the past were
           cool.
2006/5/22-25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:43139 Activity:nil 80%like:43135
5/20    Say it ain't so!  A Democratic bribery scheme?
        http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12903856/?GT1=8199
        \_ Of course it's so.  However, note that no one is covering for him,
           helping his defense fund, etc. a la Delay/Cunningham/Ney.
           \_ When was Delay caught taking $100k cash bribes and taking money
              from both sides in multi national scams through shell companies?
              \_ When did WJC plead out to driving under the influence to
                 avoid a possible possession charge? Never.
                 \_ What's Clinton have to do with it?  Red herring.  The guy
                    got busted with $100k bribe cash in his house broken up
                    into $10k chunks hidden in his freezer.  How does that
                    compare to Delay, etc?  If you're going to compare someone
                    like Delay to this guy, please be prepared to make a case
                    for it.
                    \_ PP posted that this is different because no one's
                       trying to cover for him. You replied with a non
                       sequitur concerning whether DeLay was caught with
                       $100k in cash bribes. I'm pointing out that your
                       point is a non sequitur by posting a further non
                       sequitur.
                       \_ I wasn't non sequitur at all.  OP made a statement.
                          Followup was non sequitur mentioning Delay, etc.  I
                          pointed that out.  Clinton?  Non sequitur.
                          \_ OP posted about a Democratic bribery scheme,
                             which in the charged environment of the motd is
                             tantamount to saying, "See? It's not just the
                             GOP." Followup pointed out that noone was saying
                             this was a uni-partisan issue, just that the
                             GOP has an outstanding track record of covering
                             for each other when their dirty laundry comes out,
                             which in this case the Dems demonstratively were
                             not doing. You then compared particulars of the
                             crimes rather than the cover-ups, which is a
                             non-sequitur. I then successfully diverted you on
                             this inane argument about non sequiturs.
                             Mission Accomplished.
                             \_ I skipped straight down to your last sentence.
                                If you spent more than ten seconds of your
                                life on this you already lost.
              \_ When will your brain develop beyond a 3rd grader's level?
                 Never.
                 \_ This made me laugh.  Going off like a 3rd grader was
                    ironic.  Were you going for satire or something or really
                    meant this?
                    \_ 1) You're not worth the effort of satire, and 2) what
                       you said was truly idiotic, as pointed out above.
                       \_ 3) Profit!!!  See above about the 10 second rule.
        \_ "All but $10,000 was recovered on Aug. 3 when the FBI searched
            Jefferson.s home in Washington. The money was stuffed in his
            freezer, wrapped in $10,000 packs and concealed in food
            containers and aluminum foil."
           C'mon, people, surely you can do better than "hiding" it in your
           freezer!
           \_cold hard cash?
2006/5/13-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:43045 Activity:low
5/12    http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/12/bush.clinton.poll
        Clinton vs. Bush. Most recognize that Bush is a lousier president
        than Clinton, but there are a few that still prefer Bush because
        he doesn't let interns suck his dick.
        \_ It's a shame prefer bush just for that reason. I can't believe
           they'd rather have the countrier in poorer shape than to have
           a president who got it on with an intern.
        \_ I prefer Bush because he doesn't allow his main campaign
           contributors to steal all of the US's nuclear weapons
           secrets, but I'm eccentric like that.
           \_ So do you believe that if nuclear secrets were kept tight,
              no one else outside the US would ever be able to develop
              their own nuclear programs because everyone else is stupid?
              \_ This has got to be a troll.  No one on soda is really
                 this stupid, are they?
                 \_ jblack is not stupid. jblack is resolute. firm. believes
                    in virtues and stuff like that, yet does not have the
                    capacity to think from the other person's perspective.
                    unable to socialize with the people around him, yes,
                    but dumb, he is not, for he solves difficult
                    engineering problems.
                    \_ Actually, I was refering to "no one else would ever
                       develop their own nuclear programs" strawman guy.
                       That strawman was posted by a moron.  Why does
                       everyone think the "sold nuke secrets" guy is
                       jblack?
                       \_ Because according to the write log files, he editted
                          a file called "abortion". Then at 21:00:32 he
                          editted /etc/motd.public using vi and pasted exactly
                          3 lines starting with "I prefer Bush...", and did
                          so within 4 seconds.                   -Motd CIA
           \_ You're not eccentric. You're a fucking jblack.
           \_ Yeah, you "let" people set up espionage rings to steal
              nuclear secrets.  Moron.  -John
              \_ What John Says:
                   "Yeah, you "let" people set up espionage rings to steal
                    nuclear secrets.  Moron.  -John"
                 What jblack hears:
                   "blah blah blah blah KLINTON espionage rings blah blah
                    nuclear secrets. blah blah blah.   -John
                   "blah blah blah blah Clinton espionage rings blah blah
                    nuclear secrets. blah blah.   -John"
                   "blah blah blah blah Clinton espionage rings blah steal
                    nuclear secrets.  bhlah.  -blah"
2006/5/11-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:43016 Activity:nil
5/10    NSA Has Massive Database of American's Phone Calls
        http://csua.org/u/ftd (Yahoo! News)
        \_ Need the phone records for a terror suspect?  No need to present
           evidence to the phone company to get 'em -- you already got it!
           The last thing we need is a mushroom cloud over a major American
           city.
           \_ What, you're willing to trade any freedom, tolerate any
              oppression, just so that someone can't nuke a US city?  Guess
              what:  they'll still be able to nuke the city, but politicos
              will be able to use the information for personal purposes.
              Just look at the antics of the FBI under Hoover.
              \_ I like how Al Franken put it this morning:
                 "What President Bush doesn't realize is that the next guy in
                 office might not be as trustworthy as him ..."
                \_ he's right. it's gonna be Hillary.. we are all screwed
                   \_ Man, berkeley's standards seem to get lower every year.
                      \_ Seriously, pp doesn't even remember history from
                         8 years ago.
           \_ obTrollbait.
        \_ http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/11/105237.shtml?s=ic
           Carl Limbacher of http://newsmax.com says, "USA Today NSA Scoop Not News".
           Now tell me what's wrong with this article.
           \_ OMG!!!11! it's all CLINTON'S FAULT!!! WHY DIDN"T I THINK OF THAT?
              Fuck off and die.
           \_ I'm replying to myself, but key problems with the article are:
              (1) The Clinton-era program had FISA approval and focused on
                  international surveillance
              (2) The program under dispute is ALL domestic.
              (3) Qwest asked for a FISA review before turning over records,
                  but the NSA didn't want to ask FISA.
              (4) Dubya is trying very hard not to let this undergo judicial
                  scrutiny, perhaps not until a Democrat takes power, to
                  decide the issue of whether the "unitary executive" theory
                  enables Dubya to break laws as commander-in-chief in a time
                  of war ("interpret differently via signing statement")
                  \- have you read the standard article on signing statements?
                     http://csua.org/u/ftr
                     i had not really heard of them until last year. these
                     seem crazy to me ... consdered in light of say
                     CLINTON v CITY OF NEW YORK. --psb
                     \_ yep.  the interesting aspect to me is the different
                        ways they've been keeping it from judicial review.
                        \- the new view of limited govt: no judicial review.
                                \_ We'll just limit the government part that
                                   keeps the other government part from
                                   becoming unlimited.
2006/5/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42967 Activity:nil
5/7     AN APOLOGY FROM A BUSH VOTER

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

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

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

        If the Right Wing talk radio blowhards have turned against him,
        is impeachment really that far feched a possibility?
        \_ You obviously have been paying attention politics only as far
           as Clinton. The constituents of talk show hosts (left or right)
           are not the same as the members of Congress. Things move slower.
2006/3/17-20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42290 Activity:kinda low
3/17    Conservatives use "starve the beast" logic when they want to cut taxes,
        But if they  really want to starve the beast, than, why raise the
        debt limit?
        http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/17/news/budget.php
        \_ its pretty clear they just want to cut taxes, and keep spending up
          (just redirect it to Bechtel/Halliburton, and other 'contributors').
          This is perfectly in line with raising the debt limit.
        \_ That brings the per-capita federal debt to what, $30,000 per person.
           (note thats not per taxpayer)
        \_ They just used the fiscal conservative strategy to get elected,
           they don't actually believe it.
        \_ Duh, the strategy is to fuck it up so bad, that when the Dems assume
           power the economy will be all fucked up AND they'll have to raise
           taxes, which sets up the Republicans for the next election.
           \_ Sounds like what Clinton did to his successor.
              \_ You seem to be forgetting the gigantic surplus which seemed
                 to dissapear so quickly after 9/11.
                 \_ Yeah, you mean when the bubble popped.
                    \_ With the tech bubble, 9/11, and post-9/11 security
                       overhead as excuses, I can give tax cuts to my biggest
                       political donors and run horribly executed projects both
                       foreign and domestic, and I'm still completely covered
                       as far as my base is concerned!  Go dubya!
              \_ ^Clinton^Bush Sr.
                 \_ Maybe in your reality.  According to the National Bureau
                    of Economic Research, the Bush Sr. recession was from
                    7/1990 to 3/1991, so it ended way before the Clinton
                    presidency.  The Bush Jr. past recession was from 3/2001
                    to 11/2001, so it started right after the Clinton
                    presidency.  http://www.nber.org/cycles.html
                    presidency.  The Bush Jr. recession was from 3/2001 to
                    11/2001, so it started right after the Clinton presidency.
                    http://www.nber.org/cycles.html
        \_ Because they're not conservatives.  They're Republicans.
        \_ http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385518277
           Impostor : How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the
           Reagan Legacy
2006/3/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:42185 Activity:nil
3/10    The Clinton National Security Scandal and Coverup
        by Sen. James N. Inhofe - Senate Floor Statement
        June 23, 1999
        http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1580901/posts?page=39#39
2006/2/27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:42022 Activity:nil
2/27    Al Haig, Bill Clinton and the COSCO deal
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1586548/posts
2006/2/25-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42006 Activity:high
2/24    Only their bumper stickers remain, like cockroaches after a
        nuclear holocaust.
        http://csua.org/u/f3a (BBC)
        \_ Hi! I'm a lazy English journalist who doesn't know shit about America
           but wants to keep getting paid to tell whacky stories about whacky
           Americans!  There are a lot of important things that could be said
           by a real journalist about how fucked the Democratic party is right
           now, but this ain't it.  Thanks for wasting my time.
           \_ Anytime, humorless motd guy!
        \_ Hey, jblack, I found a great new site for white people like you
           and me: http://www.natall.com
           \_ Hey, idiot, the above was not posted by jblack.
              \_ That's right, it's posted by our other conservative
                 friend, jrleek the good Mormon.
2006/2/24-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41996 Activity:high
2/24    http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2006/financesurvey.pdf
        Income gap continues to widen.  Check out the huge difference
        between median and mean incomes and net worths.  Average (mean)
        family income dropped 2.3% from 2001-2004 after inflation adjustment.
        \_ So what is wrong with that? The rich got richer through
           Reagon's new tax cut initiatives in the 80s. Money trickled
           down to the poor, stimulating an economic boom never been
           seen in the history of US. Unfortunately the Clinton
           administration unfairly took credit for it all. Why do
           you hate rich people? Are you a communist?
           \_ if history is any guidance, the poor will eventually rise up
              and overthrow the rich.  Do you want that to happen?
           \_ When did you stop beating your wife?
              \_ the political slant of motd today is: ultra socialist
                 left. Why do you guys encourages lazy people to be even
                 lazier? A great man once said, self-reliance, lower tax,
                 free-market, family values, small government, and fiscal
                 rectitude will save America. The fact of the matter is,
                 commu-socialist programs don't work. Never has, never will.
                 \_ unfortunately the current administration is fiscally
                    irresponsible, corrupt, expanding government, cutting
                    taxes for the rich mainly and taking away assistance
                    for those who want to get an education.  Clinton was
                    the one who cut welfare and forced lazy people to
                    \_ Yeah that was in his agenda from the get-go, he
                       also secretly wrote the Contract With America.
                       \_ Was that before or after he invented the blowjob?
                       \_ congress can make a lot of noise.
                       \_ exactly.  congress can make a lot of noise.
                          but the president gets the job done.
                    get jobs.  And he kept government spending in check:
                    http://tinyurl.com/nuo8b
                    The average American is self reliant and not lazy,
                        \- in what countries are
                           people lazy "on average"?
                           \_ are you implying that peoples of different
                              countries all work equally hard?
                    yet his income has been falling.  As for good ole'
                    Christian family values, sorry, but lying, giving
                    money to Halliburton, torturing people, and
                    eagerness to go to war doesn't cut it.
                    eagerness to go to war don't cut it.
                 \_ The fact of the matter is, the average American are
                    some of the most hardworking and self reliant people
                    in the world, yet their income is falling.
           \_ Average income going down... why do you hate average people?
        \_ BUSHNOMICS WORKS!!!!!! I JUST REFI'D MY MCMANSION TO BUY A
           PORSCHE!!!  FUK OFF COMMMIE!!!!!!11!!!!
2006/2/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:41896 Activity:high
2/16    The China Connection
        A chart of Chinese front companies operating within the United States
        http://www.fas.org/news/china/1999/chinaconnect.pdf
        Why Able Danger Was Scrapped: The China Connection
        http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1579772/posts
        \_ hello jblack
2006/2/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:41877 Activity:nil
2/15    'Able Danger' Identified 9/11 Hijacker 13 times
        http://csua.org/u/ezw
        \_ Why do they keep saying "Clinton era" lawyers? Why didn't the
           Able Danger guys try to get permission to contact the FBI after
           Bush was sworn in? Or did they and the "Bush era" Justice Dept
           lawyers denied them, too? If so, why isn't that being reported?
        \_ jblack posted this.
2006/2/15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:41855 Activity:low
2/15    What if Gore had won in 2000?
        http://csua.org/u/ezj [Editorial by founder of the John Locke Society]
        \_ He's probably right that divided gov't works better historically,
           but I wonder if everything would be gridlock right now?  At any
           rate, this quote is damned statistics:
           "He observed that from 1993 to 2001, federal spending on defense,
           entitlements, and domestic discretionary programs all fell as a
           share of GDP."
           GDP did crazy things during the tech boom.
           \_ Government is supposed to be gridlocked.  Haste in changing
              laws should require a mass consensus.
           \_ The GDP growth rate since 2003 has been the same as it was
              from 1995-2000. The actual number of federal government employees
              dropped during the Clinton Administration, too. This is not
              a damned statistic, but a rare event.
              \_ Starting with the White House Travel Office.  ;-)
2006/2/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:41811 Activity:moderate
2/11    "Oh, and the President was arrested for murder.  More on that
        tomorrow night, or you can turn to another channel." -Kent
        \_ Truth stranger than fiction:
           http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4707354.stm
        \_ It can't be a murder. It gotta be a suicide, by two control
           shots in the back of his head.
           \_ He fell down an elevator shaft and landed on some bullets.
        \_ I don't know much about hunting, but I thought it's standard bird-
           hunting procedure to never point your shotgun near level or lower
           when you're aiming, let alone when pulling the trigger.
           \_ Pretty much.  But they were Quayle hunting, and I think
              Quayle tend to stay fairly low to the ground.
           \_ Pretty much.  But they were quail hunting, and I think
              quail tend to stay fairly low to the ground.
2006/2/8-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:41762 Activity:kinda low
2/8     Coretta King's funeral was attended by four presidents.  Was there
        anyone else, beside incumbent or ex- presidents, who ever had such
        honor in his/her funeral?
        \_ did you watch the CNN commentary?  did you hear the broadcaster
           making snide comments about hillary clinton running
           for president?  couldn't they have waited till after
           the funeral?  bleah.
           \_ I read the Yahoo news article and most speakers were trying to
              make their political points in the funeral.
              \_ "most"?  Do you know who Coretta King is?  What she did?  What
                 her friends who spoke there do?  Do you even know why you're
                 upset that any of them brought up politics?  You're extrapo-
                 lating a few seconds in a multi-hour service into a molehill
                 lating a few seconds in a multi-hour service into a scandal
                 because you've been told that's what happened.
                 \_ Of course I know.  Coretta is Rodney King's wife.  (Geez.)
              \_ Oh my god, the funeral of someone who spent their life
                 fighting political battles had eulogies that we about
                 those exact same battles.  How DARE they!
                 \_ And yet they won't let me piss on Reagan's grave...
        \_ Four Presidents and a Funeral.
        \_ Four Presidents and a Funeral.  Where's Monica?
        \_ I'm not 100% but I think several world leaders and presidents
           attended MacArthur's and Patton's funerals.
2006/2/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41745 Activity:nil
2/7     http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm
        "She extended Martin's message against poverty, racism and war. She
        deplored the terror inflicted by our smart bombs on missions way afar.
        We know now that there were no weapons of mass destruction over there,"
        Lowery said.
        The mostly black crowd applauded, then rose to its feet and cheered in
        a two-minute-long standing ovation.
        A closed-circuit television in the mega-church outside Atlanta showed
        the president smiling uncomfortably. ...
        \_ fyi, for posterity, according to the CNN video, the applause lasted
           for ~ 15 seconds, and the reverend didn't appear to expect it.
           also, it appears the applause was much greater for Bill Clinton. -op
           \_ This is precisely why Drudge is useless.  Did he "nod his head
              toward the row of presidents..." on the "misdirection" line in
              your viewing?
2006/2/2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:41675 Activity:nil
2/2     http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/02/02/obit.clinton
        Clinton is dead! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaa
2006/2/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:41650 Activity:nil
2/1     "I think the speech was wonderful. I am so thankful that the president
        always remembers to thank our troops and our fallen heroes. I met
        the president at Ft. Bragg and he promised me that we would not pull
        out of Iraq until the job is done, so that my son would have not lost
        his life in vain. He always continues to keep that promise. He had
        me in tears. It amazes me how the democrats can make such fools of
        themselves. There was one shot of Hillary Clinton rolling her eyes.
        What a wonderful president she would be!"                Pat
2006/2/1-3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:41633 Activity:nil
2/1     So, when is the gubmint gonna give me my "direction and love"?
        I'm tired of getting romance advice from motd.  I want it straight
        from Laura's mouth.
        \_ that's what mr. clinton said
           \_ Mr. Clinton wants it straight from Laura Bush's mouth?
              \_ Hot interpartisan sex!
2006/1/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41511 Activity:nil
1/24    Culture of life!
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060124/ap_on_he_me/epa_human_testing
2006/1/21-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:41473 Activity:low
1/21    It's a GOP scandal, even the National Review admits:
        http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200601100816.asp
        \_ I'd be perfectly happy if all the corrupt garbage from both
           parties got banned from public office and lobbying forever.
           Most of Congress wouldn't be there and we could get a fresh
           start.  Anyone there for more than 1 or 2 terms is dirty but
           due to the way the two party system is designed and controls
           election districts and voters being morons, nothing will change.
           Who said the line about democracy being great until the people
           figure out they can vote themselves goodies?  That's where we
           are now and this Abramoff thing is just the tip.  I am shocked
           not that this is going on but that anyone is actually taking it
           seriously.  Where do you all think a ton of ex-politicians and
           ex-staffers go when they're not in power?  They become rich
           lobbyists.  What do you think lobbyists do?  They "buy influence"
           which is also known as "bribing politicians".  Is anyone else
           here honestly surprised this is going on?  Does anyone here
           honestly believe Abramoff is the only one bribing politicians
           or that only one party is guilty of taking bribes?  This is how
           Washington is run.  Every few years someone gets busted, they
           make a few new ethics rules for everyone to ignore and a few
           people return a tiny bit of their dirty money and life goes on.
           This is all bullshit and going nowhere.  Nothing is going to
           change, just the names.
           \_ I don't think anyone is genuinely surprised. This may turn out
              to be a way to tone down the usual corruption, or it may just
              be a hiccup in the status quo. Either way, it's not enough to
              simply recognize that this is the was it's been and then shrug
              our shoulders and live with it. Opportunities like this are a
              way for the few clean people to finally shake out the rug. Please
              don't let your politics-weary cynicism blind you to the few
              chances we have to make it right, or it will never get there.
              \_ Too late.  This turned into a political point score fest
                 on day one.  Maybe the *next* corruption scandal will be
                 different.
                 \_ "political point score fest" and cleaning up corruption are
                    not mutually exclusive.
        \_ and the Washington Post peevishly agrees: http://csua.org/u/eqc
        \_ The article fails at the end with its argument where it argues
           politicians shouldn't justify bribes because they make less
           money compared to their private counterparts. If government
           wants politicians to not take bribes, then government really
           needs to compensate them adequately.
           \_ Cops get paid much less than politicians, but there are still
              very very honest and hardworking cops.  I used to work out at
              a place that was mostly cops, and I was very impressed by the
              work ethic and sense of duty and porfessionalism some of these
              people have.  They really don't get paid all that much, and unlike
              politicians, they put their lives on the line every day, yet
              somehow our society comes up with some decent hardworking, honest
              ones who aren't on the take.  Why is it that cops can do this, but
              politicians can't?  Maybe it's because people like you have
              decided it's ok.
           \_ I couldn't help but rape that woman your honor!  Look what
              the slut was wearing!
           \_ If you can't argue with the statement that it's a Republican
              scandal, attack the article on some other grounds.  It's an
              opinion piece. TNR articles are. The point of the motd post is
              that even a conservative editorial admits the fact that
              Abramgate is a Republican scandal.
           \_ Ignoring that your post is a red herring, our argument puts the
              horse (or rather, horses' asses) before the cart. If people
              want to become politicians, they should learn to accept that
              their rank and power more than make up for a lack of monetary
              recompense. If they can't live up to the perhaps superhuman
              responsibility of living by a strict code of ethics, they
              should quit. Really, it's not as if they're not getting paid
              more than enough to live on already.
2006/1/18-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41424 Activity:moderate
1/18    "I predict to you that this administration will go down in history as
         one of the worst that has ever governed our country."
        -Hillary Clinton (Jan 18, 2006)
        \_ I predict to you that Hillary Clinton will foolishly run for
           the president and fail, setting up for another four years of
           GOP incompetence that will go down in history as the worst
           platform that has ever controlled our country.
           \_ I predict that she will not even come in second in the primary.
           \_ President Hillary Clinton. Get used to saying it, because
              you will be saying it for eight long years.
              \_ Just because someone *really* wants power *really* badly
                 doesn't mean we should give it to them.  Quite the opposite.
                 It'll be interesting if she does run and some how gets
                 nominated for the (D) party.  She has never gone through the
                 journalist gauntlet.  Never been in a public debate of any
                 note.  Never really had to do any of the things experienced
                 politicians normally have to go through to get into the top
                 levels of politics.  No polish.  The (R) would have to find
                 a child raping axe murderer to lose to someone so poorly
                 prepared for a brutal Presidential bid.  I'm not sure why
                 you'd want a President who didn't earn it but whatever.
                 \_ As opposed to Dubya?  What would "we" need to do, have
                    millionaires give Hillary an oil company, a baseball
                    team, and a magazine to run into the ground first?  -tom
                    \_ What "we" are you talking about?  If the (D) party had
                       put up a human being instead of a self righteous "I'm
                       owed the Presidency" plank of wood, Bush would've been
                       crushed.  They put up the proverbial axe murdering
                       child rapist and lost.  Big deal.  Kerry was even
                       worse.  He only happened through Dean's "Yeaaarrrggh!"
                       fluke, and the idea that "Even though we think he's
                       an idiot we think he's got the creds to beat W so let's
                       nominate this guy we don't otherwise believe in".  He
                       was the only available candidate in 04 worse than Gore
                       was in 00.  Going back a bit we can see Dole was also
                       only running because "it was his turn" just like Gore
                       and he got crushed and rightly so.  Bush I was busted
                       on stage looking at his watch during a debate.  Clearly
                       not interested and out of touch.  Crushed.  Rightly so.
                       Attacking a former candidate or President doesn't make
                       Hillary a better candidate or more Presidential for the
                       future.
                       \_ I realize that this puts me in a small minority, but
                          I genuinely liked and believed in Kerry.
                          \_ I'm not saying he had zero real supporters just
                             that the typical noise at the time (on the motd
                             and other places) was "We don't like him but we
                             think his war record can win enough middle ground
                             people to beat W".  Very cynical and not a very
                             good way to choose a candidate.
        \_ If we ever managed to uncover all of the backroom bullshit
           corporate and private selling out that's going on?  That might be
           true.  Will history reveal all that?  Probably not.
           \_ Why do you hate America?
           \_ Why do you think any of this is somehow a new thing?  You think
              politics was clean and money free until January 2001 when it
              suddenly all magically changed?  Status quo.
        \_ BUSHCO is worse than Nixon, Hover and Grant? WOW.
           \_ Nixon was embarassing.  Hoover probably was swamped by
              inexorable market forces.  Grant allowed all kinds of
              corruption and failed to win the Reconstruction, but those
              racist southern bastards were probably gonna do all that shit
              one way or another anyway.  BUSHCO has mushroomed our national
              debt and deficit in addition to discarding our civil rights,
              making "USA" synonymous with "torture", alienated most of
              our allies....  It'll take two generations to undo the damage
              BUSHCO has caused.
              \_ Well this is an improvement.  Weren't you saying last year
                 it would take "many" generations?  So things are better
                 now.  All we need to do now is stay the course.
                 \_ Because clearly motd consists of only two people, so
                    naturally....
                 now.  All we need to do now is stay the course.
                    \_ Same phrasing.  Likely the same person.  And certainly
                       coming off the same DNC talking points memo either way.
                        \_ I never weighed in on BUSHco before.  I wrote the
                           above.  I read google news and don't watch much TV,
                           that is how my opinions are formed.  If I echo DNC,
                           then maybe the liberal media conspiracy is true,
                           OR maybe I came to my conclusion above independently.
              \_ Nixon was embarrassing? Do you even remember watergate? Nixon
                 ran roughshod over the constitution to cover the asses of his
                 campaign staffers, &c. He directed the intelligence services
                 to cover up these crimes.
                 In contrast, BUSHCO has been overtly working for the defense
                 of the REPUBLIC.  Even if this effort has enriched them pers-
                        \_ Plame?  Halliburton?  Misleading us about WMD?
                           \_ I'm not PP.  With that in mind:
                              Plame: stupid but not the first time someone in
                              government outted an agent.
                                \_ Not the last either for BushCO (see Khan)
                              Halliburton: what about it?
                              Misleading: this is so beaten to death.  Every
                              western government and spy agency in the world
                              believed it at the time.  Let the horse die.
                 onally, the primary focus has been on the safety and security
                 of Americans. Arguably they have used poor judgment in many
                 situations, but their motivation is not overly criminal as
                 Nixon's was.
                        \_ Blameworthy as Nixon was and non-criminal as this
                           administration is, BUSHCO has done more real harm
                           to our international image (torture, lies about WMD)
                           and to our long-term finances than Nixon did.
                           I stand by what I say:  Nixon was embarassing,
                           BUSHCO has done massive harm.
                           \_ I find it curious that people seem to think the
                              US had some sort of golden image around the
                              world pre-Bush.  The US not only had a history of
                              but an active and intentional policy throughout
                              the Cold War of supporting thugs, dictators and
                              drug dealers as long as they were OUR thugs.  I
                              don't see any change for the worse in terms of
                              how the US deals with the rest of the world.  At
                              least we now give lip service and sometimes
                              actually do something to push better ideals than
                              we have in the past.
                 \_ So says you. I suspect that when we really find out the
                    extent of the NSA wiretapping, it will turn out to be
                    much worse than anything Nixon did. Using the NSA to
                    spy on your political opponents, things like that...
                    And the Valerie Plame coverup is pretty criminal as well.
                    Not like the Watergate coverup, but pretty bad.
                 By most stds, the Grant admin was the epitome of poor mgmt.
                 His VP had accepted bribes (let's see some proof that Cheney
                 has been bribed), his brother-in law was taking bribes and
                 giving him bad advice, the Treasury Dept. was taking bribes,
                 the Sec. of War was taking bribes, &c. You are willing to
                 write this all off as southern bastards acting normally, but
                 you won't write off BUSHCO as southern bastards? Sounds like
                 a double std to me.
                 I noticed that you didn't include Hoover. Why? Perhaps the
                 Depression and his failure to deal w/ that were maybe just a
                 BIT worse than ANYTHING BUSHCO has done?
                 BTW, I completely left out any reference to the Alien and
                 Sedition acts, which were at least as bad as the Patriot Act.
        \_ Are people too young to remember living under Carter?
           \_ Much better to flush $2-$3 trillion down the toilet instead of
              spending it on switching on renewables.  God will provide more
              spending it on switching to renewables.  God will provide more
              magic oil!
              \_ Apparently, yes, you're too young to remember Carter.
                 \_ Nope, I'm not.  He may not have managed things well,
                    but he was the last President to tell the truth on
                    energy.
                    \_ You win this week's Motd Blue Ribbon For Understatement!
                       Carter "may not have managed things well, but...".  How
                       old were you when that loser gave the infamous "malaise
                       speech"?  How old during that little itty bitty
                       "Hostage Crisis" thing?  How badly were you hurt from
                       double digit inflation?  You may have been alive but
                       you don't remember.
                        \_ Get ready for more maliase, and this time the
                           energy crisis is a permanent one.
                           \_ Is this the Peak Oil thing again?  So if Carter
                              "told us the truth about energy" back in 76-80,
                              what did Reagan x2, Bush I, Clinton x2 do about
                              it differently that saves them from your scorn
                              yet Bush II is deserving of it?  Actually, since
                              we're here, what did Carter do about it?
                                \_ Carter put programs in place to start moving
                                   the nation away from oil dependency, which
                                   Reagan quickly abandoned.  Fortunately for
                                   Reagan, the oil bonanza that followed saved
                                   our asses.  That oil bonanza is rapidly
                                   fading ... Like I said, none of the
                                   Presidents after Carter dealt with the
                                   problem or admitted to it.  I blame all
                                   them for the position we are in.  However,
                                   Bush's wasteful spending is using money
                                   that could be used to get us out of the
                                   situation, that's all.  Hence the flushing
                                   of money down the toilet.
                                   \_ Ok, I looked this up.  Carter's plan was
                                      essentially: conserve/reduce usage, burn
                                      a lot of coal, insulate homes, create a
                                      strategic oil reserve, put solar on 2.5
                                      million homes by 1985.  Today: cars burn
                                      less gas, we tried to not burn coal until
                                      more recently when cleaner burning tech
                                      could be put in place, homes and all new
                                      construction are insulated, we have a
                                      strategic oil reserve.  I have no idea
                                      how many homes have solar but people can
                                      get it if they want to.  Which parts of
                                      the plan got ditched?
                                      I found several sources but it was all
                                      nicely summed up here:
                    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/filmmore/ps_energy.html
                                      So, where were we?  Oh yes, Peak Oil and
                                      Carter's energy policy.  What about it?
                                      What did Carter do besides depress
                                      everyone and lead poorly?  Check out
                                      some of the quotes in this classic:
                    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/filmmore/ps_crisis.html
                                      Jimmy, where are you now?  We need you!
                                      Oh yeah, you're out there putting your
                                      stamp of approval on stolen elections in
                                      South America.
                                      \_ If the GOP hadn't gutted the Carter
                                         CAFE standards and written an exemption
                                         literally large enough to drive an
                                         SUV through, Americans would be using
                                         1/2 the gasoline we do today. Gasoline
                                         is 1/2 of our total energy consumption
                                         so we would be using 25% less oil.
                                         This is most of our imported oil.
                                         We would be in much better shape if
                                         we hadn't catered to the oil and
                                         car interests.
                                         \_ I gave you a detailed summary of
                                            his energy plan and 2 URLs straight
                                            from Carter's speeches which you
                                            couldn't bother to post in the
                                            first place so I looked it up for
                                            you.  Now you give more
                                            unreferenced noise and
                                            speculation.  Put up for shut up.
                                            If you're going to defend a useless
                                            wanker like Carter, you need to
                                            prove your statements.  I'm not
                                            doing any more of your research
                                            for you.
                                            [Actually, I lied.  I looked up
                                             CAFE and it predated Carter]
                                     http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/auto/cafe.html
                                            So, Carter didn't even do CAFE.
                                            What did Carter do?
                                            \_ See above. He implemented
                                               stringent CAFE standards, just
                                               like I said. Do you really have
                                               this tough a problem with the
                                               English language?
                                               \_ Stringent is a relative
                                                  term.  Go find us the actual
                                                  standard and we can then
                                                  all decide how stringent
                                                  they are.  The concept
                                                  sure as hell wasn't his and
                                                  if his only claim to fame
                                                  in 4 years in office was to
                                                  pick highish CAFE numbers
                                                  in 1978 after being in office
                                                  ~2 years then we sure as hell
                                                  didn't need him.  Any random
                                                  beaurocrat could've picked a
                                                  number.
        \_ "When you look at the way the House of Representatives has been
           run, it has been run like a plantation, and you know that I'm
           talking about."
                \_ It's spin unless you include the second half of that
                   thought.
                   \_ The second half?
                        \ "It has been run in a way so that nobody with a
                           contrary view has had a chance to present
                           legislation, to make an argument, to be heard."
                           \_ Gosh!  Imagine that!  When you have a government
                              system with 2 major parties, the party out of
                              power can't get their agenda through!  Shocking!
                              Were you equally upset about the 50 years the
                              Democrat party ran the show while Republicans
                              got sidelined?  Sheesh, read a civics book.
                              Hillary said a stupid thing and barely got
                              called on it.  This time.  All this idiocy will
                              come back later though.  Always does.
                                \_ Of course, but the media is "enraged" about
                                   the plantation bit, not the whining that
                                   the Democrats can't get their agenda
                                   through.
        \_ President Hillary Rodham Clinton. Get used to saying it
           because we will be saying it for eight long years.
                \_ Good news for Republicans ... Osama bin Laden is saying
                   new attacks are planned for the United States.  Voters
                   will be scared and vote in more right wingers promising
                   to take away our liberty for security!
                   \_ The rest of the Osama tape saying essentially, "we offer
                      you a truce to rebuild Afghanistan and Iraq" which sure
                      sounds like weakness and surrender.  This is much more
                      likely to be played as "See?  We're winning, now we just
                      need to stay the course and finish them off" than "OMG!
                      We're going to get hit again eeeek!"  But, yes, anytime
                      Osama spews forth it is bad for the Democrat party.
                      \_ He's always offering compromises that sound
                         "reasonable".
                         But of course if we meet offer #1 then immediately
                         there will be offer #2 until offer #n which is "the
                         whole world is a Muslim theocracy ruled by me"
                         \_ Of course.  I don't think it'll be portrayed like
                            that by either party or anyone in the media,
                            though.  Dealing with someone like Osama just isn't
                            an option.  So the discussion will be on what it
                            means that he said it.  I'm surprised he's still
                            alive, simply due to age, stress, and poor living
                            conditions but that's another story.  I don't
                            think he's in a position to negotiate anything
                            even if he was a reliable treaty partner and we
                            actually wanted to talk with him.
                      \_ It's "Democratic" party.  Not "Democrat" party.
                         \_ I have a term paper due in a few months.  Will you
                            spell check that for me, too?  Thanks!
                            \_ If you post it to MOTD, I'm sure we'd have a
                               blast editing your term paper for you.
                               \_ Holy crap!  This could be really entertaining!
                                  Why not let the motd collectively write
                                  your paper?
                                  \_ Meh, I've generally found that MOTD has
                                     the collective creativity of a kumquat.
                                     We're quite creative provided we have
                                     something to start working on, though....
2005/12/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:41037 Activity:high
12/15   Clinton vs. Giuliani 2008
        \_ Clinton vs. Rice
        \_ Pepsi vs. Coke.
        \_ Yermom vs. Todo el Mundo
        \_ Tastes great vs...
        \_ Kirk vs. Khaaaan!!!!
        \_ Bring back Powell!!!
           \_ He was never interested.
2005/12/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41032 Activity:high
12/15   Yeah, Congress has the same access to intelligence as the President...
        Except for the fact that they don't.
        http://feinstein.senate.gov/crs-intel.htm
        \_ Why would you expect them to have the same access?  The
           intelligence agencies are part of the executive branch, which
           has a responsibility at very least to restrict access to primary
           material which may identify the source of that material.  I can
           understand arguing about whether the President restricts access
           to intelligence too much or too little, but asserting that
           Congress should have exactly the same level of access as the
           President seems misguided.
           \_ I wouldn't "expect them to have the same access".  But that's
              exactly what the president has used recently to defend his war.
              He said that they had the same information on Iraq that he did
              for their debate on authorizing war in some highly misguided
              effort to create some large scale mea culpa.  It's what he's
              hinged every speech this week on.  He's a liar.
              \_ Did he hinge that on congress *always* having the same access
                 or having the same access before the war?
                 \_ "One of the blessings of our free society is
                    that we can debate these issues openly, even in a
                    time of war. Most of the debate has been a credit
                    to our democracy, but some have launched irresponsible
                    charges. They say that we act because of oil, that
                    we act in Iraq because of Israel, or because we
                    misled the American people. Some of the most
                    irresponsible comments about manipulating intelligence
                    have come from politicians who saw the same
                    intelligence we saw, and then voted to authorize
                    the use of force against Saddam Hussein. These
                    charges are pure politics."
                    \_ Right, so we're talking about pre-war intelligence
                       there, not current intelligence.
                       \_ I don't see what you're getting at.  Do you?
                       \_ Which we know was not distributed equally before
                          the war.
                          \_ We do?
                             \_ Of course.  We know now, therfore we must have
                                known before.
                                \_ Not to mention that Bush is personally
                                   knowledgeable of everything known and done
                                   by people in the executive branch.
                                   \_ He may not be knowlegable, but, whether
                                      he likes it or not, he is responsible.
                                      it's his fucking administration.
                                      \_ No no no it's Clinton's fault somehow.
                                      \_ No, I agree completely.  Bush should
                                         be held accountable for the actions
                                         of his administration.  However, I am
                                         a little confused.  I thought here
                                         we're taking him to task for claiming
                                         Congress had the same access to
                                         intelligence.  So is he at fault for
                                         making a claim when he didn't know
                                         the facts, making a claim when he
                                         should have known otherwise, or making
                                         a claim when he did know otherwise.
                                         And how do we decide which one that is
                                         from the available information?
                                      \_ No no no it's Clinton's fault somehow.
                                         \_ Ah, the old "is he a liar, or is
                                            he just incompetent" question. I
                                            posit it REALLY DOESN'T MATTER.
                                            And How do we decide?  We tell
                                            Congress (who is the only party
                                            with the ability, not to mention
                                            the DUTY to do so) to find out.
                                            \_ You mean we shouldn't just hang
                                               him first?  I'm pretty sure
                                               we're going to hang him first
                                               and determine the facts later.
                                               \_ He's not a carjacker, son.
                                                  He's the president, and the
                                                  only body qualified to
                                                  investigate is sitting on
                                                  their hands.  In such an
                                                  event, saying "wait for
                                                  the facts" is unpatriotic.
                                                  \_ Wow.  Maybe the truth *is*
                                                     out there!  Have you been
                                                     talking to jblack about
                                                     the black helicopters
                                                     circling overhead?  You
                                                     think that's part of the
                                                     Congressional plot to
                                                     sit on the impeachment too?
                                \_ Yes we do. The PDB for example, is not
                                   shared with Congress. Are you really this
                                   ignorant or are you playing faux naif?
                                   The President knows he has access to
                                   information that Congress does not have,
                                   too, so he just lying his ass off now.
                                   \_ You know, I'm pretty sure Bush isn't
                                      telling the Congress what he's getting
                                      the wife and family for Christmas too.
                                      So the question is not whether Bush knows
                                      something the Congress doesn't, it's
                                      1. whether Bush knows something material
                                      that the Congress doesn't, and 2. whether
                                      Bush knows that the Congress doesn't
                                      have access to that material information.
                                      In the case of the daily briefing that
                                      you specifically mentioned, you will
                                      have to show that the relevant bits in
                                      the briefing do not eventually reach
                                      the Congress.
                                      \_ http://tinyurl.com/94otb
                                         \_ So you have one website quoting
                                            another website plus some
                                            conjecture.  Wow.  You have me
                                            totally convinced now.  Do you
                                            information reguarding black
                                            helicopters that are equally
                                            helicopters that is equally
                                            persuasive?
                                            \_ http://csua.org/u/eco
                                               Second paragraph. Look this is
                                               shooting fish in a barrel.
                                               \_ OK, by abandoning your first
                                                  website I assume you agree
                                                  that your first reference is
                                                  silly.  Great.  We're making
                                                  progress.  Now let's look
                                                  at this one.  On 9/5/02,
                                                  Graham & Co demanded to
                                                  see the National Intelligence
                                                  Estimate.  3 weeks later
                                                  (I assume that's 9/26/02),
                                                  Tenet produced one.  One
                                                  10/10/02, Congress voted
                                                  to approve the use of force.
                                                  What's your point again?
                                                  \_ There is overwhelming
                                                     evidence that you are
                                                     wrong. I am just posting
                                                     it as fast as I can
                                                     google it:
                                                     http://csua.org/u/ecp
                                                     \_ To quote your reference,
                                                        "The report does not
                                                        cite examples of
                                                        intelligence Bush
                                                        reviewed that differed
                                                        from what Congress saw.
                                                        If such information is
                                                        available, it would not
                                                        be accessible to the
                                                        report's authors."
                                                        That Bush had
                                                        information unavailable
                                                        to Congress is a given.
                                                        The question is whether
                                                        the information was
                                                        material, and you
                                                        have yet shown nothing
                                                        to substantiate that
                                                        claim.
                                                        \_ You are trying to
                                                           use the fact that
                                                           the White House
                                                           classifies any
                                                           information that
                                                           proves that it is
                                                           lying as evidence
                                                           in *favor* of their
                                                           claim? Bizarre.
                                                        \_ At least you are
                                                           admitting that Bush
                                                           lied about this.
                                                           Now we are getting
                                                           somewhere.
                                                           \_ I think I agreed
                                                              half a page up
                                                              that Bush must
                                                              know something
                                                              the Congress
                                                              doesn't.  The
                                                              question is
                                                              whether it's
                                                              material, and so
                                                              far claims of
                                                              "overwhelming
                                                              evidence" have
                                                              been under-
                                                              whelming.  All
                                                              you have shown
                                                              are unreferenced
                                                              claims and
                                                              innuendoes.
                                                  \_ Did you even bother to
                                                     read the second paragraph
                                                     in the above cite?
                                                     "However, this
                                                     declassified version was
                                                     more like a marketing
                                                     brochure: 20 pages in
                                                     length, slickly produced
                                                     with splashy grahics and
                                                     maps, and with none of
                                                     the caveats contained in
                                                     the original...The
                                                     intelligence material
                                                     Congress had was what the
                                                     administration was willing
                                                     to give them, namely a
                                                     promotional piece whose
                                                     lies of omission outweighed\
                                                     what was included."
                                                     \_ [Sorry, broke up your
                                                        post to respond to
                                                        your points separately.
                                                        Hope you don't mind.]
                                                        The full classified
                                                        version was available
                                                        to House and Senate
                                                        intelligence committee
                                                        members.
                                                        \_ Right, but that
                                                           is not Bush's claim.
                                                           He claims "all 100
                                                           Democratic members
                                                           of Congress" had
                                                           He claims "more than
                                                           100 Democrats"
                                                           in Congress had
                                                           access to the same
                                                           material he did.
                                                           http://csua.org/u/ecq
                                                           \_ Boy, do you even
                                                              read your own
                                                              references?
                                                              1.  Your quote
                                                              is completely
                                                              misleading and
                                                              *invented*.
                                                              Please use
                                                              quotations
                                                              correctly.
                                                              2.  I assume
                                                              you mean "more
                                                              than 100 Democrats
                                                              in the House and
                                                              Senate".  OBTW,
                                                              *that* is a
                                                              correct and non-
                                                              misleading quote.
                                                              3.  Next
                                                              paragraph from
                                                              that quote, the
                                                              article article
                                                              specifically
                                                              mentioned the
                                                              daily briefing,
                                                              but it's not
                                                              clear if relevant
                                                              info from that
                                                              made it into
                                                              reports in other
                                                              forms, and the
                                                              National Intel
                                                              Estimate, which
                                                              even the artcile
                                                              agreed were
                                                              available to
                                                              the Congress
                                                              before the vote.
                                                              4.  Given that
                                                              you have proven
                                                              to be dishonest
                                                              by inventing
                                                              quotes on the fly,
                                                              why should I even
                                                              waste my time with
                                                              you?  Please addr
                                                              point 4 before
                                                              more arguments.
                                                              5.  I see that
                                                              you've now gone
                                                              back to "fix"
                                                              your quote.  Again
                                                              why should I waste
                                                              my time with some-
                                                              one shown to be
                                                              dishonest and
                                                              without honor?
                                                              \_ Blow it out
                                                                 your ass. I
                                                                 was trying
                                                                 to quickly
                                                                 summarize my
                                                                 points. I did
                                                                 not sub-
                                                                 stantially
                                                                 change any
                                                                 meaning
                                                                 (Congressmen
                                                                 for members of
                                                                 The House and
                                                                 Senate). Why
                                                                 should I waste
                                                                 my time with
                                                                 a crybaby?
                                                                 \_ Right.  You
                                                                    made up a
                                                                    quote (and
                                                                    there is a
                                                                    substantive
                                                                    difference
                                                                    between
                                                                    "all 100"
                                                                    and "more
                                                                    than 100"),
                                                                    got caught.
                                                                    You went
                                                                    back to fix
                                                                    it without
                                                                    admitting
                                                                    responsi-
                                                                    bility, and
                                                                    got caught
                                                                    again.  Now
                                                                    you're
                                                                    indignant.
                                                                    Do you have
                                                                    *any* honor?
                                          That was a typo that I corrected _/
                                          before you even finished with
                                          your counter to it. Your argument
                                          on the facts has failed, so you
                                          have resorted to ad hominem, I
                                          understand. Another nail in the
                                          coffin of your claims that the
                                          Congress had all the same intel
                                          as the White House:
                                       http://feinstein.senate.gov/crs-intel.htm
                                          \_ This is getting *so* tiresome.
                                             I agreed a page up that Bush has
                                             info the Congress doesn't.  Now
                                             show that this info is material.
                                             You still have nothing.  How about
                                             a quote from Feinstein's website?
                                             Have you learned how to quote now?
                                             Something like "Bush knew X, but
                                             this was not known to the Congress
                                             at the time.  If this were known,
                                             the vote might have been
                                             different."  That would show that
                                             the info was material.  You picked
                                             the Feinstein site.  Don't you
                                             have *anything*?
                                             \_ The "material" bit is your
                                                trip, not mine. I don't know
                                                if it would have changed enough
                                                votes to stop the war or not.
                                                But I do know Bush lied when
                                                he claimed that Congress had
                                                access to the same info (on
                                                Iraq, to be pedantic) as he did.
                                                \_ I take it that this means you
                                                   *can't* find a reference
                                                   that Congress is missing
                                                   material information.  If
                                                   you don't limit yourself
                                                   to material information, then
                                                   the statement is silly.  Of
                                                   course Bush knows stuff the
                                                   Congress does not.  I mean,
                                                   did Bush tell the Congreess
                                                   when or with whom he lost
                                                   his virginity?  So you are
                                                   limiting the info to info
                                                   on Iraq.  Isn't that a
                                                   material test?  Should Bush
                                                   tell Congress what his fav.
                                                   Bagdhad restaurant is?  If
                                                   he didn't, would you hang
                                                   him for lying?  You keep
                                                   saying you know Bush lied.
                                                   How?  On what?  You made a
                                                   specific claim.  Now please
                                                   make specific charges.  Some-
                                                   thing like "Bush knew X, but
                                                   Congress didn't or didn't in
                                                   time".
                                                   \_ Reread the Washington
                                                      Post article. Basically
                                                      anything that contradicted
                                                      the case that the WH
                                                      was trying to make was
                                                      withheld. There is
                                                      literally hundreds of
                                                      pages of it (far too
                                                      much to try and post
                                                      here). One example
                                                      noted in the WaPo article:
                                       "For example, the NIE view that
                                        Hussein would not use weapons of mass
                                        destruction against the United States
                                        or turn them over to terrorists unless
                                        backed into a corner was cleared for
                                        public use only a day before the
                                        Senate vote."
                                                      \_ To address your quote
                                                         specifically, note
                                                         that NIE info was not
                                                         available for "public
                                                         use".  Meaning the
                                                         info was available to
                                                         the Congress, but the
                                                         Congressman was not
                                                         allowed to release
                                                         it to the public.  Now
                                                         how does that prove
                                                         your point?  Re the
                                                         rest of the article,
                                                         it was either the
                                                         Congress did not have
                                                         enough time to review
                                                         the NIE (from your
                                                         earlier time line I
                                                         would guess the
                                                         Congress had 2 weeks),
                                                         or there must have
                                                         been *something*
                                                         missing.  What
                                                         something?  Specific
                                                         charges please.  I'll
                                                         keep trying to help
                                                         you.  Something like
                                                         "Bush knew X, but the
                                                         Congress didn't or
                                                         didn't in time."  When
                                                         you have X, then you
                                                         have something.  Until
                                                         then, your claim is
                                                         worthless.
                                      \_ Bush didn't say "something material"
                                         he said Congress had the same
                                         information we did. We know the PDB
                                         had information on Iraq. Q.E.D.
                                         \_ Now you're being silly.  Yes, I
                                            am certain Bush isn't telling
                                            the Congress what he's getting
                                            the family for Christmas.  I bet
                                            he didn't even tell the Congress
                                            when and with whom he lost his
                                            virginity!  Impeach the bum.  How
                                            are those black helicopters coming?
                                            \_ You are grasping at straws here
                                               and I think you know it. We
                                               are talking about Iraq here,
                                               not Christmas lists.
                                               \_ Hey, you're the one who said
                                                  "Bush didn't say 'something
                                                  material'".  I was just
                                                  follwing your when I started
                                                  on Christmas lists and
                                                  virginity.  Now show me
                                                  that the daily briefing
                                                  information didn't eventually
                                                  reach Congress.
                                                  \_ Believe it or not, I do
                                                     not have the security
                                                     clearance to track this
                                                     kind of thing. Your blind
                                                     faith in the White House
                                                     is kind of touching.
                                                     \_ No, not blind faith in
                                                        the white house at all.
                                                        If I am guilty, I am
                                                        guilty of blind faith
                                                        that you could not
                                                        possibly prove what you
                                                        are trying to claim.
                                                        \_ I think you are
                                                           saying the opposite
                                                           of what you intend.
                                                           \_ You know, you're
                                                              right.  Mea culpa.
2005/12/1-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:40805 Activity:kinda low
12/1    The gropenator chooses a Dem for his new chief of staff:
        http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/13923851p-14760887c.html
        The quotes in the article, however, make her sound like a DINO, tho
        her bio reads very liberal.
        \_ She was the executive director of CA NARAL.  That's about as liberal
           as you get.
           \_ on one issue.  She also voted for all 4 of Arnold's amendments.
                             \_ Which were endorsed by every liberal paper in
                                the state.
                                \_ which is, perhaps, a hint that they're not
                                   all that liberal...
                                   \_ especially considering all 4 failed.
                                   \_ That's a nice definition that might keep
                                      you happy (if they support those 4 props,
                                      then they're not liberal).  But the Chron
                                      and LA Times are far left.
                                      \_ No, they aren't.  Try the Manchester
                                      \_ Your claims of "far left" are fatuous.
                                         You don't seem to know what it actually
                                         means.
                                      \_ No, they aren't.  Try the SF Bay
                                         Guardian if you really want the loony
                                         left.
                                         left. [thanks for the edit, asshole]
                                         \_ Should have said left, not far
                                            left.  And I didn't edit your post.
                                            -pp
              \_ Yeah, but it's the PETA of that issue.
        \_ It hardly matters who the governor is, who they appoint or anything
           else in CA.  This state is gridlocked.  The course is set and the
           boat is too big to turn.
2005/11/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:40748 Activity:nil
11/26   http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176728,00.html
        Clinton lied too. Bosnia took 9 years, not 1.
        \_ Really? And how many sucide bombers killed Bosnians in that time?
        \_ Cf. Korean War: 55 years of American troops presence.
2005/11/16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:40617 Activity:nil 80%like:40570
11/15   http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/8/93515.shtml
        Bill Clinton: Immigration Crackdown Hurting U.S.
2005/11/13-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:40570 Activity:nil 80%like:40617
11/8    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/8/93515.shtml
        Bill Clinton: Immigration Crackdown Hurting U.S.             -jblack
2005/11/13-18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, ERROR, uid:40568, category id '18005#13' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40568 Activity:nil
11/11   http://nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200511110833.asp
        If Bush lied, it stands to reason that Democrats who followed
        are all naifs, foolishly drawn to the seductions of a charlatan. -jblack
2005/11/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:40472 Activity:low 50%like:40463
11/6    Anyone else watch the live West Wing debate? Pretty amazing.
        I've been checking some of the facts they mentioned in the debate
        and it seems to be mostly true. Although Mexico sometimes imports
        more oil to the US than Canada.
        \_ I watched it, it was very cool.  My roommate and I were actually
           fairly suprised that they incorporated some contemprary issues
           into the debate and it seemed to live in our world and not so much
           the artificial world of the west wing. -mrauser
        \_ Which party is the ruling party in West Wing?  Who plays the
           liberal and who plays the conservative?  I don't watch the show.
           \_ Well, it up to this point in the show has parralleled the
              Clinton presidency (Democratic president, dual republican houses
              in congress).  Just look on http://nbc.com if you want the cast.
                -mrauser
2005/11/4-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40446 Activity:low
11/4    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1515823/posts
        New Republic article condemning Libby indictment
        (compare this with the http://findlaw.com article)
        Rosen:  "In fact, there's strong reason to conclude that no underlying
        crime was committed."
        Dean:  "In short, because Libby has lied, and apparently stuck to his
        lie, Fitzgerald is unable to build a case against him or anyone else
        under Section 793 [the Espionage Act]"
        \_ While that's the analysis of many conservatives, Fitzgerald believes
           he was obstructed in his investigation (and he was the one charged
           to the the real analysis).  And last I checked, that /is/ a crime.
           -emarkp
           \_ yah, not disagreeing with you, Rosen's point was there was
              no "underlying crime", besides the crime of perjury/etc., which
              he pretty much discounts to support his dubious thesis:
              "... [Fitzgerald] succumbed to the old temptation to indict
              otherwise innocent officials for misleading him and his
              investigators reminds us, once again, that the entire apparatus
              of special prosecutors is a menace."
              Of course, Dean's point is that there may have been an underlying
              crime, which is violation of the Espionage Act, and that it
              looks like Libby is protecting Cheney.
           \_ yah, not disagreeing with you, but Rosen's argument can be summed
              up as:
              (1) "Strong reason" to think there was no underlying crime.
              (2) Perjury/etc. is not really serious.
              (3) Therefore, eliminate special prosecutors.
              Dean's argument is:
              (a) By reading the indictment, Fitzgerald thinks there may be an
                  underlying crime of violating the Espionage Act.
              (b) Perjury/etc. prevents this determination.
              (c) It looks like Libby is protecting Cheney from (a).
              \_ On another front, Larry Wilkerson, Powell's former CoS, said
                 today that he has a paper trail that links Cheney directly
                 to the prisoner treatment guidelines.
                 \_ I read that.  He said he "had" a paper trail.  He got it
                    when he was trying to figure out this mess with Powell
                    when he was still Sec State.  Wilkerson says he no longer
                    has access to those documents.
              \_ Right, and I desagree with (2).  Dean seems to be completely
                 nuts--do you mean the Intelligence Identities Protection Act
                 of 1982?).  The text of that act says the agent must be
                 "serving outside the United States or has within the last five
                 years served outside the United States."  From what I've seen
                 Plame doesn't qualify.  That means that the spirit of the
                 law may have been violated but no crime under that act could
                 have been committed. -emarkp
                 \_ From the findlaw article:  "Count One, paragraph 1b ...
                    'As a person with such clearances, LIBBY was obligated
                    by applicable laws and regulations, including Title 18,
                    United States Code, Section 793, and Executive Order
                    12958 (as modified by Executive Order 13292), not to
                    disclose classified information to persons not
                    authorized to receive such information, and otherwise to
                    exercise proper care to safeguard classified information
                    against unauthorized disclosure.' ...
                    What is Title 18, United States Code, Section 793? It's
                    the Espionage Act -- a broad, longstanding part of the
                    criminal code."
                    != Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
                    (it's good that you asked!)
                    \_ Thanks for clarifying.  I'll have to read the findlaw
                       article more carefully. -emarkp
                       \_ yeah, I'm confused why everyone was talking about
                          the 1982 act (which would be hard to prove a
                          violation of) when there should clearly be a broad,
                          all-encompassing law covering release of classified
                          information.
                          \_ That confusion is by design.  That's how this
                             administrations' propaganda machine operates.
                             \_ So David Corn (author of "The Lies of George W.
                                Bush") is an administrative lackey?  He
                                apparently was the first to raise the question
                                of the 1982 act.
                                \_ So, soda user, now you see that evil will
                                   always triumph, because good is dumb.
2005/11/4-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40437 Activity:high
11/4    New Poll Shows Majority of Americans Support Impeachment;
        ImpeachPAC is Launched to Support Pro-Impeachment Candidates

        By a margin of 53% to 42%, Americans want Congress to impeach
        President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq, according to a
        new poll commissioned by http://AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots
        coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President
        Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

        The poll was conducted by Zogby International, the highly-regarded
        non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,200 U.S.
        adults October 29 through November 2.

        The poll found that 53% agreed with the statement:

        "If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for
        going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him
        accountable through impeachment."
        \_ My copy of the constitution seems to require "treason, bribery,
           or other high crimes and misdemeanors" for impeachment. Unless
           you have proof that haliburton (or whoever) bribed the chimp
           into going to war, I fail to see how the threshold for removal
           from office has been met. He is no worse than many who have
           held the office. [I think that the threshold for removal was
           not met wrt Clinton either, I do not know enough re Johnson
           to comment]
           \_ I'm with Bill Maher on this one: We need a California-style
              recall election on Dubya, complete with Arnold Schwarzenegger,
              Gary Coleman, and Mary Carey as candidates.
           \_ You don't consider it a high crime to send troops into
              battle for your own personal agenda?
              \_ What personal agenda is that?
                 \_ http://www.newamericancentury.org  -tom
                 \_ "I really don't like Saddam, so I'm itching to find a
                     reason to invade his country."
                    \_ "He tried to kill my daddy!"
              \_ That didn't happen, and your repeated assertions don't make it
                 true. -emarkp
                 \_ emarkp, I've always wondered how the strict war
                    mongering Republican saddam toppling sending home
                    thousands of US soldiers with missing limbs just
                    so George W Bush has some sort of legacy side Right
                    Side of your brain coexists with the Left Side we
                    will bring the miracle of eternal progression to
                    all of god's children one love Mormon side of your brain.
                    \_ Hi anonymous troll!  For one thing, I'm not R.  When did
                       you stop beating your wife by the way? -emarkp
                       \_ If the anonymous troll is also a mormon, you might
                          need to specify which wife.
                          \_ Ah, but then he'd be a member of a splinter group,
                             not the SLC-based church.  So your "also" is
                             wrong. -emarkp
                             \_ OTOH, there are plenty of religions that allow
                                polygamy besides these mormon splinter groups.
                                It's not at all clear to me that any religion
                                based on the Bible should prohibit polygamy.
                 \_ Your assertion that it didn't happen doesn't make it so
                    either. However, I wasn't asserting it, as in fact I don't
                    know. I suggest only that it is impeachable if true. But
                    what is being investigated now if you're so sure this is
                    untrue?
                    \_ Apologies.  I didn't connect the logic to the parent
                       posts.  However, "If President Bush did not tell the
                       truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq" is
                       not the same as "send troops into battle for your own
                       personal agenda". -emarkp
                       \_ Unless "the truth about his reasons for going to war
                          with Iraq" is the same as "his own personal agenda",
                          aren't the two accusations the same? -gm
                          \_ Okay, I amend my comments to "not /necessesarily/
                             the same". -emarkp
              \_ No. I do not. Art 2 Sec 1 cl 1 gives the Pres. sole executive
                 pwr of the entire US. Art 2 Sec 2 cl 1 gives the Pres. complete
                 control of the Army and Navy (Yes, I know Congress has to give
                 the Pres. the pwr under Art 1 Sec 8, but they did give him the
                 pwr in this case - a sufficient showing of false pretenses has
                 not yet been made; please make one if you believe otherwise -
                 M. Moore video inanity is insufficient, I'm asking for real
                 proof).
                 The Pres. can use his discretion in deploying these forces into
                 action under the authority conferred by Congress.
                 I am even willing to say that the principle of "what is good
                 for GM is good for America" could be applied even it was shown
                     \_ Works for me. -gm
                 that he was motivated by a purely personal economic interest
                 (other than a direct bribe) as many US companies and thier
                 employees have prospered as a result of this engagement.
                 [I do not believe that the decision to depoly in Iraq was
                  correct, nor do I believe that the civilians have handled
                  the operation properly.  But I do not consider the admin.
                  failures to be impeachable.]
           \_ Treason is, by secondary and tertiary definition, a betrayal
              of trust or disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior. The
              standard can be as high or as low as one wishes to put it.
              That said, if Clinton is the bar, I fear Bush has cleared it.
              \_ Treason is a legal term.  You can make up any definition
                 you want but it means nothing.  And Clinton was not convicted
                 of anything.  Impeachment is just a trial phase.  He was
                 found 'not guilty' by the Senate so there is no 'Clinton bar
                 for treason' since he didn't get convicted of it and wasn't
                 on trial for it in the first place.  WTF are you talking
                 about?
                 \_ Exactly.  Bush should be put on trial: impeachment.
                    \_ Please point out an offense committed by the Pres.
                       which qualifies under Art 2 Sec 4.
                       \_ He violated the Geneva Convention by authorizing
                          torture and other War Crimes against the detainees
                          in Gitmo and elsewhere. That is a high crime and
                          a bunch of people at Nurenberg were hung for it.
                          \_ As much as you would like the Geneva Convention
                             to apply, it most likely doesn't therefore no
                             "high crime" has been committed by the Pres.
                             [For the present purposes I will ignore the
                              fact that Geneva is not self-executing thus
                              cannot be used directly to gain relief or
                              indict.]
                             The 3d convention applies to the treatment of
                             prisoners of war and you are correct that as
                             a contracting party the US is bound to follow
                             the convention wrt pows even though the
                             terrorist do not (Art 2).
                             But, Art 4 specifies prerequisites for prot-
                             ection and arguably no terrorist qualifies.
                             Furthermore, Art 5 only provides protection
                             to those whose status is in question until a
                             competent tribunal, such as a US military
                             tribunal, makes a determination re status.
                             Once a non-protection determination is made
                             by the tribunal any means may be used.
                             If a non-citizen is held outside of the jx
                             of a fed dist ct, then that person would not
                             have standing for habeas or 8th amend. relief
                             either so they could be treated in any manner.
                             [I think that is is stupid to authorize
                              torture, &c. but in relation to non-
                              citizens who are non-state actors and
                              are held beyond the reach of fed dist
                              cts, there is no legal bar to the Pres.
                              authorizing any and all means be used.
                              If you can point to authorization to use
                              torture, &c. PRIOR to the Art 5 status
                              determination I will agree that the Pres.
                              has acted beyond his authority; however
                              you will need to show an actual instance
                              of torture, &c. being used PRIOR to an
                              Art 5 determination under authorization
                              of the Pres. to make out an indictable
                              "high crime"]
                              \_ Almost none of the detainees have had
                                 their military tribunals yet. Are you
                                 talking about the hearings where they
                                 determine the detainees guilt or in-
                                 nocence, or some other hearing where
                                 they determine their POW status? I do
                                 not know about the latter. In any case,
                                 I am sure there are some violations in
                                 the sense that some people were tortured
                                 before their hearings. I do not know of
                                 any specific cases, but could find some
                                 easily. The point being, there are ple-
                                 nty of crimes out there that Bush has
                                 committed that he could be impeached
                                 for if he became politically unpopular
                                 enough. I think we learned during the
                                 Whitewater investigation, impeachment
                                 is not really a legal process, it is a
                                 political one.
                                 \_ I am specifically talking about a
                                    process to determine Art 4 status.
                                    Until the cessation of hostilities,
                                    a trial on the merits is not requ-
                                    ired (for non-US citizens) only a
                                    process to determine Art 4 status
                                    is required. Given the realities
                                    of war, almost any determination
                                    (even a 5 min summary process by
                                    a jag officer) will satisfy this
                                    requirement.
                                    In order to find a "high crime"
                                    you need to show (1) that someone
                                    was tortured PRIOR to an Art 4
                                    determination and (2) this was
                                    authorized. I'm almost certain
                                    you will not find proof of (2)
                                    b/c any memos/eo/er written by
                                    the Pres., &c. will have enough
                                    ambiguity to suggest that torture
                                    was authorized ONLY if the person
                                    was not protected under Art 4.
                                    Please also note that the conven-
                                    tion may not cover the practice
                                    of handing pows over to non-sig-
                                    natories.
                              \_ well said, many posters don't understand
                                 that impeachment is purely a political process
                                 the Senate can impeach the president on
                                 whatever reason (see def. of "high crime").
                                 and unlike a criminal process, there's no
                                 appeal.
                                 \_ Given that "high crime" are
                                    specified in context of treason
                                    and bribery, if the "crime" is
                                    not of that magnitude, there may
                                    be a separation of pwrs argument
                                    to enjoin use of the impeachment
                                    pwr. [If a "war crime" can be
                                    shown, I think the Pres. has no
                                    leg to stand on.]
                                    \_ You honestly think that the USSC would
                                       step in and tell the House that they
                                       did not have the authority to impeach?
                                       It would precipitate a Constitutional
                                       crises. I think the USSC would step back
                                       from that.
                                       \_ Given that they interfered
                                          in FL, I'm not entirely sure
                                          that the USSC would stay out
                                          wrt the current Pres.
                                     \_ http://csua.org/u/dy7
                                        \_ Please see above, one
                                           can adhere to Geneva
                                           and torture terrorists
                                           b/c Geneva does not
                                           cover them.
              \_ http://www.answers.com/topic/high-crime
              \_ Maybe they cut out Art 3 Sec 3 cl 1 in your copy of the
                 the const. but my copy says "Treason against the US shall
                 consist of levying war against them, or in adhering to
                 their enemies, or giving them aid and comfort."
                 Unless you can point out to me how Bush II conducted war
                 against the US or gave aid/comfort to the enemies of the
                 US, the threshold has not been met. (The argument that
                 Bush united the Islamic world against the US and thus
                 gave aid/comfort to the enemies of the US is far too
                 strained.)
                 [Note, I said that I do not think the bar was met w/
                  Clinton. This is one reason I chose not to vote for
                  Tom Campbell when he ran for re-election. As a law
                  prof. he should have known better than to vote for
                  impeachment regardless of the political pressure.]
                  \_ Outing of 2 undercover agents gave aid & comfort to our
                     enemies, especially KHAN.
                  \_ Outing of 2 undercover agents gave aid & comfort
                     to our enemies, especially KHAN.
                     \_ Can you prove that this was done under either
                        explict or implicit approval of the Pres.?
2005/11/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Recreation/Dating] UID:40416 Activity:moderate
11/3    http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/reynolds.asp
        Claim:  An ex-congressman who had sex with a subordinate won clemency
                from a president who had sex with a subordinate, then was hired
                by a clergyman who had sex with a subordinate.
        Status: True.
        \_ If they were the same subordinate, this would be funny.
           \_ It might even qualify as interesting. Hmm... No, I'm wrong.
              \_ I like the insuation that having sex with a subordinate makes
                 you a pedeophile.
                 \_ huh, who ever suggested kids?
                    \_ read the link
                       \_ I read it--do you mean the guy's conviction for sleeping
                          with an underage girl?
        \_ Lewinskying is not sex!
           \_ That depends on what your definition of 'is' is.
              \_ ^'is'^'sex'
           \_ I disagree, blowjobs are included in "had sex with".  However,
              blowjobs are not included in "sexual relations".
           \_ "A U.S. federal court decided that calling a woman 'Monica
              Lewinsky' amounted to sexual harassment"
              http://www.indbazaar.com/spade/punchbag.asp?id=6
2005/11/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:40413 Activity:nil
11/2    Amusing Fark post arguing politics with Magic The Gathering cards:
        http://csua.org/u/dwv
2005/10/29-31 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40333 Activity:high
10/29   BTW, the right-wing spin is going to be very, very easy to predict:
        There may have been an unintentional outing of Plame, but the goal was
        always to protect America, and Wilson was wrong anyway.
        There will be no specific mention of Libby committing perjury, etc.,
        other than the "unintentional outing" - we thought everyone knew.
        \_ Hold on, what was Wilsong wrong about? - danh
        \_ You mean the partisan spin.  I'm right wing and my opinion is that
           perjury is a crime and should be treated as such.  If Libby purjored
           himself, I want him out of there.  Same as with Clinton.  When will
           politicians learn that the coverup is almost always worse than the
           crime? -emarkp
              \_ Nice to see something we can agree on, that perjury is a
                 serious crime and should be treated as such.  I can't
                 follow you all the way as to saying that the coverup is
                 worse than the crime.  That may have been true with Nixon
                 and Clinton, but these felons comitted TREASON, not burglary
                 or adultery.  I know that word (treason) gets thrown around
                 by pundits inappropriately, but it literally applies here.
           \_ Nice to see something we can agree on, that perjury is a serious
              crime and should be treated as such.  I can't follow you all the
              way as to saying that the coverup is worse than the crime.  That
              may have been true with Nixon and Clinton, but these felons
              comitted TREASON, not burglary or adultery.  I know that word
              (treason) gets thrown around by pundits inappropriately, but it
              literally applies here.
              \_ No, I don't think treason applies here.  Especially since that
                 would be in the indictment. -emarkp
                 \_ I love this.  "not indicted, therefore, innocent of guilt."
                    Based upon your logic, no one in the whitehouse ever
                    leaked the identity of CIA agent neither.
                    \_ I love this.  My saying treason doesn't apply gets
                       twisted pretty fast.  I said I didn't think treason
                       applied here, not that there was no guilt.  Furthermore,
                       given the resources Fitzgerald has had, I think he'd
                       charge treason if he found it.  Some random anonymous
                       wanker on motd claiming treason has roughly zero value
                       IMO compared to a special prosecutor who's been pursuing
                       this for two years. -emarkp
                 \_ that is my problem with the conservatives.  it is not
                    ok to lie about sex, but it's perfectlly ok to lie
                    about war and leak of classified information.
                    \_ Precisely where did I say it was okay?  I specifically
                       said perjory is serious.  If Libby perjured himself he
                       should be in prison. -emarkp
                       \_ Have you really not noticed that your view is in the
                          very small minority among American conservatives?
                          Wake up!  The former party of small government
                          conservatism has become a proto-fascist organization.
                          \_ I disagree with the second part of your sentence,
                             but the first part (i.e. "former party of small
                             government") is one of the reasons I'm an I and
                             not an R now. -emarkp
                       \_ emarkp, why do you play the catch-22 game?  no matter
                          what you say it is going to be twisted, taken out of
                          context or as we see here, "you dont represent the
                          rest of conservatives even though i have no link to
                          prove that".
           \_ Never.  Because it works far more often than it doesn't.
        \_ I disagree.  This spin will take two forks.  First, they will
           repeat the perjury in suggesting the Valerie isn't a "real"
           operative and therefore can't be outed (example below).  Second,
           they will suggest that obstruction of justice isn't a real
           crime unless you can prove the underlying crime (example to
           follow since there are enough twits on soda they won't be able
           to help themselves).
        \_ How can you "out" someone that had not been "in" for 10+ years? -jblack
        \_ How can you "out" someone that had not been "in" for 10+ years?
           \_ yeah, you're doing it right.  The funny thing is that the
              "outing" part isn't what the indictments were for. -op
           \_ Comments like this are the reason that Fitzgerald specifically
              mentioned in his indictment that Valarie Plame-Wilson's status
              was NOT well known at the time of the initial crime.  Not only
              was her status classified, but her cover was still required
              as MANY operatives were posing as working for the same cover
              energy company she supposedly worked for.  By blowing her
              cover, they ruined a number of other covers as well.  Try
              reading the indictment and associated report before you
              condemn it.
              \_ I read it.  The indictment pertains to different
                 accounts given by Libby, Russert, and Miller, and
                 has nothing to do with Plame's status or revealing
                 her name.  Libby is being accused of misleading the
                 FBI during questioning because his accounts differ
                 from the reporters.
                 has nothing to do with revealing Plame's name.
                 has nothing to do with Plame's status.
                 In his news conference Fitz himself absolved Libby of
                 any guilt related to Plame "outing".  You are the
                 one who needs to (re)read the indictment, which BTW is
                 one who need to (re)read the indictment, which BTW is
                 poorly written and self-inconsistent.
2005/10/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/SIG] UID:40284 Activity:nil
10/26   Rosa Parks died on Monday:
        http://tinyurl.com/8a9br
        \_ apple has a nice tribute to her on their web page.
           \_ http://www.apple.com/hotnews/articles/2005/10/rosaparks
        \_ "What are you staring at, Mr. President?"
           http://news.yahoo.com/photo/051025/480/ny13710250245
2005/10/21-24 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:40219 Activity:high
10/21   jblack hasn't posted for a few weeks. I want to congratulate
        all the conservative haters who successfully got rid of
        conservative sympathizing trollers like amckee and jblack.
                -not the guy who threatened jblack but supports him 100%
        \_ Motd would be rendered almost completely useless as a place for
           political discussion if all of the conservative thinkers leave
           so only extremist liberal thinkers are left to echo the same
           ideas back forth to each other.  "getting rid" of people because
           they have different ideas that challenge you is at best
           cowardly, and at worst destructive of the entire notion of
           liberty and free speech.  If you can't handle the strain of being
           forced to re-evaluate your ideas, perhaps it would be better for
           everyone if you left and looked for the little ideolgical womb
           that will challenge you the least -- at least that's less
           destructive, since you can always come back at a later date.
           \_ "Conservative Thinker" is an oxymoron. It makes as much
              sense as Brilliant Bush or Justified Iraq War.
              \_ So George Will and William F. Buckley don't think?
                 \- serious question: can you give and example of a
                    WFB's brilliance? other than his fondness for
                    words like "debouche". i think WJC is probably
                    50x smarter than WFB.
                    \_ I used to watch WFB on Firing Line(?) debates
                       on pbs. He seemed very knowledgeable. Those
                       two were just examples. I'd also list Friedman,
                       Posner, Scalia, &c. as other examples.
                       One may not agree w/ them but they certainly
                       are intelligent thoughtful people.
                       \_ [idiocy deleted by poster out of deep shame]
                       \_ Thomas Friedman is a conservative?  I think not.
                          If he's a conservative, then so am I, and I am
                          *not* a conservative.
                          \_ Milton not Thomas. I'm talking about
                             intelligent people not NY Times col-
                             umnists.
                          \- aside from scalia, i think some of your
                          \- aside from SCALIA, i think some of your
                             conservative thinkers are either 1. not thinkers
                             or 2. not conservative. you might looks at people
                             like L STRAUSS (dead) H MANSFIELD R KAGAN
                             M MALIA (ucb, dead ... he is the "the the stalin
                             like L STRAUSS (dead) H MANSFIELD D KAGAN
                             M MALIA (ucb, dead ... he is the "to the stalin
                             mausoleum" fellow). i do not list economists.
                             i think somebody like C HITCHENS would eat
                             W BUCKLEY alive in a live debate. you can google
                             for "chicago school". i think libertarians take
                             "theory and thinking" more seriously than
                             conservatives. oh i suppose M P CATO is also
                             conservative and maybe MICAHEL OAKSHOTT (dead).
                             conservative and maybe MICHAEL OAKSHOTT (dead).
                             \_ What about Greenspan?
                                \_ Are you sure you don't mean GREENSPAN?
                                \_ Are you sure you don't mean A GREENSPAN?
                                \- i am not sure what to make of GREENSPAN.
                                   on the one hand, i think FED HEAD is one of
                                   the toughest jobs in government [sic]
                                   and he has done a pretty good job, on the
                                   othe hand he is a (former?) RANDROID which
                                   is an infanitile and obviously not serious
                                   philosophy. BTW, there are plenty of smart
                                   people who arent "broad thinkers"
                                   ... FREIDMAN's Beiruit To Jerusalem is
                                   really good and is in his core competencey
                                   area. when he writes on econ, i think he
                                   latches on to interesting issues but i
                                   dont think he is a deep thinker in the
                                   area [like his flat earth book]. on the
                                   other hand CHITCHEN has some whacky views
                                   on the war but he is also able to write at
                                   a fairly scholarly level about
                                   ORWELL. POSNER writes on lots on things
                                   [although an associate of mine says he LAW
                                   and LIT stuff is leem].  i suppose even
                                   GEROGE WILL writes about baseball,
                                   although i am not able to evaluate his
                                   comments in that area and i am not sure
                                   whether sports writing is really fertile
                                   for deep commentary ... PAULINE KAEL and
                                   MFK FISCHER may be among the best in their
                                   repective fields of film and food
                                   commentary but i dontthink they are among
                                   the towering thinkers of our time ... so
                                   i'm not dissing sports in particular.
                             \_ I have read Kagan (Paradise and Power) and
                                would add him to the list. Personally I
                                agree that most conservatives don't spend
                                as much time sitting around thinking about
                                useless crap b/c they would much rather be
                                out in the real world doing something.
                                Maybe liberals do think more better deeper.
                                I wasn't disputing that, only pointing out
                                that there are some people who are conser-
                                vative and engage in thinking. I think that
                                the people I've listed generally fall w/in
                                the popular conception of conservative.
                                \- oh sorry, i meant KAGAN pere ... DKAGAN
                                   not RKAGAN. fixed above. i am not taking a
                                   postion on whether there are more
                                   conservative thinkers etc. although i
                                   think it may be a case of theoretical
                                   parisomony not being as important to
                                   results oritented conservatives. so dont
                                   oversubscribe my comments as an attack.
                                   i have to go out in teh real world now
                                   rather than motd'ing about useless crap.
                                   [has "to motd" been used as a verb before?]
                                   i have put my tutleneck on backwards.
                                   in the legal field maybe conservatives are
                                   more interested in parsimony than liberals.
           \_ Who here, in your mind, are the "extremist" liberals?
              For that matter, who are the conservative "thinkers"?
              \_ The guys "getting rid" of vocal conservative thinkers, for
                 starters.
        \_ I assume you are being sarcastic. Running off people who
           disagree with you, instead of responding to their ideas,
           is a really crappy way of debating. The motd is a lot more
           boring without the few beleaguered Conservatives. -ausman
           \_ Ideas? Debate?  Are we talking about the same guy?  There are
              several, probably about half a dozen or more conservatives who
              actually post ideas and debate on the motd, and as far as I can
              tell, the troll in question is not one of them.  I don't see
              how posting the same urls over and over again constitutes either
              "ideas" or "debate".  Fuck him, good riddance.  The conservatives
              who post actual thoughts to the motd have much tougher skin
              than that anyway, as evidenced by the fact that they're still
              here.
              \_ Huh.  I recall alot of those url's generating very long
                 threads of discussion (which sometimes crossed the line into
                 troll and countertroll), quite a lot of which was elucidating
                 in terms of non-rabidly left ideas.  Maybe it's not the url
                 guy that has the thin skin, here....
              \_ Do you really think that his posting of Freeper links
                 was pursuading anyone of anything? "Never interrupt your
                 opponent when he is making a mistake."
                 opponent when he is making a mistake." -ausman
                 \_ Uhm, who are you responding to?  I suspect your indentation
                    is wrong.
                    \_ No my indentation was correct. I should have signed
                       my post. I think that letting jblack make his case
                       actually helped do the opposite. -ausman
                       \_ Ah, okay -- sorry, my bad.  Well, no jblack himself
                       \_ Ah, okay -- sorry, my bad.  Well, no jblack
                          probably didn't convince anybody, but some of his
                          links generated discussion which may have forced
                          some people to refine or rethink their positions.
                          The point isn't about jblack, but about promoting
                          a place where you can have strong opinions and not
                          worry about getting physically, financially, or
                          in any way injured.  It speaks poorly of motd that
                          we're just as tolerant of differing opinions as
                          the deplorable freepers in the freeper links.
                          a place where you can have strong opinions and
                          not worry about getting physically, financially,
                          or in any way injured.  It speaks poorly of motd
                          that we're just as tolerant of differing opinions
                          as the deplorable freepers in the freeper links.
                          *shrug* --!"Ideas? Debate?" guy
                          \_ "Ideas? Debate?" guy here.  For the record I think
                             the threats were stupid and wrong and far more
                             offensive than any freeper link.  I don't
                             *support* threats, and I'm not the op--I just have
                             a hard time shedding a tear over this particular
                             change even if it happened for stupid reasons.
        \_ If you can't take the heat, blame Clinton and whine incessantly.
2005/10/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40193 Activity:nil
10/19   Freepers pile on Dubya
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1505696/posts
        \_ Naahhh, looks like the usual ass-licking of the GOP power brokers
           to me.  Sometimes this stuff is so over the top it almost reads
           like parody, or even Bush slashfic:
           "Whether it's the mass media or the obstructionist Democrat
           Senators, the Islamic terrorists or natural disasters, the leaders
           of the various 'minority' groups or the homosexual lobby, the
           abortionist fanatics or the RINOs, even leftover Clintonites in the
           Pentagon, FBI and CIA, there is always something standing there,
           furiously attacking or opposing the President at every turn. Yet he
           stands up and faces it all with courage and tenacity. Where will
           anyone find a better man out there?"
           \_ I hate the freeper whining so much. "We only control TWO branches
              of the government. Daddy promised us THREEEEE." Internally I
              translate everything that "stands in their way" (liberals,
              democrats, Clinton, etc.) to variations of "the Man" just so I
              can listen to it without slapping them upside the head. The
              above quote slightly translated for my sanity: "Whether it's the
              corporate Man or the obstructionist Man, the Bible thumping Man,
              or natural disasters, the leaders of the various 'majority'
              groups or the Missionary Position Only lobby, the anti-abortion-
              ist or the Oreos, even the leftover Man in the Pentagon, FBI and
              CIA, there is always something standing there, furiously attack-
              ing or opposing the President at every turn. Yet he stands up
              and faces it all with courage and tenacity. Where will anyone
              find a better brother out there? Slap mah fro!" Yeah it doesn't
              work. I still wanna slap a freeper around.
              groups or the Missionary Position Only lobby, the anti-abortionist
              or the Oreos, even the leftover Man in the Pentagon, FBI and CIA,
              there is always something standing there, furiously attacking or
              opposing the President at every turn. Yet he stands up and faces
              it all with courage and tenacity. Where will anyone find a better
              brother out there? Slap mah fro!" Yeah it doesn't work. I still
              wanna slap a freeper around.
                \_ They will only be happy once we live in the Christian
                   feudal corporate state, with 90% of the population slaving
                   away in vast polluting factories or off fighting in endless
                   wars, while they enjoy the most sinful pleasures on top.
                   We're not there yet, so they whine.
                   \_ Not slaving away in factories.  Serving the upperclass
                      on their enormous estates/ranches, and in their shopping
                      centers.  And those that serve the rich will be the
                      lucky ones.  The rest will live in 3rd world conditions
                      without health care, public services, police protection,
                      public education, or hope, in places where the
                      upperclass never has to see or deal with them.  And the
                      upperclass will say:  "They deserve that, because they
                      don't work hard enough.  They're stupid and lazy.  In
                      this country, Under God, you get what you deserve!"
                      That is when the freepers will be happy.
                      \_ I don't know why you put no healthcare in the future
                         tense.  Most of the people I know from highschool have
                         no health insurance now, and I went to an upper middle
                         no healthe insurance now, and I went to an upper middle
                         class highschool.
2005/9/22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:39824 Activity:high
9/22    Clinton dodged the draft, hid FBI files, smoked dope, flipped
        Whitewater property, set up a new Korean wing in the White House,
        fired the travel staff, paid hush money to Hubbell, sold the
        Lincoln bedroom like an upscale Motel 6, and grabbed
        every ass that entered the Oval Office. Got it? Good.
        \_ What is this in relation to? Do you really want us to list all
           the bad stuff about Dubya? BTW: Clinton never inhaled.
        \_ Clinton didn't inhale. Dubya snorted coke.
           \_ huh?
        \_ How many thousand people died because of Clinton's scandals?
           \_ How many people died during Desert Storm under Clinton?
                \_ Desert Storm was a Clinton scandal? WTF?
                \_ tons.. mogadishu.. kosovo..
                \_ 0, Desert Storm was under Bush I.  Exactly!
                   \_ It started under Bush I and continued in Clinton's
                      time.
                      \_ Are you stupid or just stupid?  Or are you thinking
                         that the no fly zone enforcement was part of Desert
                         Storm.  What would BUD DAY think?
           \_ I imagine more people died under Lincoln or FDR.  How many
              died under Bush I?  I wouldn't be surprised if Bush I & II
              have the least blood on their hands of any war-time president.
              \_ It's this type of thinking that gets America screwed up in
                 the head about what the military is used for. While
                 casulties are an important consideration, War is an extension
                 of Politics. Comparing the number of dead is rather pointless.
                 \_ I didn't start the comparison of number dead.  However,
                    if you want to run numerical comparisons, then Bush II is
                    relatively clean.  Personally, I think 1 dead in an
                    unnecessary war is too many and a million dead in a
                    necessary war is not.
                    \_ ~100,000 dead Iraqis in a war of choice is too many.
                        \_ not to the Christian zealots
                        \_ And if that were the number, it might be worth
                           quoting.
                 \_ Clinton's wars were not scandals, neither were Lincoln's
                    or Bush I's or FDR's.  They didn't lie to invade countries
                    unilaterally that posed no threat to us.
                    \_ You mean the Nazi's actually did bomb Pearl Harbor? And
                       the Civil War was actually fought to free the slaves?
                    \_ So how many died under LBJ?
                        \_ Who cares? This is about how Clinton's scandals
                           are meaningless compared to our current President.
                           \_ IOW, LBJ is worse, but let's not talk about him.
        \_ You forget to mention that he assassinated anyone who threatened to
           reveal his financial crimes, that he gave away the Panama Canal to
           his Chinese masters, and that he had Waco stormed because he was
           jealous of Korresh's harem. Oh, and black helicopters, black
           helicopters, black helicopters! Quick, borrow my tinfoil hat!
           \_ And the embarrassment in Somalia to our elite forces.
2005/9/21-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:39805 Activity:moderate
9/21    Hurricanes?  Cut taxes on the rich!
        http://tinyurl.com/df76d (news.yahoo.com)
        \_ You could cut/raise taxes on the poor, but what would it
           matter? Any meaningful change in tax rates/revenues comes at
           the expense of/for the benefit of the rich. It's redundant to
           mention it.
           \_ Nobody would mention it when it's at the exepnse of the rich.
              \_ and nobody would mention it when it's banckrolled by China.
        \_ People seem to think that the Republicans are cutting taxes to
           do X Y and Z when it's just because they like cutting taxes.
           War in Iraq? Cut taxes. Record deficit? Cut taxes. Hurricanes?
           cut taxes. Energy crisis? Cut taxes!
           \_ Republicans are cutting taxes because they get most of their
              campaign contribution via the riches and corporations.
        \_ Maybe you youngins don't remember this but Reaganomics was the
           reason why the US economy boomed and kicked ass. The money from
           the rich are funneled down to the poor and everyone benefits.
           You guys want to go back to the fiscal irresponsible
           European, Clinton, Democrat, and whatever socialist programs
           that prove to be inefficient? Be my guest.
           \_ are you serious about this? How about FDR's New Deal?
              \_ Yeah SS worked out real well.
                 \_ Do you like your little dream world?
                 \_ SS is working so well now is because your
                    "reaganomics" used the SS surplus on starwars, my friend
                 \_ 70 years and counting of no more retirees in the
                    poor house or forced to eat cat food. I think it has
                    been the best anti-poverty program ever.
           \_ are you talking about the fiscally irresponsible clinton
              programs that resulted in a budget surplus? fuckwit.
              \_ The surplus was due to George H Bush's tax raise but for some
                 odd reason you Democrats keep taking credit for it. I can't
                 believe you guys are so blind that you actually praise
                 the duplicitious cock sucker even as Clintongate unfolds.
                 the duplicitious cock suckee even as Clintongate unfolds.
                 You say bad things about Bush yet you totally ignored
     I'm         believe you guys are so blind that you actually praise
    with ------> the duplicitious cock suckee even as Clintongate unfolds.
    stupid       You say bad things about Bush yet you totally ignored
                 Whitewater, Cattlegate, Nannygate, Helicoptergate, Travelgate,
                 Gennifer Flowersgate, Vince Fostergate, Buddhist Templegate,
                 Chinese commiegate, Lewinskygate, Willeygate, Pardongate,
                 and what not. Clinton has been nothing but a great
                 embarrasement to our nation.
                 \_ That's cock suckee, not cock sucker. Get it right!
                 \_ I can't tell if this is a troll or is coming out
                    from a real believer. What do you guys think?
                 \_ It's distractingate thatgate you usegate 'gate' on
                    every othergate wordgate.  It kind of undergatemines any
                    hopegate of taking yougate seriouslygate.  What, you some
                    kind of politicalgate smurf?
                 \_ Funny.  His approval rating was never as low as Bush's..
                    Also funny, the rest of the world liked us under Clinton.
                    And, really, pardongate?  Do you know who Bush I pardoned?
                    Your side persecuted Clinton for inconsequential mini-
                    scandals, mostly of your own making.  Bush is running us
                    into the fucking ground and all you do is wonder to your
                    navel how clinton made him do it.
                    p.s. Since you always seem to need the reminder, Clinton
                    ain't presnit no more.
                    p.p.s Are you so threatened in your philosophy that you
                    feel you must nuke other people's statements?
                    \_ I can see it now.  It's 2014, and Jeb Bush is in his
                       second term.  The U.S. has just defaulted on it's
                       loans, the dollar is worth less than the paper it's
                       printed on, people are walking down ruined highways
                       in mass exodous from unsustainable suburban
                       developements, a couple major cities have been taken out
                       by nukes Bush didn't want to help the Russians secure,
                       and jblack will be posting to the motd about how it's
                       STILL Clinton's fault.
                       \_ Stop the denial. It IS Clinton's fault.  !jblack
                 \_ Not to mention jblackgate.
                 \_ Thanks a lot for making me pine for the days when scandals
                    were just silly little embarassments unlike Bush's which
                    result in the deaths of thousands ... Vince Fostergate?
                    Someone commits suicide and it's a scandal? Or do you
                    believe like Rush Limbaugh if anyone dies within a radius
                    of 100 miles of either Clinton it's automatically their
                    fault unless proven otherwise?
                 \_ Yes, our standing in the world community was greatly
                    raised when we exchanged Clinton for Bush.  We used to
                    \_ BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahaha hehheh  heh.  *ahem*
                       Thanks, man, I needed that.
                    get no respect at all.
                    \_ Standing in the world community? Who cares what
                       a bunch of 2 bit cheese eating surrender monkeys
                       think? If we weren't around bombing the heathens
                       and keeping the peace the "world community" would
                       be praying to allah to keep their pansy asses from
                       getting burned at the stake.
                 \_ Troopergate? Didn't those guys admit they made the
                    whole thing up for $30k each from Scaife? It is pretty
                    funny and kind of sad that all you have left to keep
                    you going is hate for a guy who has been retired and
                    out of office for 5 years now. Let it go, man.
                        \_ Most of the Clinton scandals were either lies or
                           small potatoes dressed up by rightwing haters who
                           couldn't stand that Clinton was taking a lot of
                           conservative ideas (the good ones) and implementing
                           them properly.
2005/9/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39778 Activity:nil
9/20    Able Danger, if true, is the biggest story of the year.
        Pentagon Blocks Testimony at Senate Hearing on Terrorist
        More collective ass covering by Washington elite....
        http://csua.org/u/dg7                           -jblack
        \_ OF COURSE!  HOW COULD I HAVE BEEN SO BLIND!  CLINTON PROBABLY WAS
           CRANK CALLING NORAD ON SEP 11 AS WELL!!1
        \_ I agree insofar as "why bury it if it's that harmless/irrelevant/
           in the past".  Weird.  Anyway, Karl Rove (a political strategist)
           supervising Katrina reconstruction is the biggest story of the
           year. -moderate/liberal
        \_ Yeah, Katrina is SO yesterday. But Able Danger will pale next to
           rumors that that Hillary likes the occasional dirty Sanchez.
        \_ Why didn't Bush do anything about the Able Danger information?
           I have actually decided that the 9/11 Commission was probably
           mostly a coverup. The Democrats covered Clinton's ass and the
           GOP covered Bush's and neither side wanted to rock the boat. -ausman
           \_ Did you read the 911 comission report?  I think there was the
              potential for plenty of boat rocking in the report, but that
              few people read it, and most people don't have the attention
              span to get worked up about it. I did read the 911CR, and I
              certainly felt there was plenty of blame placed on both Bush
              and Clinton there--people really just don't care or notice.
                \_ If it's a flash of a tit, people notice!
              \_ I read it selectively. Chapter 8 "The System Was
                 Bliking Red" is pretty damning, I have to admit. -ausman
2005/9/18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:39745 Activity:nil
9/18    Able Danger - Gorelick called Weldon to say she did
        nothing wrong.
        http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1486678/posts?page=42#42  -jblack
2005/9/9-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:39607 Activity:nil
9/9     Monica Lewinsky is going to grad skool at the LSE:
        http://www.breitbart.com/news/na/D8CFHL582.html
        \_ I guess she quit trying to suck Republican dicks.
           \- her interview with BARBARA WAWA was one of the more
              amazing things i have seen on network TV.
2005/9/7-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:39563 Activity:nil
9/7     National Guard preventing media coverage of New Orleans aftermath.
        http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8045532/#050907c
        \_ The National Guard is under the control of the LA Governor.  Take
           this kind of story to freerepublic.
           \_ And I'll bet somehow, it's Clinton's fault.
2005/9/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39517 Activity:nil
9/6     "At one point, there were a load of girls on the roof of the hotel
        saying 'Can you help us?' and the policemen said 'Show us what you've
        got' and made signs for them to lift their T-shirts. When the girls
        refused, they said 'Fine' and motored off down the road in their boat."
        http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4217022.stm
        \_ Oh no! The horror! Men being scum! Cops acting corrupt!
           We must outlaw this with an amendment!
           \_ Please state for the record which party most recently tried
              to amend the constitution for purely political reasons.
              \_ I'm sure those cops, and their unions, were 100% GOP.
                 As if that had anything to do with the above.
           \_ Sounds good to me. Where's the petition? -non-scum man
              \_ If you victims are dead, how will you know who to
                 press charges against?
2005/8/31-9/2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39401 Activity:nil
8/31    http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/31/233427.shtml
        Dems blaming Bush for Katrina.
        \_ In other news, statue of elvis found on Mars!
2005/8/17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Foreign] UID:39153 Activity:nil
8/17    "President Clinton is once again releasing American military
        might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no
        exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this
        operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed
        forces about how long they will be away from home. These
        strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
        -Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)
2005/8/14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Reference/Military] UID:39121 Activity:nil
8/14    Compare and contrast Cindy Sheehan with James Smith
        Media Bias: The Press, the Prez and the Parent
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1462436/posts
2005/8/13-15 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:39109 Activity:nil
8/13    How Chinagate Led to 9/11
        http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13516
        Gorelick 'MemoGate': It Just Got Worse
        http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=16201
        \_ From CHRONWATCH? Wtf? I despise the Chron for having an utterly
           loathsome editorial style, but this guy is beyond the pale even
           for all that. Man, I wish I had all the time in the world....
2005/8/12-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:39103 Activity:low
8/12    I'm surprised this hasn't already been posted, but:
        A military intelligence unit (Able Danger) identified a cell of the
        9/11 highjackers a year before 9/11, but was blocked from passing
        the info on to the FBI by Clinton Administration attorneys.  Even
        more surprising, the 9/11 commision was apparently never briefed on
        this, although their staff was informed.
        http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165268,00.html
        http://csua.org/u/d0a (NYTimes)
        \_ You know, this really isn't a partisan issue.  It's probably a CYA
           issue.  Gorelick was criticized for conflict of interest because of
           the "wall" memo during the commission, but stayed on.
           \_ Canadian Yachting Association?
              \_ Cover Your Ass
           \_ Doesn't that seem like it would cast more doubt on the value
              of the commision report?
              \_ Absolutely.  And that was the reason people objected to
                 Gorelick's remaining on the commission.  It seems like they
                 should have another commission to investigate the first one.
        \_ Who cares? Yeah Clinton messed up, but BUSHCO didn't do a bang
           up job either.
           \_ Who cares?  The commision set up to fully investigate the
              circumstances leading up to the greatest terrorist attack on
              American soil ever completely misses the single failure that
              could have prevented the attack, and your response is, "Who
              cares?" Perhaps you'd rather talk about Mrs. Sheehan?
                 \_ What difference does it make NOW? So Clinton didn't
                    take action to prevent 9/11. So what? We already
                    knew that Clinton didn't care, otherwise he would
                    have acted after USS Cole.
                    If this info was SO important, why didn't they give
                    it to BUSHCO? There was a 6-8 mo window.
                    We need to get past the blame game and start dealing
                    w/ the real problem which is that a large portion of
                    the world is out to bring down democratic civilization.
                    \_ 12 October 2000, USS Cole. A Yemeni court charged
                       six people with carrying
                       out the October 2000 bombing.(The USS
                       Cole bombing occurred one month
                       before the 2000 presidential election,
                       so even under the best of
                       circumstances it was unlikely
                       that the investigation could have been
                       completed before the end of President
                       Clinton's term of office three months
                       later.)
                       six people with carrying out the October 2000
                       bombing. The USS Cole bombing occurred one month before
                       the 2000 presidential election, so even under the best of
                       circumstances it was unlikely  that the investigation
                       could have been completed before the end of President
                       Clinton's term of office three months later.
                       \_ http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/12/01/uss.cole
                          They moved _quickly_.  PP is a dumbfuck.
                          \_ I'm not talking about lame prosecutions.
                             They should have struck AQ and struck them
                             hard worldwide. But they didn't.
              \_ While people should care, I don't think it's realistic
                 for the FBI to be briefed on every possible threat that
                 the U.S. as a whole comes across. In 20/20 hindsight it's
                 always easy to blame someone, but let's face it, during
                 the Clinton administration terrorism wasn't a real big
                 priority for either the public or the government. Should
                 it have been? Probably, given that the WTC had been
                 unsuccessfully attacked before and muslim terrorists
                 blew a big hole in the side of one of our military ships,
                 but since the collapse of the USSR we just didn't really
                 care all that much. I mean, for crying out loud, we
                 half-heartedly gave our tacit approval to the Taliban
                 government even when it was obvious that it was extremist,
                 backwards, and violated human rights left and right.
                 So the whole thing is like crying over spilt milk. No
                 administration is going to be able to prevent all future
                 threats to this country because essentially we're always
                 fighting yesterday's wars.
                 \_ While it's true that the FBI cannot take all threats
                    seriously, Able Danger knew that these guys were real
                    terrorists, and tried 3 times(!) to get the the
                    info to the FBI with a request to break up the cell.
        \_ Pentagon lawyers != Clinton administration attorneys
           \_ Read farther in the Fox article.  I'm a little wary of the
              quote myself, but that's what the guy says. -op
              \_ It's pretty clear to me it's Pentagon lawyers, and his logic
                 is, since they were there at the time Clinton was in charge,
                 ergo Clinton administration lawyers
              cares?" Don't you think you're taking partisan cynicism a
              little far?  I never said Bush was great, but that's a big
              deal.
                 \_ I'm disinclined to believe that Pentagon lawyers would be
                    concerned "about the political fallout that occurred after
                    Waco ... and the Branch Davidians."  That sounds more like
                    administration than Pentagon.
                    \_ Yeah, even if administration lawyers weren't involved,
                       I'll go along with it being consistent with the
                       pre-9/11 philosophy of having a wall in regards to
                       passing intelligence between the military and domestic
                       security.
                       pre-9/11 philosophy of making it difficult to pass
                       intelligence between military and domestic security
                       services.
        \_ Any bet that Weldon will die within the year?
           \_ Well, you know suicide is very common in these sorts of high
              stress situations....
           \_ Sure. I will bet you any amount you care to wager. -ausman
        \_ Right wing column claiming Gorelick was warned that 'the Wall'
           would cost lives:
           http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/51737.htm
           \_ Good article.  Clinton-appointee Mary Jo White was right:
              Not having a wall when it comes to terrorism was the better
              policy.
              username  postyuck@mailinator.com
              password  postyuck
2005/8/8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:39047 Activity:nil
8/8     http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/08/pirro.clinton.ap
        Down with Pirro the Republican BITCH! Someone please publish
        The Truth About Pirro
        \_ Huh?
2005/8/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38943 Activity:nil
8/2     You gotta love the more...direct qualities of international news
        outlets.  For instance, Hong Kong's Standard on Bolton nomination:
        http://www.thestandard.com.hk/stdn/std/Focus/GH03Dh02.html
2005/8/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:38932 Activity:nil
8/2     Go Hillary Go!
        http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0507.cannon.html
        \_ Well, the article does lay down all the reasons for !Hillary
           pretty well.
        \_ I'd do her.
           \_ Yup, considering how hot she is.
              http://www.bigcheesepress.com/jones/hillary.jpg
           \_ All the chicks Bill sleeps with on the side are less hot than
              Hillary, maybe she's really bad in the sack.
2005/8/1-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38918 Activity:low
8/2     "When the left attacks kids, you know it's in bad shape."
        http://tinyurl.com/9ldmy
        \_ A Fox News link!  Thank you sir, may I have another?
        \_ Here's the editorial that the above link is criticizing.
           http://csua.org/u/cvx (Washington Post)
           The FOX link is pretty dumb, but I have to admit, this
           editorial is pretty stupid too, and deserves criticism.
           \_ Do you know what makes an editorial, an editorial?
              \_ Stupidity and pettiness?
                 \_ Wrong and wrong.
           \_ The Wash Post editoritial is moronic.  Would they have been happy
              if the girl was dressed up as a little hooker and the
              boy as a gangsta?  Could we please concentrate on the abuses
              of power going on the administration and not the dress code
              of family members of nominees?
              \_ You people have no sense of humour.
        \_ At least they didn't call anyone The White House dog, like
           Limbaugh did back when Chelsea was in her awkward phase.
           Limbaugh did back when Chelsea was in her dog phase.
2005/8/1-3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:38914 Activity:moderate
8/1     I'm surprised there has been no Bolton discussion yet.  Any bets on
        how China will react when our UN Ambassador is taken out in handcuffs
        for his part in the Plame matter?
        \_ Let me get this straight, if the Congress doesn't want to approve
           a nominee under any circumstances, the president can just say, "oh
           well, we'll just wait until those pesky lawmakers go home" and
           appoint him anyway?  Am I the only one whom this strikes as a
           bit, oh, I dunno, REALLY FUCKING DEFECTIVE?  -John
           \_ Yeah, I was wondering about that myself. -jrleek
              \_ Yeah, it's part of the legacy of the constant give-and-take
                 between Executive and Legislative branches; the correct
                 response of a responsible congress would be to block all
                 nominations made by the President until he withdraws Bolton
                 as Ambassador; this would send a clear message reminding the
                 President that he is, in fact, a President and not a King.
                 Odds of this happening? Zero to none.
                 \_ Because Bush is the first prez evar to use a recess
                    appointment.
                    \_ But he _is_ on target to use it the most.  Also, Clinton
                       did 140 or so.  Can you name any of them other than
                       the gay Ambassador to Luxembourg?  I can name a number
                       of Bush's..
                       \_ I remember Bill Lann Lee's appointment by Clinton.
                          Here's an old article on recess appointments
                          http://slate.msn.com/id/1002994 .  Interesting
                          recess appointments include Thurgood Marshall,
                          Earl Warren, William Brennan, and Potter Stewart.
                          \_ You mean you got this slate article on your
                             first google hit (rather than "remembering BLL").
                             If you had just said "Bill Lee" you wouldn't
                             sound so phony.
                             \_ Bill Lann Lee has always been referred to with
                                his full name.  I'd be the phony *if* I called
                                him "Bill Lee" (and, indeed, I probably would
                                not have remembered his name were he plain old
                                Bill Lee).  Try googling "Bill Lann Lee"
                                him "Bill Lee".  Try googling "Bill Lann Lee"
                                if you wish.  I take it you were unaware of
                                his confirmation drama.
                    \_ Comparing the ambassador to Luxemborg with the
                       ambassador to the UN really only demonstrates how silly
                       you are.
                       \_ Now, if only we can decide which post is the more
                          important...
                          \_ Burn. -- ilyas
        \_ There is no real evidence that Bolton has anything to do with
           the Plame investigation, just a lot of speculation.
           \_ Okay then, how 'bout when he's cuffed for perjuring himself
              in his confirmation hearing by saying he wasn't interviewed
              by Fitzgerald
              \_ No no no.  Perjury is ONLY bad when a D POTUS does it.
                 \_ And then only if it's about something that has zero
                    to do with running the country, say, hypothetically,
                    consensual oral sex between two adults.
                    \_ You know, people always make this remark.  But I think
                       it's fairly natural to think the POTUS, in some sense,
                       'represents America.'  In particular, the POTUS ought to
                       conform to American cultural norms, which involves
                       avoiding things like infidelity and borderline perjury.
                         -- ilyas
                       \_ See, this is where I'm always surprised at your
                          idealism, ilya.  I have never expected personal
                          perfection from a politician.  This remark does
                          color the validity of impeachment.  He did not
                          misuse the office to perform his bad act.  He did
                          it all on his own.  It tarnishes _his_ presidency,
                          but not _the_ presidency.  I agree with your choice
                          of "ought".  Yes, the president ought to behave,
                          but Clinton was wrongly impeached and rightly not
                          removed.
                          \_ I don't expect personal perfection from a
                             politician -- far from it.  But it is surprising
                             that the bar is set so low that those Bad Things
                             I mentioned 'get a pass' so to speak.  I mean does
                             it really take so much character to avoid
                             compulsively lying and sleeping around outside
                             your marriage? -- ilyas
                             \_ Who said to give him a pass?  A more
                                appropriate action would have been censure.
                                I bet they could even have worded it to get
                                it to pass unanimously.
                                \_ I don't understand.  Tarnishing 'his
                                   Presidency' deserves censure, but
                                   tarnishing 'the Presidency' deserves
                                   impeachment?  Are these things written down
                                   somewhere, or is this just your personal
                                   opinion on what should be done? -- ilyas
                                   \_ Of course it's just my opinion.
                                      \_ You know, there sure as heck was a lot
                                         of criticism of the EVIL REPUBLICAN
                                         WITCHHUNT at the time, and even now,
                                         for a matter that reduces, ultimately,
                                         to a matter of opinion.  Thanks for
                                         discussing this civilly, Ben.
                                           -- ilyas
        \_ Stop harassing that nice man from the oatmeal commercial!
           \_ Appoint Bolton as ambassador.  It's the right thing to do.
2005/8/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38902 Activity:kinda low
7/31    Btw, how are those charges against Rove coming along? I haven't been
        following the news lately.
        \_ Everything is speculation at this point, with no big revelations
           after the story about the Air Force One memo and so forth.  Either
           Fitzgerald and the Grand Jury are much better at controlling leaks
           than Kenneth Starr was, or there isn't much going on.
           \_ Reporters covering it say the former.
        \_ Bush bashers are failing. Democrats are fucked and Republicans
           are winning: http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/bushbashingfizzles
           are winning: http://lin.kz/?vprls
           are winning: http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/bushbashingfizzles
           \_ is US News a conservative news source?
           \_ Duhhh...
           \_ Strength through Purity! Purity through Faith!
              \_ Stupidity through Partisanship!
           \_ Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Partei!
           \_ Yeah, that 43% approval rating is just knockin' em dead!
              \_ Faith Based Politics. Actual results don't matter, just
                 faith in your leader.
        \_ Commodisation of news-- if Rove reports are not selling, move on.
           http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/fellows/papers02-03/shaw.pdf
           http://lin.kz/?i3myr
           http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/fellows/papers02-03/shaw.pdf
2005/7/28-29 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:38858 Activity:nil
7/28    Worship the mighty Clinton
        http://media.orkut.com/articles/0231.html
        \_ I thought this was a joke, until I started to do some googling.
           People sure are gullible.
2005/7/22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38772 Activity:insanely high
7/22    Best 2 articles describing Plame Rove treason I've read so far, since
        it is a confusing story.  One political, one from inside ... One from
        a Democrat, one from a Republican.
        http://tinyurl.com/7qmra
        \_ This falls to pieces with: "Another false claim is that Valerie sent
           her husband on the mission to Niger."  No one is claiming that Plame
           sent him.  The claim is that she **RECOMMENDED** him.  The Senate
           Intelligence Committee has a memo in her handwriting proving this.
           And of course this: "The President has flip flopped and backed away
           from his promise to fire anyone at the White House implicated in a
           leak."  What a putz.
           \_   From above URL:
              "The Senate Intelligence Report is frequently cited by
              Republican partisans as 'proof' that Valerie sent her husband to
              Niger because she sent a memo describing her husband's
              qualifications to the Deputy Division Chief. Several news
              personalities, such as Chris Matthews and Bill O'Reilly continue
                                     \_ Neither of which are R's AFAIK (but I
                                        don't watch either of them).  Show me
                                        the quotes from R partisans.
                                        \_ To paraphrase someone else on the
                                           motd, you've provided a great
                                           demonstration of "being obtuse."
                                           \_ Nah, it's just hard to read
                                              something which sounds
                                              intelligent yet disputes a key
                                              point which you thought was
                                              100% true.
                                        \_ Read carefully, dude, it's ALL
                                           THERE:  The addendum in the Senate
                                           report was Republican, the
                                           spinmeisters (not necessarily
                                           Republican) quote the addendum.
                                           \_ I DON'T BELIEVE THIS.  Is that
                                              too hard to understand?  I think
                                              this guy is spinning, and I want
                                              to see what he claims to be
                                              quoting.  This whole issue has
                                              been more heat than light and
                                              everytime I get claims like this
                                              I ask for source documents.
                                              EVERY FUCKING TIME THE RESPONSE
                                              HAS BEEN SILENCE.  So if he can't
                                              back up his claim, or you can't,
                                              then SHUT THE FUCK UP.
                                              \_ Is "SHUT THE FUCK UP",
                                                 "EVERY FUCKING TIME", and
                                                 "I DON'T BELIEVE THIS"
                                                 supposed to be more light
                                                 than heat?
                                                 Besides, your post, "Neither
                                                 of which are R's AFAIK ...
                                                 Show me the quotes from R
                                                 partisans" was completely
                                                 answered by the the
                                                 "Read carefully, dude"
                                                 response.
                                                 Your emotional response seems
                                                 to be on another topic
                                                 entirely.
                                                 \_ Repeating what's in the
                                                    quote sure isn't.  If you
                                                    have a source, let us know.
                                              \_ All caps boy deleted my
                                                 question, but I'll ask him
                                                 again.  Do you think typing
                                                 in all caps helps your case?
                                                 \_ No, I didn't delete your
                                                    question.
              to repeat this nonsense as proof. What the Senate Intelligence
              Committee does not include in the report is the fact that
              Valerie's boss had asked her to write a memo outlining her
              husband's qualifications for the job. She did what any good
              employee does; she gave her boss what he asked for."
              \_ Show me the statement from Plame's boss that confirms this.
                From danh's link:
              Seven months after the appointment of the special counsel, in
              July 2004, the Republican-dominated Senate Select Committee on
              Intelligence issued its report on flawed intelligence leading to
              the Iraq war. The blame for failure was squarely put on the CIA
              for "groupthink." (The Republicans quashed a promised second
              report on political pressure on the intelligence process.) The
              three-page addendum by the ranking Republicans followed the now
              well-worn attack lines: "The plan to send the former ambassador
              to Niger was suggested by the former ambassador's wife, a CIA
              employee." The CIA subsequently issued a statement, as reported
              by New York Newsday and CNN, that the Republican senators'
              conclusion about Plame's role was wholly inaccurate. But the
              Washington Post's Susan Schmidt reported only the Republican
              senators' version, writing that Wilson was "specifically
              recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee,
              contrary to what he has said publicly," in a memo she wrote.
              Schmidt quoted a CIA official in the senators' account saying
              that Plame had "offered up" Wilson's name. Plame's memo, in
              fact, was written at the express directive of her superiors two
              days before Wilson was to come to Langley for his meeting to
              describe his qualifications in a standard protocol to receive
              "country clearance." Unfortunately, Schmidt's article did not
              reflect this understanding of routine CIA procedure. The CIA
              officer who wrote the memo that originally recommended Wilson
              for the mission--who was cited anonymously by the senators as
              the only source who said that Plame was responsible--was deeply
              upset at the twisting of his testimony, which was not public,
              and told Plame he had said no such thing. CIA spokesman Bill
              Harlow told Wilson that the Republican Senate staff never
              contacted him for the agency's information on the matter.
                Key words:
              (partisan) "addendum by the ranking Republicans",
              "CIA subsequently issued a statement ... Republican senators'
              conclusion about Plame's role was wholly inaccurate", "CIA
              officer ... that originally recommended Wilson for the mission
              ... was deeply upset at the twisting of his testimony ... told
              Plame he had said no such thing"
              \_ Show me the statement from Plame's boss that confirms this.
                 \_ Show me the statement from Plame's boss that disputes this.
                    \_ He makes the claim about Plame's boss.  Show me the
                       claim or SHUT THE FUCK UP.
                       \_ Why so angry?
                 \_ Unfortunately, her boss is probably covert as well.
                    How CONVENIIEENT ... I know ... but we do have:
                    http://csua.org/u/ctc (Newsday)
                    "A senior intelligence official ... said [Plame] did not
                    recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment."
                    LA Times (7/15/04, article archived):
                    "A senior intelligence official said the CIA supports
                    Wilson's version: 'Her bosses say she did not initiate the
                    idea of her husband going. They asked her if he'd be
                    willing to go, and she said yes,' the official said."
                    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A30842-2003Dec25
                    "CIA officials have challenged the accuracy of the INR
                    document [used to claim that Plame suggested Joe Wilson's
                    name], the official said, because the [CIA] agency officer
                    identified as talking about Plame's alleged role in
                    arranging Wilson's trip could not have attended the
                    meeting."
           \_ And the White House has flip flopped on whether they would
              fire anyone who leaked Plame's name to a reporter. First they
              said they would, now Bush says only if they have broken
              the law.
              \_ fyi, an old friend of mine who's a loyal Republican voter
                 wrote in his blog that, after the flip-flop on Rove, he
                 has decided that his vote for Dubya in 2004 was a mistake.
           \_ The article falls apart? Try reading it again!
        http://tinyurl.com/dx3ok
        \_ I really like the first story, where the author also says that he
           voted for Dubya in 2000.
        \_ Countdown to someone mentioning Clinton in 5, 4, 3...
           \_ Author of first story also said he voted for Dubya because he
              understood what the meaning of "is" was
              \_ Obviously you've never served.
                 \_ Are you a troll? Do you have any understanding of the
                    effect of the methamphetamine trade on southern Michigan?
                 \_ obviously you think your trolls aren't that stupid
                    \_ I bet BUD DAY makes _excellent_ trolls.
                    \_ BUD DAY!
2005/7/19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:38713 Activity:nil
7/19    Rove _should_ be punished even if he is legally found innocent,
        because what he did was unethical, foolish, and dangerous.  If he
        didn't know better, he should have.  Bush came into office saying
        he would restore integrity.  He has an opportunity to do this by
        firing Rove.  He hasn't.  He's backed further and further from his
        "I will fire anyone involved" because he knows it was a definitive
        statement.  He's hoping for people not to notice.
        This is on par with the house eviscerating its ethics committee and
        rescinding the "get indicted, lose your leadership position" rules.
        Once upon a time the bar was "appearance of impropriety" but that's
        apparently too hard these days.
        In short, as soon as his lawyer said "by the way, yeah he did tell
        her name to these guys" his desk should have been packed and his
        WH badge pulled.  Anything less is pure hypocrisy. --scotsman
        \_ well said. -nivra
        \_ Ok, I haven't been following this very carefully, does someone want
           to summarize what was found for me? -- ilyas
           \_ I'm speaking to the thread below.  All this discussion is moot
              until Fitzgerald reports.  But the WH's statements that "anyone
              involved would be fired" should have been honored.
        \_ What if Rove was actually innocent (in the ethical sense as well as
           the legal sense)?  How do we decide if he were ethically innocent?
           \_ I'm tempted to say "doesn't matter".  The president said he
              would fire him.  He hasn't.  If Rove was ethically pure, then
              in terms of being entrusted with any sort of security clearance
              he was utterly incompetent.  I don't know which is worse.
              Actually, strike all of the above.  Do you know just how FUCKING
              STUPID you sound?
              \_ Why?  Because I'm still waiting for all the evidence to come
                 out before I pass judgement?
        \_ unethical how?  If he didn't know she was covert (or she wasn't even
           covert)  how is that unethical?
           foolish how?
           dangerous how?
           \_ eg. "I come across the information that X works at the CIA. Prior
              to revealing this information, it might behoove me to check _if_
              X's status is sensitive information."  The Jun 10 memo shows that
              Plame's status was sensitive.  Given your conditional, Rove
              apparently had been too _foolish_ to check.  This type of
              foolishness from an official privy to sensitive information is
              dangerous.
              \_ Oh give me a fucking break.  It's dangerous for the president
                 of the United States to lie under oath.  Why weren't you
                 calling for Clinton's head? -- ilyas
                 \_ Actually, I didn't support Clinton over the perjury charge.
                    I presume you or the op were calling for Clinton's head.
                    If so, why aren't you calling for Rove's head?  Revealing
                    the status of non official cover CIA assets is at least
                    as dangerous as the Clenis.
                 \_ The above wasn't me, but for me it's the same reason that
                    R's joined D's in voting not to remove him: because the
                    case brought wasn't weighty enough to warrant his removal.
                    (Okay, yes it's silly for me to suggest i know the
                    senators' reasoning) --scotsman
                    \_ So let me get this straight.  If Rove didn't do anything
                       legally wrong, he should still resign because he did
                       something 'unethical.'  Clinton, on the other hand,
                       despite not getting nailed on legal grounds, should
                       nevertheless have stayed despite doin something
                       clearly 'unethical.'
                       \_ No, Ilya.  Rove should resign or be fired because
                          the President said that's what would happen.  Clinton
                          isn't President right now, btw.
                          \_ I don't know how you managed to shout over my
                             response without waiting for me to finish,
                             _ON THE FUCKING MOTD_ but you did it.  Thanks for
                             pointing out Clinton isn't president now.  I rely
                             on hard working folks like you to keep me up to date
                             on world events.  You started your first post
                             talking about Rove doing something unethical and
                             foolish.  If you want to rag on Bush for not
                             following through on what you think Bush said,
                             that's fine, but if you want to rag on _Rove_, you
                             will have to explain why leaving Billy alone with
                             his foolishness and lack of ethics was ok. -- ilyas
                             \_ heh. you saved half your response (ending at
                                the second sentence), which Ben responded to
                                while you were constructing your last sentence.
                                He had no idea you were formulating a 3rd
                                sentence. -nivra
           \_ The purpose for his revealing this information to
              the public is to discredit a 3rd party, and advance an agenda.
              That is unethical.
              \_ Not necessarily.  Wilson still insists that his wife had
                 nothing to do with getting the trip, when she was the one who
                 recommended him.  Wilson looks pretty dirty to me.
                 \_ Every time you bring this up it sounds dumber and dumber.
                    You're FUD slinging.  Wilson has been a diplomat for
                    us for decades, has served in Iraq and African countries.
                    It doesn't matter that his wife may have recommended him.
                    You're asking us to believe that he and his wife, along
                    with the CIA, conspired to get sent over there just so he
                    could prove Bush wrong a couple years down the line.  You
                    need help.
                    \_ No, that's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying that Rove
                       was trying to discredit Wilson.  I don't think that Rove
                       offered a compelling reason ("don't believe him, he just
                       got the job because his wife recommended him").  And yet
                       he denies that she recommended him, even though the
                       Senate intelligence committee has a memo in her
                       handwriting recommending him.
                       \_ And to discredit him, he simply _had_ to reveal
                          a CIA agent's identity...
                       \_ danh's link says that this memo was a formality and
                          CIA folks are pretty pissed this memo is being
                          twisted.  Anyways, go back to what the other guy was
                          saying about it not mattering even if Plame
                          recommended Wilson.
2005/7/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:38621 Activity:moderate
7/14    Why do politicians I want to like keep trying to alienate me?
        http://csua.org/u/cpl (c|net)
        \_ A) Because you're part of a block the doesn't vote much.
           B) Hillary has been trying to pretend she has religious right
              opinions.
           C) Because politicians rarely know what they're talking about.
           D) All of the Above
        \_ The party of social liberalism, eh? -- ilyas
           \_ as a libertarian, wouldn't you agree with op in this case?
              \_ What, that Hillary is being venal and betraying the
              \_ What, that Hillary is being unprincipled by betraying the
                 'principles' of her party and trying to
                 appeal to religious conservatives in a calculated attempt
                 which also involved Rvt. Graham?  You don't need to be a
                 libertarian to agree. -- ilyas
                 \_ forget the politics.  I was asking about policy.  That
                    less legislation of business and markets the better. In
                    this case, the legislation is targetting morality.
                    \_ Of course I agree.  I rarely agree with the democrats,
                       this is just one of the first times I disagreed on
                       social issues. -- ilyas
                       \_ huh? I can't parse that.  You rarely agree, yet
                          this is one of the first times you've disagreed?
                          \_ Well, it could conceivably make sense as a claim
                             that social issues don't come up much, but that
                             would also be an odd assertion.
                             \_ It makes sense because economic issues are more
                                important to me than social issues. -- ilyas
                       \_ First times?  Ilyas, you need to google Tipper Gore
                          and the PMRC.  Democrats are definitely not new to
                          playing the morality-police game.
        \_ "Rockstar, like many video game developers, usually encourages
            so-called mod amateur programmers who create modifications for
            popular games, which often give players access to special areas,
            missions or abilities."  Like many?  Say what?
2005/7/12-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38577 Activity:nil
7/12    The Democrats Fight Against Democracy and the Constitution:
        http://tinyurl.com/7gghk (freeper link)
        \_ *sniff* I don't know whether to spew because of the content of the
           post or because our own little freeper troll has finally figured
           out how to use tinyurl.
           \_ Proof that not all Conservatives are as stupid as the ones
              you meet in Fresno.
2005/7/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:38545 Activity:nil
7/11    http://tinyurl.com/de4fu
        Check out reader's comments on The Truth about Hillary, and
        how people vote for "Was this useful?
        \_ Atticus' comments were the most poignant.
        \_ Boo Radley's comments were the most poignant.
2005/7/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:38530 Activity:nil
7/11    Truth about Hillary:
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1440782/posts           [jblack]
2005/7/11-13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:38525 Activity:low
7/11    "The Truth About Hillary" has made the New York Times best-seller
        list for the second week in a row - a development that has the Times
        book review spitting mad.
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1440701/posts
        \_ Micheal Moore's books were also best sellers, and were also retarded.
           I think spending money on stupid books with some political axe to
           grind that we agree with has become a major way Americans express
           our political beliefs.  It's stupid, but true.  Now if only I
           could find the right axe, I'd never have to work again.
           \_ 1. write axe-grind book
              2. buy up enough of your own book to make it a bestseller
              3. since it's a bestseller, people will buy it to see what the
                 deal is
              4. profit!
        \_ have you read the book?  even most conservatives think
           ed klein is a piece of shit.
           \_ Conservatives also said the same thing about Kitty Kelley's
              laughable "The Family" book.  Yet the NYTimes gave that one a
              favorable review. link:csua.org/u/cof
        \_ no but seriously, the book sucks, i read most of it but
           i couldn't take it anymore.  here is what your dark overlord
           John Podhoretz has to say about it:
           http://www.rightnation.us/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t80745.html
           here is my dark overlord Al Franken interviewing Ed Klein
           http://mediamatters.org/items/200506240007
           Just bringing up this book makes you look silly. - danh
                \_ you don't look like such an ass in person, what happened?
                   http://www-bsac.eecs.berkeley.edu/~jblack/eau.jpg
        \_ maybe you need a cruise to unwind.
           http://www.weeklystandard.com/banman/ads/Cruise2006a.300x250.jpg
              \_ I think 2 and 3 can be simplified to: 2. enrage those who
                 disagree with you enough that they start to emit bile and
                 spittle in their favorite media.  3. Just to stick it to
                 those who disagree with you, those who agree will buy the
                 book.  And of course no one will argue with 4.  It's sure made
                 Michael Moore rich.
              \_ Skip step one, and you've described the $cientology strategy
                 to a tee.
2005/7/8-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38491 Activity:nil
7/8     Mann Report on "liberalism" of PBS is a joke:
        http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050718&s=blumenthal
2005/6/30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38369 Activity:nil
6/29    The Daily Show and The Last Throes
        http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/06/27.html#a3668
        \_ This is excellent.  Thanks.
           The guy playing the conservative commentator wasn't funny at all
           though.
2005/6/21-22 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:38240 Activity:moderate
6/21    DeLay is just a good honest Republican:
        http://csua.org/u/cgt (Yahoo news)
        \_ Dan Rostenkowski, and Jim Wright, are good
           honest Democrats too. Please! Both sides cheat,
           the trick is not to get caught. If you don't know
           who those two are, you are yet another person
           who thinks politics extends back only to Clinton.
           \_ The point is that he's the GOP House leader, and GOP folks
              are more hypocritical / much less apologetic about corruption,
              politicking, and screw-ups.
              \_ Heh. -- ilyas
        \_ Dan Rostenkowski, Jim Wright, and Jim Traficant are good
           honest Democrats too. Please! Both sides cheat, the trick
           is not to get caught. If you don't know who those three are
           you are yet another person who thinks politics extends back
           Clinton.
              \_ Rostenkowski was what? Wright was what? Talk about less
                 apologetic - look at Traficant.
        \_ Shock!  Surprise!  Politicians are all scummy!  "Your politicians
           are scummier than my politicians!  nyah!"  Whatever on all of you.
           These sorts of "your guys are more corrupt and hypocritical than
           my guys are corrupt and hypocritical" noise is sheer idiocy from
           both parties.  I vote for people who believe in what I believe in
           not for a party.
        \_ delay is much more powerful than rostenkowski or traficant
           ever were.  my memory doesn't go back far enough to comment
           on wright.  it is funny that the 5th in command
           republican is such a slimeball. - danh
2005/6/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:38214 Activity:kinda low
6/20    Adelphia Founder gets 15 years in jail. His son gets 20.
        Hooray for justice, and DOWN WITH RAMPANT CORPORATE FRAUD!!!
        http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160147,00.html
        \_ Hey man, he didn't mean to do any harm, he was just trying to
           improve conditions when he stole that $100 million.
           \_ Hahaha that's his claim and the judge didn't buy it
        \_ What I don't understand is, if you catch 20 years in the clink, and
           the judge orders you to show up in 3 months, wouldn't you just try
           as hard as you could to salvage some cash and then get the hell
           out of dodge?  -John
           \_ This is why they often confiscate your passport. Not that
              anyone checks these things at the TJ crossing.
              \- 1. because they will probably end up at a not super awful
                    prison. if they were facing the likelyhood of being
                    sodomized they probably would have taken off
                 2. let's see how long they actually serve ... when do they
                    actually get incarcerated?
                 3. they may not want to live anywhere that we dont have
                    extradition treaties ... once you flee, you are sort
                    of burning your bridges (*) so they may be betting on
                    of burning your bridges (*) so they may be counting on
                    being able to reddeem themselves like say michael milken.
                    * = of course as we learn from the Clinton-Marc Rich
                        episode, you can buy your way out of that too.
                        clinton lovers really should not try and defend that
                        one.
                        episode.
2005/6/8-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:38047 Activity:nil
6/8     George Bush's approval rating is now twenty points lower than that
        of Bill Clinton's on the day that he was impeached.
        http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8118278/#050607
        "Your work sucks and everyone hates you, but I'd hire you all over
        again if given the chance."
        \_ I must have been asleep for a while...when was Clinton
           impeached?
           \_ iirc, the house voted to impeach Clinton but the senate
              didn't agree.
              \_ Uhm, no. The House impeaches the president. The Senate
                 has the trial. Clinton is the 2nd president to be impeached
                 after Johnson in the history of the U.S..
                 \_ You are correct, but pp's error is in terminology.
                    The House did vote to Impeach. The Senate vote on
                    the first article of impeachment (perjury) was 45-55;
                    on the second (obstruction) it was 50-50. Clinton
                    was acquitted of both articles of impeachment.
                    http://csua.org/u/cb2 (rutgers.edu)
                    \_ To impeach is basically to indict.
    http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Clintonimpeach.htm
                       \_ Correct. The House votes to impeach/indict;
                          the Senate convicts or acquites. This time,
                          they acquitted.
2005/6/7-8 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll/Jblack, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:37998 Activity:high
6/7     Los Alamos Whistleblower Beaten
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1417842/posts
        Similar to the whisteblower on Loral / Clinton
        \_ Wow, freepers are blaming it on Clinton... amazing...
        \_ Obligatory snort of derision at use of freeper link.
           \_ The photos at top were worth it.
              Do the Liberal Elite always snort with derision at freeper links?
              \_ The photos are available elsewhere as well.  Any sane person
                 should snort with derision at freeper links.
        \_ Wow, the Bush goons will stop at nothing to cover up evidence
           of their wrongdoing. I love how the Freeper all try to pin
           it on the "unions." Are there even unions at Los Alamos?
           \_ Are you a dumb liberal?  You sound like one.
              The likely culprit is one or two specific Los Alamos employees
              -- identities unknown.
              Remember Los Alamos was the place where two workers were put on
              investigative leave for misusing government credit cards (one
              had spent $30K on a customized Ford Mustang) to a total of $900K.
                \_ Go check your facts.  This was how it was reported but is
                   not the truth.  Of course your media won't report the truth.
              Later in 2002 two other people in LANL bldg maintenance were
              accused by 5 co-workers for using LANL funds to buy camping
              equipment, GPS tools, a picnic table and lawn chairs, etc. for
              their own use.
              University of California oversees LANL, so possesses blame for
              allowing the situation to get to the point where someone hires
              thugs to fuck up the whistleblower.
              Whether or not a union is involved, well, that's just freeper
              talk.
              \_ Which is exactly why it's really lame to post a freeper link
                 when the info is available just about everywhere else.
              \_ This is a Federal Lab, therefore funded and under control
                 of Federal authorities. When did "The Buck Stops Here"
                 go out of fashion?
                 go out of fashion? Are you a brainwashed Bushbot?
                 You sure sound like one.
                 \_ Step back Troll!  I have a +5 Flaming Sword & Oil Flasks!!1
                    \_ Hey, I am giving an eye for an eye.
                    \_ Hey, I am just giving an eye for an eye.
2005/6/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:37954 Activity:high
6/2     Wow, Ben Stein has a... different view of Nixon.
        http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8242
        \_ Ben Stein has always quite proudly been a Republican
           tool.  G Gordon Liddy's views on Nixon are funnier. - danh
           \_ No, the funniest was probably the recent Peggy Noonan column,
              where she called W. Mark Felt a bringer of death and then
              claimed that the most honorable man in the Nixon administration
              was Chuck Colson.
              \_ Mark Felt is actually Pol Pot's father.
           \_ Not just a republican tool. He was a speechwriter and lawyer
              for Nixon.
        \_ Not really, if you saw Nixon it has a lot of the points
           made by Stein, and I doubt Stone is a fan of the RNC.
           As for the Khmer Rouge allegation, I highly doubt that
           though. Would the KR have ever existed if we had gotten
           out of Vietnam earlier? It's an interesting point because
           \_ Or if we had stayed out of cambodia, period.
           it was the Vietnamese who finally overthrew KR. Also,
           would the KR have ever existed without the Vietnamese
           conflict? Most likely not. It's really tricky to determine
           geopolitics like this. Nixon also probably would have let
           KR happen, Nam was a lost cause, and getting China was much
           more important than protecting southeast asia.
        \_ Stein is correct. Nixon was a good president and a
           decent human being who was unfairly attacked by the
           left wing nut-cases in this country. He got overly
           involved in a minor crime which was his ONLY fault.
           \_ "Only"...  If you can't find faults in a leader, you're following
              a little too blindly.
           \_ "Now there are some who would like to rewrite history:
              revisionist historians is what I like to call them." --GWB
           \_ "I don't want to see this country to go that way.  You
              know what happened to the Greeks.  Homosexuality
              destroyed them. Sure, Aristotle was a homo, we all know
              that, so was Socrates."  -RMN
           \_ "They're not like us. They smell different, they look
              different, they act different.  The trouble is, you
              can't find one that's honest."  -Nixon on Italians
           \_ "You know, it's a funny thing, every one of the bastards
              that are out for legalizing marijuana is Jewish. What
              the Christ is the matter with the Jews, Bob? What is the
              matter with them? I suppose it is because most of them
              are psychiatrists."  -RMN
           \_ "Do you know what happened to the Romans?  The last six
               Roman emperors were fags. . . .  You know what happened
               to the popes?  It's all right that popes were laying
               the nuns."  -RMN
           \_ "You have to face the fact that whole problem is really
              the blacks. The key is to divise a system that reconizes
              this while not appearing to..."  -RMN
              \_ I guess it makes sense that Nixon is a hero to the
                 anonymous troll wingnuts.  -tom
                 \_ ... and to Ben Stein!
                        \_ Am I naive to think that a President doesn't
                           have to massively abuse his power to be President?
2005/5/27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/SIG] UID:37862 Activity:nil
5/27    Republicanism at work.  Rick Santorum takes political donation from
        AccuWeather, pushes bill that would prevent National Weather Service
        from offerring for free the data that AccuWeather (amongst many others)
        tries to sell to people.
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050527/ap_on_go_co/santorum_s_storm
        Very nice NWS site:
        http://www.nws.noaa.gov
        Compare with, for instance:
        http://weather.com
        \_ Nice troll. If you actually read the article you would note that
           there had been an existing standard for the past 14 years that would
           not allow the NWS to compete with private weather forecasting.
           Last I heard the Dems were still in power in congress in 1991.
           In addition, this rule survived through 8 years of Clinton.
           \_ Nice troll.  There was a rule change last year that allowed
              NWS to cover areas covered by industry, making this the new
              status quo.
              Santorum's bill would again restrict NWS services.
              \_ No shit sherlock. The point isn't that the rule expired,
                 dimwit, the point is that it isn't a "Republican plot"
                 as described by OP. If the rule was changed last year,
                 then it was changed under a Republican congress with a
                 Republican president at the helm, which again is completely
                 opposite of what the OP is saying.
        \_ Not Republicanism--scumbag politician bought by special interest at
           work.  R's and D's both have them.
           \_ That's funny, because when the Republicans were the minority, we
              kept hearing about how they were going to put an end to special
              interest politics.  Now it seems they've just replaced the
              Democratic interests with their own.
              \_ No argument there, and it pisses me off just as much as
                 it does you.  Probably more.
        \_ I found what looked like santorum in hotel room once. Yuck.
        \_ If it's run by a business it must be more efficient!
           Down with the socialist National Weather Service!
2005/5/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37809 Activity:kinda low
5/23    http://csua.org/u/c5y (Post)
        A certain and clear pattern has emerged when a damaging accusation or
        claim against the Bush administration or the Republican-led Congress
        is publicized: Bush supporters laser in on a weakness, fallacy or
        inaccuracy in the story's sourcing while diverting all attention from
        the issue at hand to the source or the accuser in the story. ...
        Some will argue that such questions are irrelevant or miss the point
        because Bush's bold action in Iraq got rid of a tyrant who was abusing
        his own people and because it will eventually lead to the spread of
        democracy in the area. Both may be true. But the case for war was
        built neither on humanitarianism nor on spreading democracy. Those
        arguments were, at most, used to bolster the main case, which was that
        Iraq was building weapons of mass destruction and presented an
        imminent threat to America and its allies.
        \_ Bud Day doesn't appreciate your tone of voice.
           \_ If you really respected BUD DAY you would always capitalize
              His name.
              \_ You've obviously never served.
                 \_ If he did, it would destablize the middle east for
                    generations!
                    \_ Are you Chinese?  Do you understand the effect BUD
                       DAY had on the American War effort in China?
                    \_ Heh, I missed this one.
2005/5/19 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:37764 Activity:kinda low
5/19    Irony is Dead: The Republicans are trying to use a bogus interpretation
        of the Constitution to force the confirmation of judges they believe
        will return us to an "originalist" interpretation of the Constitution.
        \_ Remember, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.  -John
        \_ News flash!  Partisans redefine terms to look good!  Yeah, it's
           pathetic.  But then, I think all procedures which prevent the
           majority from passing legislation/etc. which aren't explicitly in
           the Constitution should be eliminated. -conservative
           \_ And to hell with that whole "protection of the minority" idea.
              \_ There are constitutional supermajorities required for some
                 things.
                 \_ And the constitution also says the senate runs by its own
                    rules.  Those rules require a 2/3 vote to change.  If they
                    can be changed by a majority vote "because dick says so",
                    watch the fuck out.
                    \_ I was under the impression that only 50%+1 was necessary
                       to change rules.  Where did you find 2/3 to change
                       senate rules?
                       \_ Answering myself.
                          http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/standingrules.txt
                          seems to say two-thirds.  But there are so many
                          run-on sentences it's hard to read.
                          \_ Since you view yourself as such a strident
                             Constitutional purist you might like to know
                             the aforementioned document specifies five
                             instances where a supermajority is required.
                             Guess what, appellate judge nominations is not
                             one of them.  The Founders were afraid of
                             judicial tyranny for a reason.  What is wrong
                             with a simple yes or no vote on the Senate floor?
                             \_ What is wrong with hypocrisy?
                             \_ did you feel the same way when Clinton
                                was President?
                                \_ none of Clinton's judge nominations
                                   were filibustered.  What precisely
                                   am I expected to "feel".
                                   \_ But they were not given a simple up
                                      and down vote in the Senate, were they?
                                      I would expect you to be consistent,
                                      or just admit you are only interested
                                      in power for its own sake, not in any
                                      notion of fair play.
                                      \_ An appointee should die in committee
                                         if the committee thinks he won't come
                                         close to an up vote.  That's the point
                                         of a committee.  Alternatively, the
                                         committee could just send the vote to
                                         the floor with a recommendation (which
                                         seems reasonable to me).
                                         \_ Is that what happened to Clinton?\
                                            All 60 of his nominees that were
                                            blocked in committee had no chance
                                            in an up and down vote? Is that
                                            what you believe?
                                            \_ FATALITY!!1!
                                               (ob follow-up about false
                                               dichotomies that ignores that
                                               he just got slammed)
                                               \_ How old are you?
2005/5/18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:37727 Activity:high
5/17    The L.A. Times editorial board sure is weird on the filibuster issue
        http://csua.org/u/c3q
        \_ "Because the filibuster is at heart a conservative's weapon"
           !?!?
           \_ When you filibuster, you are by definition, blocking change
              and preserving the status quo. It comes from the older
              definition of Conservative, one who tends to resist change
              and prefers to keep tradition.
        \_ It's an interesting argument.  They're arguing that the demise of
           the filibuster promotes a liberal agenda in the long term.  That,
           throughout history, the filibuster has been used primarily by
           conservatives to block liberal legislation.  They do have a point.
           Republicans blocked more of Clinton's nominees via filibuster than
           Democrats have blocked of Bush's nominees.  The LA editorial board
           is actually pushing the argument that the filibuster should be
           disallowed on all Senatorial bills, and that the filibuster causes
           a 51% majority requirement on bills to become a 61% super-majority.
           \_ The cloture rules, as written, make it obvious that you need
              61% to pass bills in the Senate.  It is reasonable to assume
              that the people who wrote the rules wanted it that way for a
              reason.  -tom
           \_ I see your point, but I wonder if a 51% majority is really a
              healthy number for passing laws that affect our entire nation.
              \_ That's another debate altogether.  The founding fathers
                 thought that it was.  Otoh, some interpret the founding
                 fathers' wishes as wanting the Constitution to be a much
                 more fluid, living document of laws, and thus, perhaps
                 the present acrimony means that a comfortable majority of 51%
                 is no longer enough.  But this is all speculation.
           \_ None of Clinton's judges were blocked by filibuster.
              \_ Now now.  No fair actually using facts.  These people redefine
                 filibuster to support their argument.  They can have their
                 reality.
                 \_ And the R's don't redefine terms constantly?  The over-
                    riding story they've been pitching is that nominees deserve
                    an up or down vote.  As many of them participated in deny-
                    ing such votes in the past when the balance of power was
                    reversed, they are hypocrits, pure and simple.  I believe
                    that it's excellent to have the filibuster available for
                    appointments because it encourages compromise.  You want
                    your people through, you convince more than just your side.
                    And it's a very notable point that the vast majority of
                    the nominees have been confirmed already.
                    \_ By "these people" I didn't mean D's.  I meant people who
                       don't give a damn about truth or consistency, but only
                       care about the R or the D.  Are there people like that
                       with R's?  Yes.
                  \_ They used another procedure which allowed them to block
                     appointees. A procedure which has seen been changed so
                     that can no longer be used. Even many Republicans called
                     it a "filibuster" so you can understand the confusion.
                     And there were attempted filibusters of Clinton nominees,
                     just unsuccessful ones. Or is it only wrong if you
                     are successful?
                     http://mediamatters.org/items/200503160004
                     \_ Ah yes, that left-wing http://mm.org
                        \_ Ah yes, the shoot the messenger approach.  When you
                           can't deny the facts, tar the presenter.
                           \_ Hey I learned this from the best liberals.
                              \_ Most liberals I know are more than willing to
                                 change their mind when presented with
                                 verifiable facts, myself included.  The same
                                 cannot be said for most conservatives I know.
                                 As intelligence increases, this distinction
                                 breaks down.
                                 \_ Ha ha ha ha ha ha!  Ha!
                                    \_ Hint, your bumper sticker arguments are
                                       probably neither verifiable nor based
                                       on facts.
                                    \_ Most liberals I know are the same way.
                                       The very definition of the word liberal
                                       includes openness to change. Perhaps
                                       you hang out with the wrong liberals,
                                       or perhaps the only "liberals" you are
                                       familiar with are the ones you hear
                                       about on Fox News and Michael Savage.
                                 \_ "When people think, Democrats win" -Bubba
                              \_ e.g.?
                                 \_ WorldNetDaily, freepers, etc.
                                    \_ Ha ha ha, liberals, right.
                        \_ Is there anything in that article or my statement
                           that is incorrect as opposed to inconvenient
                           to your interpretation of the world?
                           \_ "In fact, Republicans filibustered several of
                              then-President Clinton's ambassadorial and
                              Justice Department appointments in the 1990s and
                              attempted to filibuster Clinton's judicial
                              nominees."  Patently false.
                              \_ Did you read the whole article?  Do you doubt
                                 the Washington Post's and New York Times'
                                 reporting on Senate dealings?
                                 \_ You mean the 85-12 vote to cut off an
                                    "attempted" filibuster?  Doesn't sound like
                                    a filibuster to me.  No, I don't trust this
                                    site to accurately quote the sources, and I
                                    don't trust the NY Times period.  The Post
                                    is iffy.
                                    \_ You're really not worth talking to.
                                 \_ Name a Clinton appointee who was
                                    filibustered.  Go for it.
                                    \_ Did you read the article?  Sam Brown.
                                       For judicial nominees, as the article
                                       says, there were a number of attempts
                                       at fillibustering his nominees.  There
                                       were also a number of others that never
                                       went to a committee hearing because they
                                       blocked them procedurally.
                                       \_ I'm unable to confirm Sam Brown
                                          anywhere else.  Can you?
                                          \_ How 'bout the congressional
                                             record?
                    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r103:E08JN4-62
                                             \_ Nope.  The house is not the
                                                senate, and considering how
                                                people seem to redefine
                                                filibuster, this isn't
                                                acceptable.
                                                \_ You're a fucking imbecile.
                                                   \_ You've got to be kidding
                                                      me.  Wait...does the next
                                                      line go "I know you are
                                                      but what am I"?
                                                      \_ To believe that the
                                                         sources offered are
                                                         tricking you, you
                                                         would have to be
                                                         dangerously unbalanced
                                                         or mind-bogglingly
                                                         stupid. Either way,
                                                         you're not worth
                                                         talking to.
                                                         \_ I don't believe
                                                            they're "tricking"
                                                            me.  The quote I
                                                            found yesterday had
                                                            a R senator saying
                                                            that stopping
                                                            someone in
                                                            committee is a
                                                            filibuster.  Just
                                                            having the word
                                                            'filibuster' isn't
                                                            enough.
                                             Also Henry Foster for Surgeon
                                             General in 1995.  Let's see
                                             if your researching skills are
                                             better on him.
                                             \_ Okay, I can verify that.  Which
                                                explains the R's limiting the
                                                claim to judges.
                                                \_ After they applied the claim
                                                   in general...
                                                \_ So, as the person says
                                                   below, are these filibusters
                                                   only "wrong" when they
                                                   succeed?
                                \_ So your position is that it is moral to
                                   attempt a filibuster as long as you
                                   don't succeed? Only successful filibusters
                                   are immoral and unconstitutional?
                                   \_ It's seriously fun watching Frist try
                                      to make this maneuver.
                                   \_ I've no position on the "morality" of a
                                      filibuster.  I'm for getting rid of it
                                      entirely.
                                      \_ So you admit the Republicans are
                                         hypocrites, but you support them
                                         anyway.
                                         anyway. Did you have the same
                                         opinion about the filibuster when
                                         Clinton was in office?
                                      \_ So.. you want the senate to be the
                                         house with fewer people...
                                         \_ The filibuster and size aren't the
                                            only differences between the house
                                            and senate.  And if you distrust
                                            the house, should we eliminate it?
2005/5/15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:37694 Activity:nil
5/15    Indictments Mount for Hillary Aides
        http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1403701/posts
2005/5/13-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37668 Activity:moderate
5/13    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050513/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/base_closings
        When was the last major closure of bases? Clinton? Kennedy? Does
        this mean there will be a lot of pissed off military men, with
        rifles and sniper guns and no jobs?
        \_ I REALLY hope pissed off jobless military men get militant and
           start throwing pies at Bush.
        \_ People from closed bases need to move to other bases.
           \_ yeah like bases in... Iraq.
           \_ so the cut-back is just savings from operational costs
              associated with geography?
              \_ Well there are the buildings on top of the geography and
                 the resources to keep them running.
        \_ Clinton closed a bunch of bases.  As I recall Republicans
           complained.  I bet the Dems do this time.
           \_ Mmm... a little history might give you a FUCKING CLUE.
              Dick Armey's legislation under Reagan created the commission
              so that Congress would be in on base closings.  Over the last
              17 years through 4 different presidents, there have been sporadic
              base closings.
              In 2002, Bush said he would veto the defense spending bill if
              they didn't include a provision for another commission for 2005.
           \_ Who cut more? Clinton closed down Treasure Island right?
              \_ Most of the moderately-recent Bay Area military base closures
                 were under Clinton -- NAS Alameda, Treasure Island, Mare
                 Island, Moffett, Fort Ord, maybe a few others. I seem to
                 recall a lot of military resource consolidation stuff under
                 Clinton's administration, much of which was (in my opinion)
                 fairly justified given the post-Cold-War reduction in
                 military forces. -gm
                 \_ Although the last round of closures did hit the bay area,
                    Dellums' clout as the ranking member of the armed
                    services committee protected us somewhat.
                    services committee protected us somewhat. Things
                    could be much worse this time around.
                    \_ Hang on a second.  Bases exist as tools for the
                       military to better protect the United States from
                       foreign aggression.  They are meant to be neither the
                       TVA nor the CCC nor any other make-work economic
                       stimulus.  When you start talking about being
                       "protected" from base closings, you get into dangerous
                       pork territory.  There are better and more efficient
                       ways of spending federal money than by suckling
                       communities on the teat of the military, such as on
                       Homeland Defense in threatened Iowa.  -John
                       \_ That is just the way politics works John and
                          it is somewhat naive to think otherwise. -ausman
                          \_ Of course it is, I'd assume you know I'm aware
                             of this :)  However, even if "it's just the way
                             it is", it's stupid and wrong and I'll certainly
                             point it out.  -John
                    \_ This is simply not true. The bay area was hit
                       disprportionately hard and this was a deliberate
                       disproportionately hard and this was a deliberate
                       sacrifice on the part of Dellums (and by extension
                       the Bay Area) to lead by example. Personally, I
                       I think we are better off with the Presidio being
                       converted to civilian use, for example.
                       \_ Bay area was hit hard because they couldn't get
                          enough gays/lesbians/peace-loving-liberals to sign

                          up and they couldn't take the heat from protestors :)
2005/5/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:37658 Activity:nil
5/12    http://mediamatters.org/items/200505100002
        "Fox News general assignment correspondent Major Garrett quoted
        Republicans who asserted that Texas Supreme Court justice Priscilla
        Owen, nominated by President Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
        5th Circuit, is the first judicial nominee to be filibustered who
        received a unanimous well-qualified ("WQ") rating from the American Bar
        Association (ABA). But Garrett failed to note that blocking WQ-rated
        judicial nominees is hardly new."
        So the correspondent correctly notes the historicity of the filibuster,
        and Media Matters criticizes him for not mentioning "blocking" of
        candidates.  Yeah, real solid criticism there.
        \_ Why are you cutting the quote?
           "... is hardly new.  Republicans blocked 10 of President Clinton's
           appeals court nominees who received unanimous WQs.  Denied even
           hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, these nominations
           never left the committee for full Senate consideration."
           Oh yeah!  You == The Stupid.  http://Mediamatters.org == Got it Right.
           \_ No, media matters apparently doesn't understand the difference
              between "filibuster" and blocked in committee.
              \_ Do you accept or not accept the observation below:
                 One can state a standalone fact without further context and,
                 while not lying, be misleading.
                 \_ Of course that's possible.  Proving intent is harder.
                    At any rate, in this particular case, FN has addressed the
                    filibuster vs. committee issue at length (at least on the
                    one FN show I watch).
                    \_ Do you accept or not accept the observation below:
                       One can make a factual statement that is misleading,
                       even when not intending to mislead.
        \_ Is the filibuster the only tool used to block appointees out of
           sheer partisan venom? If not, then why focus solely on the
           filibuster?
2005/4/24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37337 Activity:nil
4/24    Battle for control of the Democratic party
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1390299/posts?page=1,50
        [ip address replaced;  fuck you.]
         \_ doesn't everyone know it's http://freerepublic.com by now?
2017/09/20 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
9/20    
Results 301 - 450 of 601   < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Domestic:President:Clinton:
.