|
12/25 |
2006/9/23-26 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll/Jblack, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:44511 Activity:kinda low Cat_by:auto |
9/23 Ronald Reagan: An American Hero http://www.rightwingnews.com/reader/gipper.php \_ This message brought to you by Justin P Black \_ Fuck Reagan, and fuck you. \_ a hero who dodged the draft in WW2? \_ someone with balls had to stay behind and live.. otherwise we'd become france \_ George W Bush, Dick Cheney? \_ I thought everyone who avoided military service in the name of regime change and American hegemony was a hero? \_ The Marshall Plan is why we now call it the United States of Europe. |
2006/9/7-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:44300 Activity:nil |
9/6 The Reagans - one factually questionable scene - YANKED FROM THE AIR The ABC 9/11 documentary - Republican propaganda - GOING ON THE AIR REPUBLICANS RULE, LIBERALS DROOOOOL!1!11!!1!!!!one \_ Wasn't this in 2003? |
2006/8/25-28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:44152 Activity:nil |
8/25 Is this a sarcastic blog entry? http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015081.php \_ It's powerline... so no. \_ I guess they're giving out rose-colored Koolaid now at these functions \_ John Hinderaker brews his own Koolaid. Call him and ask: (612) 220-1060. |
2006/8/11-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:43977 Activity:nil |
8/11 "Never has so much military and economic and diplomatic power been used so ineffectively, and if after all of this time, and all of this sacrifice, and all of this support, there is still no end in sight, then I say the time has come for the American people to turn to new leadership not tied to the mistakes and policies of the past." --Richard M. Nixon \_ He was referring to ...? \_ EAST TIMOR! \_ College graduates these days... \_ Negotiating with the dirty hippies in Berkeley. -Ronald Reagan |
12/25 |
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 |
2006/7/18-20 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:43721 Activity:nil |
7/17 http://www.lcurve.org The L Curve. \_ That's a lot more alarmist than a simple Gini curve, and I'm not sure it's as educational. \- i think they illustrate different things. for example the gini curve [sic ... you mean gini coef and lorenz curve] may say something about the fallout from a tax law change or maybe even something like school vouchers or other cases where you may think in terms of income bands, but if you want to talk about say money and politics [free speech and elections per Buckley v Vallejo, political contributions, campaign spending per huffington, corzine, bloomberg etc] then maybe it makes sense to talk about super-rich individuals. i assume you also realize the gini coef with wide bands will be lower than the GC for the same distribution chopped into narrower bands. there are a lot of problems with the "educational" gini coef. i think this example is just something to keep in mind when we talk about the "american metritrocracy" or "death taxes" [aka "the billionare tax"] and obviously not intended for econometrics calculations or macroeconomic comparasions of economies at different points in time or in different countries. --psb |
2006/6/15-19 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:43406 Activity:nil |
6/15 Is Bernanke a Democrat or a Republican? How about his predecessors? \- He used to drive a Sienna minivan. Maybe you can do some kind of Bayes Rule thing based on the car->party statistics to come up with a guess. [for the record, he is a Republican, but not a party hack ... he was an academic most of his life. Considering his portfolio, his views on more technical questions are probably more meaningful than broad party affiliation. I am pretty sure the only guy who voted against his confirmation was a Republican senator who or why.]. GREENSPAN was a Randroid. Paul Volker [appointed who or why.]. GREENSPAN was a Randroid. Paul VOLKER [appointed by Carter, reconfirmed by Raygun] is an interesting question. The Fed, unlike some other administrative agencies, does seem to officially discourage its officers from partisan activities. See e.g. http://stlouisfed.org/publications/re/2000/c/pages/presidents-message.html --psb |
2006/6/14-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:43383 Activity:nil |
6/14 http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/13/webb.primary.ap Republican disgised as a Democrat wins. Watch out November. \_ talking about disgise. You should really go to Taiwan and take a look. Candidates of DPP are removing the DPP party logos, many of them are getting rid of the party-color of green in their campaign banners, posters, and ads. Very interesting. \- Yeah, it's pretty clever how the RNC sent him "deep undercover" by having him publicly denounce the Iraq war and mock W's Vietnam War "service". This was clearly written by KROVE and just signed by JWEBB ... Recent statements defending Bush claim that the National Guard was not a haven for those who wished to avoid Vietnam; but it clearly was ... Bush used his father's political influence to move past many on the Texas Guard's waiting list ... Bush arguably has committed the greatest strategic blunder in modern memory ... The reckless course that Bush and his advisers have set will affect the economic and military energy of our nation for decades. It is only the tactical competence of our military that, to this point, has protected him from the harsh judgment that he deserves ... At the same time, those around Bush, many of whom came of age during Vietnam and almost none of whom served, have attempted to assassinate the character and insult the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with them. Some have impugned the culture, history and integrity of entire nations, particularly in Europe, that have been our country's great friends for generations and, in some cases, for centuries. Bush has yet to fire a single person responsible for this strategy. Nor has he reined in those who have made irresponsible comments while claiming to represent his administration. One only can conclude that he agrees with both their methods and their message. --James Webb, Feb. 2004. |
2006/6/5-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:43282 Activity:nil |
6/5 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060606/ap_on_re_us/reagan_anniversary Wake up people. Reaganomics in theory was a really good idea but a huge debacle in reality. Let's all celebrate Reagan's death! \_ Let's hope Reaganomics and the rest of the conservative movements die as well! |
2006/5/17-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:43080 Activity:nil |
5/16 Some interesting numbers at the end http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_051606.htm See: what's your religion, are you liberal/conservative/moderate \_ Wait, if the early 80s was strongly Dem, why the fuck did Reagan win? Reagan is a charming guy but his policies totally suck. And look at Q909, "what was the last grade of school you completed" 21% attended some college and 21% attended grad school, and 10% attended post-graduate. How can you have as many grad school as college when the % of people going to grad school is much less than college? And 21+21+10 or 52% of the people who did the poll have college degrees or higher. This is totally not representative of our redneck Jesus loving Americans that mostly voted for rednecks like themselves. The survey methodology is flawed. |
2006/5/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:42895 Activity:low |
5/2 How come home owner association costs are so high for new developments? And what is the point of providing private parks/BBQ area... why don't people use government funded public parks? \_ Public park is great when surrounding neighborhoods are more or less social-economically homogeneous. However there has been an increasing wealth gap in the past 3-4 decades creating more wealth and more crime at the same time. Wealthy conservatives sure don't like to BBQ at parks where poor and smelly socialists hang out, so they prefer to spend a bit more HOA to create their private little world to hang out. Just look at Orange County as the poster child example. People there are wealthy, ultra Republican, and live in nice gated communities with nice private parks, heated pools, gym, and other amenities. \_ Public parks are so 70s, not to mention that it is socialistic and evil. After the Reagan era, conservatism became popular. Ronald Reagan preached "self reliance", which translated to less tax and less public services. In another word, you are responsible for your own well beings and no one else. Any form of public service like welfare, social security, and even public parks are considered fat that need to be cut. So blame not your HOA that need to make up for a lack of public services your government stopped providing 20 years ago, but the people who love themselves too much -- the conservatives \- are public grazing lands and public water sold at submkt costs to business interests also socialistic? \_ Your brain has been classified as: you think you're witty but in reality, microscopic. \_ This would make a great sentence correction correction on any standardized test. Restate in a non-nonsensical manner please. -John \_ You are making me cry. \_ Why? Is it 1) You are a conservative and you think everyone is dillusional except you or 2) You are a liberal and you think the truth hurts? \_ so that the local government officials can give themselves bigger bonuses from saving the cost of developing public parks. \_ so that you can feel rich,exclusive,elitist,happy ... from a city planning perspective i think it is disgusting ... its a de facto privatization of public space ... further increasing disparaties in our society \_ Wha? If the HMA owns the space, how is it "privatizing public space" in any way shape or form? \_ ignore rory's rant. he's yet another left wing socialist. evil. \_ wow, I've been id'ed by your lame motd-tracking script. i'm honored. i'm not a socialist i just hate libertarians. so what is confusing about my stmt? the more property you put behind a gate the less public property exists, the gov't "saves money" by spending less on public works, but now people have to be able to afford to live in gated communities to enjoy what once was avail to all. \_ What part of "Welfare is a waste of my money" don't you understand? \_ what part of "human rights" does your Howard Roarke-worshipping ass not understand \_ What part of "If you don't like America, go back to Europe" don't you understand? \_ read reagan post above. \_ because a developer can't just go in and build next to a public park. "Parks spaces" = higher property values = more profits for developers. Cities take forever to make new parks -- it takes money they dont often have. So what's the developer to do? Make their own park, and make the HOA pay for it! Few people pay attention to the HOA costs when making home buying decisions -- its all about the cost of the home. Pure developer genius, pure capitalist evil. -ERic (and yes I own a home in a HOA with 'park' spaces', however my community is also surrounded by park, go figure) \_ Ummm "Open Space Laws?" In general I'm fairly sure that 5 more houses would generate more money than a park of the same size. I could be wrong though. -jrleek |
2006/4/11-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/SIG] UID:42733 Activity:nil |
4/11 David Brin is a smart cookie: http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2006/03/choices-we-face.html |
2006/3/16-18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42266 Activity:moderate |
3/16 honest question: People say Bush and his gangs are "Neo-Conservative." Exactly what do they mean by that? Another question. Fiscal Disipline is usually one of supposely "conservative" value. But by looking at records of Reagan, HW Bush, and GW Bush, it is not the case at all! How does that work? \_ It's a transparent attempt to make people think of "neo-nazi" \_ Bullshit. \_ Politicians are hypocrites and liars. They give the voters what they want and lie about the consequences. \_ So astute - teach us more o' wise one. \_ http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html \_ thanks. good link. I guess my perception about neo-cons are also fiscal conservative is completely false. On the other hand, it still doesn't explain why we support radical, dictatorship such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia :p \_ that's an easy one. SA supplies a big chunk of our oil. A military quasi-dictatorship in Pakistan is magnitudes better than the pro Western jihad Islamic fundamentalist groups taking power. \_ There are pro-West jihad Islamic fundamentalists? \_ http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html \_ I actually met a guy like that. He was pretty weird. \_ What happened to install democracy world wide? \_ basically neocons believe in the preemptive strike \_ so are democrats who believe in preemptive strike also neocons? \_ Why can't they take this preemptive attitude and clean up city like Oakland? Arrest and execute those known fuckers and the city will be a much safer place. \_ weak weak weak troll. your troll score: F! \_ gimme a modern dem who favors preemptive and i'll tell you how neocon they are \_ lieberman is a strong supporter of GWB's Iraq policy and the principles behind it. \_ ob he's a closet republican \_ so anyone in favor of any GWB policy is really a republican despite having been in the D party since probably before you were born.... he's either with us or against us! \_ Do you know people are talking about a McCain- Lieberman ticket? \_ Do any of these people include John McCain or Joe Lieberman? I don't think I've seen either one ever indicate that he was ready to switch parties. I find that scenario to be implausible. \_ and dubya's lips continue to look for lieberman for smooching \_ I am still waiting for a preemptive strike against N.Korea... or we actually get scared for their preemptive strike doctrine? http://tinyurl.com/gj957 \_ I'd start with Berkeley. \_ NK has 10,000 artillery pieces within range of SK's capitol. Even if we could fly in and destroy all the nuke facilities 100% the retaliation strike is going to suck big time. What I find interesting is polls in SK that show young people from the post Korean War era think the US should piss off and that NK is a victim while the older folks are dreadfully afraid of NK and want the US to stick around and even increase our strength in SK. \_ I see those crazy 'NK is misunderstood paradise bullied by evil US' fuckers at protests in the bay area. \_ I remember when I was still at Berkeley in the early 90s, when 5 korean pastors came to the Bay Area to attend a conference, and I took them on a trip to Yosemite. The pastors mentioned to me they were very surprised that Americans they met here were such nice people. They say the Americans in SK were really arrogant. \_ Most Americans in SK are either military or english teachers. The english teachers are often people with no valuable skills except their ability to speak their native language. Not only that, but Korea, for one reason or another, generally pulls in the dregs of english teachers. So, yeah, most of the Americans I met in SK were jerks. -jrleek \_ jrleek, you are just JEALOUS because those "no valuable skills people who speaks their native language" get laid easily. \_ I know this is supposed to be a joke, but it made me curious. Do you think I'm Korean? -jrleek \_ I'm going to Korea to teach conversational English and I have no special training. What's the fastest way to learn Korean? Can you recommend books, audio training kits, etc.? \_ Korean is really freakin' hard, but if you send me an email, I'll help however I can. I do have some suggestions for books, I didn't really use audio kits, but I'm not even sure how you'd get my favorite. -jrleek \_ we only go after ez ones, like Iraq ... we thought it was ez |
2006/3/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:42203 Activity:high |
3/13 Why do Reagan admirers say that the Soviet Union collapsed because of Reagan's policies? I know he called SU the "evil empire" and also started a Star Wars weapons program. What else did he do, and how did these contribute to the SU's collapse? \_ Those Reagan supporter think that by escalating the arms race, we effectively bankrupted the Soviet much sooner than we would of otherwise. Also, these guys were proud the fact that we fought "Communism" on every 3rd world countries we can think of by supporting dictatorships / islamic extremist all over, which also bankrupted the Soviet (Congo, Afganistan, etc). In their simple logic, "Communism" is "absolute evil" and everything else is "lesser of the two evils." Notice the similar mentality is in "war on terror" today (Saddam Hussin is evil and every one else is a lesser of the two... now, it's Iran's turn :p) \_ Everyone likes to take credit for SU's collapse but what really brought SU down were Gorbachev's inept policies. He realized what he had done after 1990 and tried to change his course of action but it was too late by then. All other factors were just catalysts. \_ Those Reagan supporter think that by escalating the arms race, we effectively bankrupted the Soviet much sooner than we would of \_ "would have" otherwise. Also, these guys were proud the fact that we fought "Communism" on every 3rd world countries we can think of by supporting dictatorships / islamic extremist all over, which also bankrupted the Soviet (Congo, Afganistan, etc). In their simple logic, "Communism" is "absolute evil" and everything else is "lesser of the two evils." Notice the similar mentality is in "war on terror" today (Saddam Hussin is evil and every one else is a lesser of the two... now, it's Iran's turn :p) \_ Interestingly, a common fallacy of people seeking to debunk the "Reagan bankrupted the Soviets" argument is assuming that all governments/countries/armies/whatever against which the US supported organizations that were thuggish, fascist and evil to varying degrees, were actually any less worse than our own stooges. -John \_ it is true in Europe. But in Asia, Communism has much less to do with Maxist Idealogy than Idealogy of self-determination champaigoned by W.Wilsons, and FDR. Most of these "Communist" were fighting European Imperial Power before WW2 ended. If you are a Vietnamese and being brutally ruled by French for past 100 years and suddently French says they really care about human right and democracy. Would you believe it? \_ And very often, the communists piggybacked conveniently on the back of a nationalist movement--Viet Minh/CPVN is a fantastic example of this. Note, I'm not saying the end justifies the means or that any particular one of the scumbags or dubious regimes the US supported during the Cold War was excusable, just that you need to see this in a bit of context; sometimes the alternative really was less worse. -John \_ I think if I lived in a repressive regime and got two choices 1) Live life like it is now, where there are large chunks of things I can't say/do without a risk of dissapearing. 2) Live through a bloody civil/proxy civil war which devistates the economy and civilian population (which those kinds of wars have a real bad habit of doing) just to live in another version of #1 one above. I'd really prefer that the global super powers butted the fuck out and let me live in relative peace. \_ You said it, "powers". -John \_ Huhwha? \_ As in "powers" as opposed to "power". Plural. -John \_ Ahh, yeah. That was intentional. It's just that I care more when it is my country behaving badly. \_ Hasn't the US been fighting proxy wars with the SU and its stooges since the end of WW2? Korean War, Vietnam War, etc.? \_ He basically forced them into an arms race which bankrupted their country (and ours kind of...) \_ But I thought the Soviet Union has been in an arms race with the US since the end of WWII ? \_ This is true. Reagan admirers say that Reagan upped the ante and thereby sped up the economic collapse; detractors say that he was merely the sitting pres. when the fruits of years of arms race ripened. Cf. Bush I and fall of SU; Clinton and economic prosperity in the late 90s; and Bush II and the current economic crisis. The real story, of course, is a lot more complex than who was sitting in the Oval Office. --e_red \_ The scale of the arms race w/o a real war was significant For example, Carter canned just about every program, gutted the military - results were operation eagle claw. \_ Reagan's support of Poland and his Zero Option undermined Soviet power in Europe, which contributed significantly to the collapse of the USSR. His personal relationship w/ Gorby is also another factor that is also often overlooked. I agree w/ e_red that Reagan cannot be given all the credit for the collapse of the USSR, but he does deserve some credit. WRT the current terrorist situation - I personally think that Reagan would have used far better judgment than Bush2 in dealing w/ this situation. I also doubt that he would have involved us in Iraq, &c. \_ Because he did so well at the marine barracks? \_ Because he understood that you don't invade countries bigger than a small island, and even then you only do it if you have an exit strategy. -!pp, !reagan-admirer \_ Like how we bailed after putting 500+ marines in a barracks in a war zone and the gate guards didn't even have bullets. \_ Because Reagan wasn't a reactionary. He had good advisers who understood the value of a strong US-Europe relations and were willing to negotiate and compromise on many things in order to achieve their long term goals. \_ Without getting deeply involved: there is a genral sense after the Soviet invasion of Afganistan, US policy shifted from Kennan's "containment" to "rollback". You can google/wiki for those terms. --psb \_ and it worked well has no ill consequences afterwards, no? \_ it was a conflict, genius. if there was a perfect one shot we-win! answer, it would've been done on day 1. \_ you don't get it, don't you? Afganistan was much better off under Communist rule. Women enjoys equal rights, opium export was under control. After all these years, don't you get it that "Communism" is not an absolute evil? \_ When exactly was this fantasy era for Afghanistan when women had equal rights to men, there was an economy based on something other than weapons and drugs and the children played in rivers of chocolate? \_ Afganistan is no paradise by any mean. But at least during the Communist rule, women get education, they can put lipsticks and high-heel on if they can afford it. almost anyone who has slightest knowledge about that part of the world would tell you women was much much better off during the rules of US-backed Mujahedeems. \_ Still waiting to hear when this fantasy era of goodness and chocolate rivers was. Are you related to ChiCom troll? I think you are. \_ from the perspective of economy, human rights, etc. Communist Afganistan was much better off than the Taliban US supported, not to mentioned that Afgan became a heaven for terrorist after the fall of the Socialist regime. Just admit the policy and you are myopic and stupid. \_ About 4000 years ago, during the height of the Indus valley civilization. \_ I don't think AfghanComTroll is talking about 4000 years ago. \_ What do you call the fallacy of logic where one ignores the faults of a system they prefer and justifies this by pointing out problems with the current system? It happens a lot on the motd |
2006/3/9-13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:42169 Activity:moderate |
3/9 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/forbes_billionaires Number of Billionaires to a record 793. Who says Bushconomy sucks? \_ I think that includes foreigners, who sure benefitted from our spending and more spending. \_ I say it sucks and I'll explain to you. Bush uses my tax dollars to go fund his illegitimate war and go and take all the spoils for himself. Plus I will almost certainly be paying higher taxes to offset his record deficit that he's created. So tell me how I benefit from this again???? Bush better be planning to pay back the "loan" that he's taken out from the American people, cuz I sure as hell don't want to be paying extra taxes cuz of the stupid debt he's racked up at our expense. \_ Just like when we had Reagan as a President, we owe him a debt we can never repay ... \_ You must be on crack if you believe Reagen was responsible for the economic boom of the 90's. If you can explain how Reagen administration was more responsible than, say, the rise of the Internet for the 90's boom, I'll give you a Nobel prize. \_ Who commercialized the Internet? \_ In a way the defeat of Soviet Communism and the resulting demilitarization supported the boom of the 90s. Reagan embraced and executed an active policy to defeat, instead of contain, the USSR. This policy, combined w/ economic conditions in the USSR, largely worked. Specifically WRT supply side economics, I agree that it is not clear that this economic policy resulted in the boom of the 90s. \_ complete BS. Soviet would of fell apart on its own weight regardless. \_ It is very hard to say that the USSR was in such bad shape in the 80s that it would have died w/o Zero Option, &c. I am not saying Reagan single handedly killed TEH COMMIE, just that his policies were a contributing factor. \_ It isn't so important that they collapsed, per se, but what they became after. Had they been crushed by anything other than the US their odds of becoming a more democratic nation would have been zero, simply replacing one dictatorship with another. There were a few attempted non-democratic coups that went no where. Some historical what-if for you: Had the Nazi's survived WWII and into the 90's, would the Soviets have still collapsed? Likely so. Would it have turned into a more western nation? You decide. \_ 1) Is that inflation injusted and yes 2) "Bushconomy" is VERY good for rich people, I don't think anyone will disagree with that. The disagreement is over whether good for billionaires == good for everyone else. \_ You're not getting it. If you argue with a wealthy conservative, he/she will say that if everyone else's income didn't increase it is because they didn't work as hard [as the wealthy folks]. In the conservative world, YOU are self-reliant and you, and no one else, can make yourself wealthy. The rich conservatives' argument is that if you tax the rich more, then you'll fall under socialism (which Ronald Reagan declares as EVIL!!!) and \_ Socialism *is* evil. no one will have incentives to work hard anymore. So, fuck \_ See "Collapse of Soviet Union under own weight" above. social programs, cut taxes, and faggots need to go to hell. That is the platform of the American conservatives. \_ You've clearly never talked to a conservative, rich or otherwise. Would you like to hear what the "extremist ultra liberal" platform is? You know it wouldn't be difficult to paint your beliefs into a tidy little strawman and then knock it down, so why do you do that to other people? \_ There is something to be said that a grim socialist completely state controlled economy is the bane to economic growth, witness eastern bloc countries before the fall of the soviet union. current conservatives in power though appear to want to take everything to the \_ There are no conservatives in power at the moment. There are pro-business Republicans. If the Dems had put up something better than that mindless Republican-lite playboy they would have won in 2004. Stop running stupid candidates so we can have better candidates from both parties running. If you run Hillary in 2008 she'll lose and we'll get another 4-8 years of pro-Business Republicans again. complete logical extreme with no oversight on business by government in even the most egregious examples. \_ http://www.nowartax.org can help you out with your tax problems |
2006/2/25-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42006 Activity:high |
2/24 Only their bumper stickers remain, like cockroaches after a nuclear holocaust. http://csua.org/u/f3a (BBC) \_ Hi! I'm a lazy English journalist who doesn't know shit about America but wants to keep getting paid to tell whacky stories about whacky Americans! There are a lot of important things that could be said by a real journalist about how fucked the Democratic party is right now, but this ain't it. Thanks for wasting my time. \_ Anytime, humorless motd guy! \_ Hey, jblack, I found a great new site for white people like you and me: http://www.natall.com \_ Hey, idiot, the above was not posted by jblack. \_ That's right, it's posted by our other conservative friend, jrleek the good Mormon. |
2006/2/24-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41987 Activity:nil |
2/24 Released today -- "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy" http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385518277 \_ Sigh. \_ Why sigh? Anything that gets fiscal conservatives to not vote for another imposter like GWB is a good thing for the whole country, AFAIC. \_ All the guy seems to be saying according to the editorial reviewers is that GWB isn't a real conservative and doesn't act like one. We all knew that Republican != conservative for a while now. No real news here. |
2006/2/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41885 Activity:high |
2/16 Conservatives argue for impeachment: QUESTION: Is spying on the American people as impeachable an offense as lying about having sex with an intern? BRUCE FEIN, constitutional scholar and former deputy atty general in the Reagan Admin: I think the answer requires at least in part considering what the occupant of the presidency says in the aftermath of wrongdoing or rectification. On its face, if President Bush is totally unapologetic and says I continue to maintain that as a war-time President I can do anything I want . I don't need to consult any other branches . that is an impeachable offense. It's more dangerous than Clinton.s lying under oath because it jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages. It would set a precedent that . would lie around like a loaded gun, able to be used indefinitely for any future occupant. NORM ORNSTEIN, AEI scholar: I think if we.re going to be intellectually honest here, this really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was discussed. \_ Congress seems to be agreeing with the necessity of the wiretaps. What's your point? \_ Both Congress and the American public are overrun by cowards who do not believe in freedom. What's your point? \_ Welcome to a Democratic Republic. It isn't perfect but it is the best thing the planet has seen so far in governments. If enough voters cared about this they'd speak with their votes. Since most people don't vote at all much less based on issues like this, you would seem to have the minority opinion on how important this really is. \_ Fuck you, you patronizing fuckhead asshole. \_ *laugh* If you weren't such an idiot, then you wouldn't find everyone so patronizing. Pull the log from your own eye before pointing to the splinter in someone else's. ;-) \_ Fuck you. I can keep this up all day. \_ Exactly. Now you have identified your problem. \_ Stick it in your ass. \_ You're such a cutie! Muwah! \_ Come a little closer and say that, punk. Just see what happens. \_ Just about everyone agrees with the necessity of the wiretaps. It's the part about doing this without oversight that violates FISA and has people in an uproar. \_ The thing is, it's Congress' opinion that counts, not any professor. \_ Although I think it's unlikely that a GOP Congress will impeach a sitting GOP President, there are still plenty of conservative congress-people who agree with the speakers above. \_ And there are Democrats who agree that the process should continue with congressional oversight. \_ I really mean no offense, but I think you're missing why this is an issue to begin with. The wiretapping has never been the issue; the issue's been that the wiretapping was going on without oversight (specifically, Judicial, according to FISA). If I misunderstand your confusion, I look forward to your elaboration. \_ I do not understand the uproar about FISA. Let's say the Pres. does an illegal wire tap, but never uses the evid. against you in ct. How are you hurt (esp. if you never find out that your were wire tapped)? What exactly are you afraid of? \_ Well, let's say you're in the opposition party and the Pres. uses wiretapping to spy on you and set his party's political strategy. Ridiculous, you say. But if there's no oversight, there's nothing to prevent people from doing this sort of thing. Really, court is the least of your concerns. \_ Or they could end up with 500+ of your FBI files... but no one would ever do that. \_ So what? The Pres. could easily get access to these files if he really wanted it. I don't see how FISA makes this any easier/harder for the Pres. \_ FISA prevents the executive branch from violating the constitutional right against illegal search and seizure. The international calls go to domestic lines, and potentially citizens, so FISA allows taps for cases that have probable cause. What the executive branch is doing ignores probable cause and may be using tainted evidence to gain domestic wiretaps. So if someone in the 300k list of people listed as terrorists calls say Clinton's Senate office and hangs up, that's a link. No oversight so now the NSA tells the FBI says we have credible link, tap all lines in that office, we'll review the transcripts. There would be no probable cause to tap the lines without the tainted no-FISA evidence. \_ I'm specifically talking about the FBI files. The wiretap provisions of FISA do not restrict the Pres. access to FBI files. I don't follow your argument. At some point the gov needs to get a valid warrant, that means the warrant needs to be based on independent evid not on the tainted wiretap info. Say the NSA fingers a suspect and tells the FBI about it. The FBI can't get a warrant to FBI about it based on a so-called illegal wiretap. The FBI can't get a warrant to wiretap the guy w/o a showing of probable cause. This can't be based on tainted evid. The FBI will have to est. independent evid to support a showing of probable cause. This is what their warrant will be based on. The fact that they got a tip from the NSA is the same as if they got an anon tip and invest- cause. This warrant can't be based on tainted evid. The FBI will have to est. independent evid to support a showing of probable cause. The fact that they got a tip from the NSA is the same as if they got an anon tip and invest- igated. There is no taint. [ I say so-called illegal wiretap b/c I think FISA is an unconstitutional limitation on the Pres. constitutional duty to defend this nation from her enemies. ] \_ So why would you be discussing your important political policies in cleartext? Why wouldn't you be using encry- ption? I still don't understand. When I value my info enough that I don't want a 3d party intercepting it, I use encryption. If the opposition party doesn't value the information enough to take measures to prevent it disclosure, then it is their own fault if the info is disclosed. \_ We're talking about phone conversations, not email. Also, why should the resources of the US be used for political gain of one political party? \_ There are secure phone sol'n for sensitve info. Use that if you really care. If not, don't be surprised if someone overhears your conversation and uses it against you. I'm not exactly sure why you are bothered that one party might be abusing government resources for political gain. Both parties do it. Its not something that can be prevented. \_ Congress can decide to impeach on whatever they want. The Constitution is itself vauge about the terms of what constitutes a "high crime", so practically speaking as long as you have the political clout you can just trump up charges and start the impeachment process. You don't need peanut gallery commentators to argue for or against impeachment. Is GW going to be impeached during his term? Not likely unless the Dems can pull off some sort of electoral revolution during the midterm elections. Chances of GW getting impeached are probably one in a thousand if not less. \_ Just an aside, but Bubba would say, (a) under oath, he didn't lie about Monica, (b) in the public sphere, "sexual relations" didn't include oral sex, and (c) in his private life with Hillary and Chelsea, he lied like hell. Similarly, Dubya would say there's a loophole on spying on the American people (a) if one end of a call comes from outside the country, and (b) one of those individuals is suspected of al Qaeda activity (c) during a war on al Qaeda (Dubya interprets the Congressional resolution authorizing "all necessary and appropriate force" in fighting al Qaeda as enabling his war powers against al Qaeda). |
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 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:41735 Activity:nil |
2/6 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060207/ap_on_re_us/reagan_birthday The most charming and worst president in the US honored today. |
2005/12/22-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41119 Activity:high |
12/22 Okay, we know Bush isn't going to be impeached. It's Reagan and the Contra arms deal all over again, but with Bush saying he did it instead of "I don't know/recall." But is the unauthorized wiretapping of American citizens in these times an impeachable offense? Discuss. \_ Absolutely. And I think he _will_ be impeached, but not removed. \_ you think a (R) controlled congress is going to impeach him? you're totally off your rocker. \_ Elections coming up here in 2006, and Repubs just unplugged Grandma. It wouldn't even take a strong wind to swing this. \_ While I share the general sentiment to a degree, I think this is overly optimistic. Honestly, I doubt 06 will be much affected by the budget cuts. \_ The last time congressional approval rates were this low was 1994. Granted, D now is _not_ R then, but R's are rightly scared. \_ Well, the GOP is certainly vulnerable right now -- a succession of scandals coupled with a general decay of gung-ho support for our involvement in Iraq has opened the door for change (not to mention the bumbling efforts of FEMA during Katrina). Sadly, as long as the economy is reasonably sound and unemployment doesn't change significantly, there's very little likelihood of any big shift from R to D. It's a pleasant fantasy to imagine the Budget cuts having a massive unintended impact, but I think the reality is that it's not going to have any impact *at all* when all considerations are taken into account. \_ Yep. If we had a recession, everything would be perfect. \_ Your reading comprehension is lacking. I said "Sadly, as long as the economy is sound, change will not happen". It is sad because one with a reasonable ethical viewpoint would hope that the succession of scandals would be sufficient to bring about change without any other external forces. Alas, this is not the case. \_ neither. complete waste of time. \_ Warrantless wiretapping is likely not an impeachable offense b/c the Pres. has inherent emergency powers to authorize any means he feels are necessary to protect the nation from its enemies in a crisis. Consider that Lincoln suspended habeas on his own authority despite a strong implication that only Congress had the right to do this. If the suspension of habeas in direct violation of separ- ation of powers is not impeachable, by no measure can one consider warrantless wiretapping impeachable. Unlike your ave. motd poster, most Dem. Congressmen and Senators understand that warrantless wire- tapping is a common practice in intelligence gathering and they will be reluctant to take this tool away. Even if BUSHCO's assertion that an emergency is present is deemed incorrect, there is a plausible argument that they were mistaken and simply overreacted. In light of 9/11, Spain, London, &c. better to overreact than underreact is a winning argument. \_ It's sad that you believe that. Unchecked secret power grabs are a terrible road to go down. Not in my country... \_ Regardless of whether it is a terrible road to go down, it is not an impeachable offense under Art 2 Sec 4. Given the pressure to act in a crisis, it is not unforeseeable that a Pres. might authorize these means. Given that these means have been SOP for decades, BUSHCO is at most guilty of expanding their use. Should they have resisted the tempt- ation? Probably, but that doesn't mean it is impeachable. It is our fault as voters that we did not select someone better suited to resist the temptation. Fortunately, this mistake can be corrected in a few years. Consider that the A&S acts were repealed by Jefferson. There is nothing to indicate that the next Pres. will be unwilling to restrict the power that this Pres. has "acquired." \_ "Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." High crimes and misdemeanors would certainly cover \_ certainly? what web site told you that it is "certainly" a "high crime and misdemeanor" to order wiretaps like this? \ http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36.html \_ http://tinyurl.com/bzaz4 (findlaw.com, 50 USC Ch 36) [ Same as the cornell url, but you don't have to click through ] warrantless wiretaps, especially if the use thereof violates the current federal procedures. Although it is SOP to begin wiretapping before asking for (and, in all but 4 cases, receiving) a warrant to do so, it is illegal to wiretap and NOT ask for a warrant within 72 hours; the latter has NOT been SOP for any administration since the procedures were put in place except for this administration. The legal requirement for impeachment has been met; it now depends on the will of the Congress. \_ In your studied constitutional expert legal opinion the requirements for impeachment have been met? I'm glad we don't need to discuss it further. \_ We could say something equally as fatuous about your comments. In fact, I will. Grow a set. \_ It is certainly more serious than lying about a blowjob, which is what brought the last President down. As I said before, impeachment is primarily a political process, not a legal one. If enough Americans think he should be impeached, he will be. \_ You want to discuss this further, bring something more than "No, he won't be impeached!" to the discussion. \_ I was replying to someone who did nothing but rant and make grand sweeping statements and put forth partisan agenda driven opinion as fact. Excuse me for daring to question the brilliant legal minds on the motd. \_ You misunderstand the argument completely. I agree that there are procedures re wiretapping and that these procedures have been violated. I even agree that authorizing these wiretaps in violations of the USC is a crime UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES. These are not normal circumstances. In an emergency the Pres. has inherent powers to take any action that he deems necessary to protect the republic and its citizens. His inherent power trumps the requi- rements of the USC, thus no crime has been committed. [ I also disagree that this is the first admin. that has explicitly or implicitly authorized wiretaps in violation of the USC; I think that this type of thing has been going on since the start of the Cold War. It has only become more extensive under BUSHCO ] \_ Yes, we know, the John Yoo argument. It doesn't hold water. Even under non-normal circumstances checks and balances must have a place. Otherwise we are not the nation we claim we are. Are you going to hold your tongue if nationwide elections in 2008 are suspended because "we're in an emergency situation"? \_ If normal checks and balances must have a place during emergencies then why was Lincoln able to suspend Habeas? The constitution strongly implies that only Congress has this power. If violating horizontal separation of powers is not sufficient for impeachment, what make you so sure that some wiretaps in violation of a federal statute (not the constitution) is sufficient? wiretaps in violation of a federal statute is enough? If nat'l elections were to be suspended wouldn't it have made more sense to do so last year when there was the very real possibility that BUSHCO would be sent home? \_ Show me a declaration of war. \_ The Pres. emergency powers are not depen- dent on a declaration of war. If we use the habeas clause as a reference, it is possible to interpret "invasion" as any attack on American soil, thus confering authority to act. Note that the habeas clause does not require a declaration of war under Art I Sec 8. \_ ITYM Sec. 9. Btw, Lincoln's suspension of habeas was ruled unconstitutional. \_ That is why the Star Chamber had him assassinated. No man is above the law! \_ No I mean Sec 8 (yes habeas clause is in Art 1 Sec 9, but it does not requ- ire Congress to declare war pursuant to its power to do so under Sec 8). While I agree that in Ex Parte Merry- man the USSC found Lincoln's actions to be unconstitutional, Lincoln was able to ignore that decision and no habeas relief was granted until after the war (iirc USSC restored habeas in Ex Parte Milligan). This suggests that the President's emergency power is so extensive that even the USSC lacks significant power to limit it. to me that the President's emergency power is so extensive that even the USSC lacks the ability to limit it. If the defiance of the USSC was not enough to impeach, please explain to me why ignoring a wire tapping provision is? [ Note: I do not think that "perjury" was enough ] Re Elections: I'm not sure what I would do. My family lived through a similar situation in the 70s and everything worked out fine in the end (elections/civil rights rest- ored, &c.) so I might just go along w/ it. \_ With "enough to impeach", you seem to be ignoring the political dimension. Impeachment, as you well know, isn't triggered by the act of the impeached. It's triggered by the political machine of the Congress. "Enough to impeach" is determined by the house when it votes on articles. "Enough to remove" is determined by the senate when it votes to convict. Lincoln's actions, whether or not a sufficient violation, did not trigger impeachment because his case was strong enough for Congress not to bring it. In fact, Congress passed the Habeas Corpus Act in 1863 which voiced their approval of his act. Here and now, Bush is sitting at a point comparable to some time before ex parte milligan. To claim before ex parte merryman. To claim Bush has an inherent right because of Lincoln is claiming stare decisis in congressional acts. i.e. that today's congress will do what lincoln's did. It's optimistic at best to hope that congress will be so tied to precedent, especially when the situations are so drastically different. \_ Right, and since we're fighting perpetual war with Eurasia, Big Brother can do whatever he feels is best for us. \_ While there are some parallels between 1984 and the present situtation, I personally find that the Alien and Sedition acts and their repeal is a far better parallel. \_ Isn't warrantless wiretapping what brought Nixon down? \_ Only indirectly. It was Nixon using his office to stop the wiretapping investigation that led to his resignation. In this case, there is no cover-up, just the wiretapping. \_ Bush is already trying to obstruct the investigation in this case, but admittedly nothing has come out to the degree as did in the Haldeman case. But it is probably only a matter of time. \- maybe there will be another SATURDAY NIGHT MASSACRE when ALBERTO is ordered to fire FITZGERALD and resigns the HARRIET is ordered to fire him and resigns and then JOHNYOO fires him and becomes AG/SG/CF in one! |
2005/12/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Computer/SW/Languages/Misc] UID:40884 Activity:kinda low |
12/6 emarkp's little fit below is a good illustration of the "true random doesn't seem random" problem that afflicts shuffle-play implementations in MP3 and CD players. \_ Sigh. When one value gets 50% of the hits in 200 trials, that's not uniform distribution, now matter how many names you want to call me. -emarkp \_ If this were true, you would be correct. However, 200 trials from a script doesn't mean anything. What counts is when kchang's code re-generates random numbers. Looking at your sample below, it looks like reagan is about 6x more frequent than the next closest. It's improbable, but a uniform distribution could have oversampled one item by 6 in the code, which comes up as 6/12 item generations. That's assuming your script is distributed evenly across time, and so is his random generation code. Assuming he varies the interval between regeneration, then this could be fairly probably. between regeneration, your results are fairly probable. eg. After nicknames get assigned, wait 1-100 seconds, then assign again. Reagan just got assigned a long wait time, then your script oversampled one data point. Or any variation off this procedure. Done properly, it could give the illusion of semi-consistency while remaining truly random. -magneto (not "luck of draw" magneto, but "I am Magneto" one) \_ Except that several instances of "reagan" occur, then one of (say) hitler or sauron, etc. After I listed the results, suddenly "reagan" went way down in frequency. -emarkp \_ It's a conspiracy to call you "reagan" and not hitler! \_ Ok, fine. Let's say he hardcoded something so that he called you reagan. What an insult that is! What other nicer villain names listed on his web site would you preferred to be called? \_ I'd like to be Captain Hook. -!emarkp \_ This is the CSUA. There are numerous algorithms that can do this, biasing results for certain members of the population for given periods of time. -magneto |
2005/11/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:40766 Activity:nil 88%like:40758 57%like:40761 |
11/28 David Brin is worried http://tinyurl.com/as59y (davidbrin.blogspot.com) |
2005/11/28-29 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:40761 Activity:nil 61%like:40758 57%like:40766 |
11/28 David Brin is worried http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2005/11/ideas-for-rescuing-modernity-part-1.html [+80col URL deleted. Please use URL shortener] \_ wtf?!? comment if you want, don't delete the url. \_ you are an ass. why do you care? |
2005/11/28-29 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:40758 Activity:nil 61%like:40761 88%like:40766 |
11/28 David Brin is worried http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2005/11/ideas-for-rescuing-modernity-part-1.html |
2005/10/3-5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39959 Activity:nil |
10/3 Freepers HATE on Miers. I think she may have my full support! http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1495585/posts \_ So the man hated by the left, and slowly abandonned by the center finally loses the support of the far right. It almost makes you fell sorry for the stupid little fuck. \_ I'd feel sorry for him if I wasn't living in the country he's running. he's running^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hfucking up. |
2005/9/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39761 Activity:low |
`9/20 Dubya is incompetent not racist http://csua.org/u/dfp (Wash Post columnist) \_ Maybe he is not, but that doesn't change the fact that his party leads racists. "...There was more than a little truth to this at one time. The GOP, after all, became a safe haven for Southern bigots who fled the Democratic Party in the civil rights era." \_ I'd also go with: "Dubya's incompetence fucked poor blacks. He let them down." (my own words) \_ when push comes to shove, there's probably a lot more racists in america then people are willing to admit \_ "than", not "then", you stupid immigrant! \_ Fun story on NPR where they went with Astrodome refugees offered 6 months free housing in Houston. Most rejected one spot because there were too many Mexicans. They wanted someplace where they felt "more comfortable." http://thislife.org \_ Are the ones rejecting the spot white? \_ Nope. \_ The president who freed the slaves was a Republican. The first African American Secretary of State is a Republican. The second African American Secretary of State is a Republican. \_ And more Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than Democrats. \_ These two comments are so abysmally stupid it makes me want to cry. \_ Care to elaborate? \_ When did you stop beating your wife? \_ I agree with that. Bush/Republicans don't really care about your skin color as long as you're rich and/or powerful, preferably both. If it happens to be that the poor people aren't white, then it just looks like racism when he screws them over. \_ That's just plain stupid. Bush/Republicans /do/ care about you irrespective of color/income. From the article: "in his first presidential campaign, I traveled with him and tried, as he might say, to look into his heart. Conveniently enough, he sometimes wears it on his sleeve -- never more so, as I discovered, than when he talks about poor kids and racial and ethnic minorities. His feelings for them -- especially for poor kids -- are genuine." Of course, I'm no longer a Republican so I guess you're not talking about me, right? -emarkp \_ When did you shift and why? \_ When did you shit and why? \_ Bush/Republicans believe the best way to help the poor is by making the rich richer. This will grow the economy and give everyone a job and then everyone will be happy. They screw the poor over not because they don't like the poor but because this doesn't work. \_ Sure it worked. It worked from the glorious days of Reaganomics when the super tax cut for the super rich shifted our economy into 6th gear and saw the housing and economic boom we have never seen since the 50s and ultimately caused the demise of the evil Soviet Union. Why do you hate Reagan? \_ "Yoda, why you gotta be a playa hatuh?" \_ We'll see how an economy built on suburban sprawl and financed by equity cash-out loans deals with the end of the era of cheap energy. \_ Reagan didn't cause the suburban sprawl and the rising cost of energy. Why do you hate the man? \_ Recently I reregistered as "no party affiliation" because the party system is as broken as unions. Basically the R's as a group are selling out the country instead of solving problems. Then again, so are the D's. -emarkp \_ Join the Green Party. We recycle, buy hybrids, and try to bike as often as we can. I just got a scooter last year. It's really cool. \_ you know scooter pollutes more than a car, right? \_ The main problem I have with Greens is that they tend to be very myopic and almost obsessively focused on a dangerously narrow set of issues. While I count myself as an environmentalist, I think there's a much bigger picture to be considered that doesn't jibe very well with the narrow Green body politic. -mice \_ I agree with some of the goals of the Greens, but I think too many are just nuts. -emarkp \_ I used to be a Democrat and now I feel exactly the same way you do. I hate both R and D. But there is nothing else left. \_ If all the decent rational people leave the two major parties, only winguts are left to vote in both major party primaries. It's self-perpetuating. It's important to pick a party and vote in its primary *especially* if you hate where the parties are going and want to see them go in different directions. \_ My goal of leaving the party was to remove a bias based on a letter. I want to work harder on focusing on what people say and do rather than a letter next to their names. -emarkp |
2005/9/14 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll/Jblack, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:39677 Activity:very high Cat_by:auto |
9/14 Justin Black (jblack) is a rapist^H^H^H^H^H^Hracist RACIST RACIST \_ This is fucking bullshit, and you are a fucking tool. Asshole? Crazy? Anti-immigrant? A liar? Brainwashed by the right? Sure. But none of that adds up to bona fide racist. \_ http://csua.com/?entry=27349 http://csua.com/?entry=27430 \_ Boy, I'm convinced now. \_ I assumed the links were supposed to be pointing out that calling jblack a racist is a common idiotic troll. \_ And water is wet and the sun is bright. Your point? \_ that's not illegal \_ I know, I just want everyone in the Bay Area to know. There's no place better than the tolerant Bay Area to be a KKK, racist, immigrant hater, SUV driver, gay & lesbian basher, Bush and Reagan worshippoer, a Republican. \_ Actually, it might be. Isn't that libel? \_ Hey anonymous jblack hating guy! Hows it ging in your sty? \_ Only if it's provably not true. \_ Maybe not. The problem is that the term "racist" doesn't really carry much weight these days, everyone is a "racist". Mix up Korean and Chinese - racist. Think rap isn't music, racist. The other problem may be that jblack rep is so low (not really sure why, but everyone seems to hate him) that an accusation of being a racist might not hurt him. [ Note the other elements of libel are probably met ] \_ Hey anonymous jblack hating guy! Hows it going in your sty? \_ My current working theory is that this is jblack himself, engaging in self-bashing to try and generate sympathy. \_ can you blame a guy for hating his surname? \_ Sure. |
2005/9/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39668 Activity:nil |
9/14 "The Katrina disaster, whose total damage estimate has risen from $100 to $125 billion, marks the culmination of Reagan's privatization of despair." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/20050914/cm_ucru/charitiesareforsuckers |
2005/9/13-16 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:39661 Activity:nil |
9/13 To conservatives and small-government supporters, what is your opinion on regulating mercury emissions? http://tinyurl.com/chhea Another fact: FDA/EPA & number of states have issued fish consumption advisories: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/admehg.html Don't you think these two things somehow related? \_ If the mercury is completely w/in the state it OUGHT to be beyond the reach of the fed gov. Re fish - so what? don't eat fish, I've never eaten fish (or any other animal) in my entire life and I'm doing okay. \_ Your mind has been classified as: small and conservative. \_ Brilliant!!! Maybe Colorado can charge an exorbitant amount of money for water going into California since they have an abundance. And you're thinking of privatization right? That's great! Go America, go Ronald Reagan, go Conservatism!!! \_ Re air, I've never breathed air my entire life and I'm...oh wait. \_ so your general position is a lack of respect for animal life, AND disrespect for people's culinary tastes? \_ Are the fish affected by the Hg? If so, let them evolve. If not, what is the big damn problem - why don't you get some culture and stop living off the flesh of dead animals. \_ most mercury emitted to the air in the coal-firing powerplants. coal contains a very very small amount of mercury, but because we burn a lot of it, this become a problem. Since mercury vapor do travel across state lines, what is your opinion on Feds impose regulation on state-own power plants? \_ Legitimate ways for congress to get pwr over state coal plants would be: 1. the plant provided pwr to other states not just the state it was located in 2. the plant got coal from another state 3. Congress paid for the plant (all or part) 4. Congress took over all regulation of all coal plants in the entire US If the state is paying for the plant and it gets all of the coal locally and provides all of the coal locally, it OUGHT to be beyond the pwr of Congress. The argument that the effect of the coal production on other states justifies fed regulation if taken to its logical conclusion justifies congressional regulation of everything. Crime in one state affects another - why shouldn't congress regulate that? The pwr of the fed gov in necessarily limited and should remain so. \_ I'm going to shoot you. I've never gotten anything good from you in my entire life and I'm doing ok. \_ Bring it on! |
2005/7/11-13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:38525 Activity:low |
7/11 "The Truth About Hillary" has made the New York Times best-seller list for the second week in a row - a development that has the Times book review spitting mad. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1440701/posts \_ Micheal Moore's books were also best sellers, and were also retarded. I think spending money on stupid books with some political axe to grind that we agree with has become a major way Americans express our political beliefs. It's stupid, but true. Now if only I could find the right axe, I'd never have to work again. \_ 1. write axe-grind book 2. buy up enough of your own book to make it a bestseller 3. since it's a bestseller, people will buy it to see what the deal is 4. profit! \_ have you read the book? even most conservatives think ed klein is a piece of shit. \_ Conservatives also said the same thing about Kitty Kelley's laughable "The Family" book. Yet the NYTimes gave that one a favorable review. link:csua.org/u/cof \_ no but seriously, the book sucks, i read most of it but i couldn't take it anymore. here is what your dark overlord John Podhoretz has to say about it: http://www.rightnation.us/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t80745.html here is my dark overlord Al Franken interviewing Ed Klein http://mediamatters.org/items/200506240007 Just bringing up this book makes you look silly. - danh \_ you don't look like such an ass in person, what happened? http://www-bsac.eecs.berkeley.edu/~jblack/eau.jpg \_ maybe you need a cruise to unwind. http://www.weeklystandard.com/banman/ads/Cruise2006a.300x250.jpg \_ I think 2 and 3 can be simplified to: 2. enrage those who disagree with you enough that they start to emit bile and spittle in their favorite media. 3. Just to stick it to those who disagree with you, those who agree will buy the book. And of course no one will argue with 4. It's sure made Michael Moore rich. \_ Skip step one, and you've described the $cientology strategy to a tee. |
2005/6/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38015 Activity:kinda low |
6/7 Poll on your perception of Mark Felt. Put "d" if you're a Democrat, "r" if you're a Republican, and "i" if you're Independent, "." if you're not sure: Hero: .ddid Traitor: .r \_ Why is he a traitor? They say Veritas vos liberabit, the truth will set you free. Mark Felt was honest and told the truth, freeing America from lies and deceptions. \_ The poll is a false dichotomy anyway. !Hero != Traitor. It looks like what he did was motivated not by doing the right thing but by being passed over for promotion. -emarkp \_ Damn you and your sensible observations. They have no place here in my senseless invective!! \_ I love the old crank conservatives coming out of the woodwork with their long essays about how Nixon wasn't so bad. \_ Compared to Bush, Nixon was a choirboy. \_ He divulged information that was protected and broke the law and his oath as an FBI agent in doing so. This to me is treason. \_ to me this falls under the same heading as civil disobedience. sometimes in order to make change for the better, one has to question the letter of the law. If the intention of the law is to make the world safer for individuals of our nation, what do you do when living by that law allows others in power to threaten the rights of individuals in our nation? \_ ah, yes, one shall not tell a lie, ANY lie, even if it does greater good. \_ What greater good? Personally I don't think that what Nixon did was wrong. He was trying to run cover for some stupid idiots. While the right cover for some stupid flunkies. While the right thing to do would have been to not get involved, its not like his actions were all that bad. \_ B&E, plans for arson, blackmail, use of Federal Agencies for political vengeance-- these do not constitute wrong? Physician, heal thyself. \_ And when are we having Robert Novak's public execution by firing squad? You can't eat your cake and have it too. \_ You need a dictionary. \_ It's clear to me that the Republican party of today hasn't changed much from the Republican party of The Crook 3 decades ago. They still keep dirt on all of their enemies. The real only difference is that the Republican party of today conceals activities a lot better. \_ It shits me to tears to hear the so-called liberal press fall over themselves to tell us what great presidents Nixon and Reagan were. Mao never had it this good. Kim Il Sung is turning over in his grave with envy. |
2005/6/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37989 Activity:nil |
6/6 Hilarious shit. Ten most harmful books of the 19th and 20th centuries. The entry under Das Kapital is particularly funny. http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=7591 \_ Hmm, now I know how the left feels when they start to imagine a vast right wing consipiracy. These guys must be being manipulated by some liberal power. Why else would they do something so obviously contrary to their agenda. -not in earnest. \_ I find it highly amusing that the ads are for "The Ultimate Fitness Program" and "electron machines" (some sort of water purifier, I'm guessing). More push-ups, and prevent the defiling of those precious bodily fluids, young conservative! \_ Hahahaha! "FDR adopted the idea as U.S. policy, and the U.S. government now has a $2.6-trillion annual budget and an $8-trillion dollar debt." That's right, ignore those huge fans of Keynes, Reagan and Bush Jr. |
2005/5/18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:37726 Activity:kinda low |
5/17 Presidential directive expected within weeks announcing intention to weaponize space (offensive and defensive) http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/18/business/18space.html \_ Oh great, another arms race for blowing our national resources on. Right in the middle of a fucking war. \_ w00t! I've been waiting for the Ronald Reagan Memorial Space Based Weapons Platform to go online for years. \_ I love Reagan! I don't know any of his politicies but he is so loving and charming on TV. \_ This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. --General Dwight D. Eisenhower. |
2005/4/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:37324 Activity:very high |
4/22 Quote going around the blogs today: "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute -- where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote -- where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference ... I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish -- where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source -- where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials." - president John F. Kennedy \_ Why did JFK hate America? \_ JFK was the first Catholic President, he had no choice but to come out strong against religion, since he was a religious Minority. And there were wingnuts in the red states who actually thought the vatican might have sway over US policy It is similar to why Clinton had to be so hard on drugs during his presidency as a known pot-smoker. -phuqm his presidency as a known pot-head. -phuqm \_ phuqm, it's hard to take anything you say seriously after reading the last sentence in this paragraph. There is a kernel of truth in what you say, in that Clinton indeed expanded the war on drugs more than any other president before him in part to appear as a Democrat that was "tough on crime." However, calling him a "known pot-head" just makes you sound like a Freeper. That's okay, one more motd crank we don't have to pay attention to. \_and one more humor impaired whiner. Here, I'll give you the bland version: "Because Clinton took so much heat over his (admitted) marijuana use, he could not afford to appear soft on drugs." (Does that make it easier for you to parse oh humorless one?). Also, you or someone editing at the same time as you stepped on two of my posts, punk. \_ So? \_ and he is wrong. The 'separation' metaphor is a 20th century contrivance by Justice Black in Everson that completely distorts the original intent. Time to put this absurd notion in the trash bin of history. \_ the wall of seperation metaphore was taken from a letter by Jefferson in 1802. However, you are right that Kennedy is wrong above. And right in general that it is a bad metaphore which does not capture the actual intent of the 1st amendment. -phuqm \_ Jefferson was in France during the time the Bill of Rights was ratified. He later collaborated with Madison to write the Religious Freedom act in Virginia, which was explicit about a separation. At the writing of the Bill of Rights almost every colony had a State church. Jefferson himself as President funded Christian missionaries. This type of Federal support for Christian institutions continued until the beginning of the 20th century. In another letter, to Rev. Samuel Miller on Jan. 23, 1808 Jefferson stated, "I consider the government of the U S. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the U.S. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority." Lastly, it is someone ironic that Pres. Kennedy uses invokes this decision since Justice Black was radically anti-Catholic and even a former member of the KKK. \_ umm, thanks for the history lesson and all, but i'm not sure why this is a response to me. Do you think you are adding or subtracting from what I said? Who cares where Jefferson was when the Bill of Rights was ratified? Why is that relavent to this conversation? -phuqm \_ Umm, thanks for the history lesson and all, but i'm unclear on why this is a response to me. Do you think you are adding or subtracting from what I said? Who cares where Jefferson was when the BofR was ratified? How does that impact anything that has been said? -phuqm \_ JFK's statement cannot be wrong. The statement 'I believe in an America where []' is very different from 'I believe that in America []'. JFK's statement is an expression of what America OUGHT to be rather than what it is (or is required to be under the establishment clause). There is nothing wrong with his belief that America should have more religious separation than the constitution requires. \_ There is more than one way to be wrong. One can be wrong headed. Obviouly I am not suggesting that he is wrong about what he believes (though, I don't know that he did believe that). I am saying that what he believes in (allegedly) is wrong. -phuqm \_ There is more than one way to be wrong. One can, for example, be wrong headed. I obviously did not mean to suggest that he incorrectly stated his beliefs (though he may well have). -phuqm \_ Perhaps I was not clear. JFK statement indicates that he knew what the 1st amd required and was arguing that this was not enough: the policy of America ought to be complete separation despite the fact that the framers didn't require that. One can disagree w/ his assessment, but the assessment cannot itself be wrong. \_ Side note: wouldn't it be nice to again have a president that could speak in complete sentences? \_ Wouldn't it be nice to have a well spoken liberal candidate that could actually win the election? \_ Hell, liberal or conservative, it's fine with me. Anything would be better than the leader of the free world giving us all the sneaking suspicion that he can't even tie his shoes. \_ You mean like Reagan? Yes. \_ reagan was very charming, regardless of whether or not you agreed with what he said. |
2005/4/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37278 Activity:nil |
4/20 Today in History: Jimmy Carter Attacked by Killer Rabbit (Apr 20, 1979) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1387141/posts \- well in a weird version of Godwin's Law, also Hitler bday. --psb \_ EOT |
2005/4/15 [Uncategorized/Profanity, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:37215 Activity:high 50%like:36345 |
4/15 Fuck Reagan. Fuck his followers as well. \_ Necrophiliac. \_ That no longer legal thanks to the Governator! |
2005/3/10 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:36609 Activity:high |
3/9 http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/03/10/film.passionrecut.ap Re-release of The Passion. In another news, religious conservative membership increases and Republicans are expected to rule for the next decade or two. Also, Mel Gibson is running for president: http://www.writeinmelgibsonforpresident.org \_ No, he's not. Read the site. Hooray for the rise of conservative media and conservative actors. \_ All in favor, say "die". \_ Die. But it's not gonna happen, conservatives are reproducing faster than liberals. \_ Must watch episode AABF23. \_ You got whooshed by a Simpsons reference. \_ Gibson, the next Reagan for Republicans? \_ "I am Mel Gibson, and I see before me an army of my countrymen here in defiance of tyranny. You have come to fight as free men, and free men you are. What would you do without freedom? Will you fight? FREEDOM!!! VOTE FOR ME!!!" \_ Haha, good memory! \_ You do realize that quotes and scripts are available online? It's this handy little technology thingy called a 'search engine'. \_ IIRC the re-release is a slightly different cut to get it under an R rating. \_ ...which effort failed miserably. -John \_ I am a Christian and have always voted for the Democrats, but this anti-Christian rhetoric on the motd is annoying. I think I am going to switch to Republican. I mean, what did Mel Gibson do that people here hate him so much. \_ Produced a movie that plays on Christians' sense of religious persecution to ensure a steady profit base while inflicting gratuitous scenes of torture on said audience. It's exploitation of the worst kind. \_ I don't particularly like the movie, but if Mel Gibson wants to make money, I am sure there are plenty of much easier ways for him to do so. I disagree that his intention is purely, or even mainly for monetary gain. And I think there have been way too few mainstream movies about Christ, or other Christian related theme for quite some time. I applaud Mel Gibson for his courage in making the movie. And boy, did he get crucified attacked ^ for it, but I think he saw it coming, and did sort of like jesus it nevertheless ^. The movie didn't do it for me because it focused on the physical suffering of Jesus, but that's certainly one aspect of Christ's road to the cross, and if Gibson wants to focus on that, I don't have a problem with it. |
2005/2/22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36362 Activity:high |
2/22 See if you can spot the loaded questions and false dichotomies on this "moral politics" test. http://www.moral-politics.com/xpolitics.aspx?menu=Home \_ Apparently I'm a socialist! I never knew. -jrleek \_ That's "terrorist" to you, young man. Get with the new terminology. \_ Looks like a ripoff of http://www.politicalcompass.org including the bad questions. -emarkp \_ "These so-called ill-treatments and torturing in concentration camps, stories of which were spread everywhere amongst the people, and particularly by detainees who were liberated by the occupying armies, were not, as assumed, inflicted methodically, but by individual leaders, sub-leaders , and men who laid violent hands on them." -- Rudolf Höss, Commandant of Auschwitz hands on them." -- Rudolf HM-vss, Commandant of Auschwitz until 1943, in his post-war testimony http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/iconochasms.php \_ "The problem is, this kind of thing occurs in prisons across the country and across the world. And you have to know it's going to be a possibility. And therefore the training and the discipline and the doctrine has to be such that you anticipate that risk. And clearly, that wasn't done to the extent it should." -Don Rumsfeld, Feb 3 2005 \_ I consider myself liberal and I got:Economic Left/Right: -6.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.59 \_ I am a moderate social democrat. No American party represents me. But I already knew that! |
2005/2/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Finance/Investment] UID:36204 Activity:kinda low |
2/16 Is Alan Greenspan a Democrat or a Republican? Who/When appoints such a man and how long does he get to say when to raise/lower interest rate? \_ Alan Greenspan used to be best buddies with Ayn Rand in a previous life. I am unclear on his current political status. Possibly 'sold out.' -- ilyas 'too old and sold out to care.' -- ilyas \_ isn't Bill Gates a big fan of Ayn? What is it about rich people and their idol Ayn? \_ Ayn's philosophy is that rich people are rich because they earned it (even if they inherited it), and they deserve to keep it. Of course rich people like her. \_ No, the philosophy, as I recall, was that if you earn money, you deserve it (note "earn" in the the meritocratic sense.) And are not wealthy, and don't work for money, you do not deserve it. -John \_ what does Ayn think about Monarchy? Does she like it when the rich aristocrats keep what they have and work to keep it that way? \_ who knows? she died. - danh \_ ARISTOCRACY, n. Government by the best men. (In this sense the word is obsolete; so is that kind of government.) Fellows that wear downy hats and clean shirts -- guilty of education and suspected of bank accounts. (From the Devil's Dictionary) -- ilyas \_ Greenspan was appointed to the board of the Federal Reserve by Reagan in '87. The President designates which member of the board is the Chairman and all presidents since and including Reagan have designated Greenspan as the Chairman. An appointment to the board last 14 yrs, I believe that the Chairman holds the position for 4 yrs, but I'm not sure. Greenspan was (and probably still is) a Republican. For more info see: http://www.federalreserve.gov/bios/greenspan.htm BTW, you could have figured out all this for yourself by typing 'Alan Greenspan' into Google. |
2005/1/25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35886 Activity:very high |
1/25 Budget deficit of $368b predicted for this year, plus whatever Bush gets for Iraq. How does that compare to Reagan? \_ Here's a graph from 1960-2002. Sadly can't find one including the last two years. Not sure if the projected '03 and '04 numbers include projected Iraq expenses. [thanks for stomping my change, asshat] http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm \_ Great resource, thanks! More specifically, how do these deficits compare in terms of real dollar value at the time (i.e., Reagan's deficits in 1980 dollars vs. Bush's deficits in same)? \_ http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0 The tables are not in constant dollar, but they also give the amounts in percentage of GDP, which is really what you should be looking at anyway. The Reagan and the early Clinton years were both worse for the deficit. \_ Uh. When do you think the "Clinton years" started? Starting in 93 (The start of the clinton years), the deficit headed DOWN. It's Reagan and Bush I that were "worse for the deficit". \_ Clinton had the good fortune to enjoy the benefits of the heavy lifting Bush I did on raising taxes. Bush II won't repeat the same mistake of doing the hard work so a Democrat can take the credit. \_ Or you could say that Bush I took the brunt of trying to keep the country solvent because of the excesses of the 80's, and people realized that cutting taxes while increasing spending ... doesn't work. \_ The 2 views are not contradictory. \_ Have you heard of "The Pledge?" No Republican will ever raise taxes again, ever. \_ Why do Republicans hate America? \_ "Read my lips" notwithstanding, Bush I might well have won the re-election if he had another year in his first term and the country started enjoying the fruits of his tax increases. \_ Maybe, but the lesson the Republicans learned from Bush I was "Raise taxes and die." \_ Much credit goes to Newt Gingrich, for keeping down spending from 96 onwards. -liberal \_ And for championing "family values" while in the midst of a 7 year affair with one of his employees! \_ $368 + $100B for war + ??? for SS "reform" It could easily be over $600B. \_ How the hell did Clinton get +523 while all the rest get negatives? He didn't do anything that was so radical from the other presidents. Talking about radical, Bush=radical conservative. \_ Between 91 and 95, they fixed a number of structural budget problems. From that, the discussion was able to move from "how to balance the budget" to "how much do we use to pay down the debt and how much to cut taxes". |
2005/1/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:35863 Activity:kinda low |
1/23 Johnny Carson, RIP. \_ was he blue, red, or purple? \_ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1326799/posts#23 \_ Johnny Cash, Johnny Carson, who will be next? \_ *shrug* You, if we're lucky. \_ Johnny Ramone beat Carson to it. That's three. Leave it alone. |
2004/11/27 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:35086 Activity:high |
11/27 There will be no discussion of the dollar's collapse, casualties in Iraq, the soon to be cancelled election, or anything else that might reflect unfavourably on Our Glorious Leader. \_ Ah, the liberal commentators have reared their ugly heads. How does it feel to be continuously losing, out of power, and basically wrong? And what hath happened to thine cries for emigration my faithful liberal? Useful idiots indeed! \_ hey motd economists: I've been puzzling over the difference between "tax and spend liberals" and "deficit spending republicans" since I realized the dollar did this during Reagan's tenure as well. What differences are there between taxing citizens and siphoning value out of the US economy to fund government activity (besides the marketing appeal of claiming to not tax)? This is a serious question because I don't claim to understand the global market dynamics. |
2004/11/12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:34856 Activity:insanely high |
11/11 What will the Euro/Dollar ratio be in four years? 1/1: .. 1.3/1: 1.5/1: 1.8/1: . 2/1: higher: \_ if there is a general perception that the dollar is falling, would that cause a mass movement of the dollar (many people moving their money), which would cause the actual change? \_ In general, that is how a market works. People pay for what they percieve the value of something is. \- while this may be trivially true [like buy low sell high] it's not a theoretically meaningful statement. the "theory" of FX appaches the question either by modeling supply and demand ... like say "portfolio balance theory"or my looking at boundary condition/equillibria [see say uncovered interest parity, purchasing power parity etc]. --psb \_ If I wantto invest in Eruos what would be the best way? \_ http://www.everbank.com \_ Dollar will strengthen \_ Can I have some of that crack you're smoking? \_ Interest rates will rise and bring the dollar up with them. \_ Interest rate is cyclical. This dollar correction is a structural correction. is a structural correction. Lately, the focus has been on the structural need for the dollar to depreciate. Your quarter point interest rate increases would likely not be enough to convince people not to dump the dollar if they are convinced the dollar is going to drop by another 20 or 30 percent. \_ This is rather circular. It's going to drop because people think it will drop. Yes, it plays to how the market works but WHY would people think it is going to drop? It will rise when it again becomes a good investment, which will be when interest rates rise. \_ No it isn't circular. I was just pointing out that interest rate as a cause of fluctuation of the dollar is cyclical. And that there are other structural reasons that would likely cause the dollar to fall. The most important of these is the continuing trade deficit. Another reason is that China's economy is overheating and they are raising interest rate for the RMB, and thinking hard about letting the RMB appreciate, which would likely lead to other asian currencies appreciating. \_ The structural reasons *have* caused the dollar to fall. The question is: Where will it be in 4 years? I predict up. \_ The structural reasons *have* caused the dollar to fall. The question is: Where will it be in 4 years? I predict up. \_ We are running massive budget and trade deficits. \_ Was the dollar low or high in the 1980s when Reagan was doing the same thing? Bush says "deficits don't matter" and intends to pile up even deeper deficits. This is all hard on the dollar. \_ Was the dollar low or high in the 1980s when Reagan was doing the same thing? |
2004/11/4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34666 Activity:kinda low |
11/4 Should Democrats Get Religion? CBS special: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/04/politics/main653667.shtml \_ CBS is great. While all the other news corps are starting to align to Fox News because that's where the money is (majority has spoken), CBS seems to be tilting more to the left. It is great. \_ To take this seriously, I think no. At least, I think the Democrats should stop treating religion so contemptously, but I don't think they need to become bible thumpers. Bush came accross well because he actually believes his religion and acts accordingly. Kerry looks silly on religion because he makes a big deal about his relgion, but obviously doesn't belive it personally. Regan, Clinton, and Bush Sr. were all fairly non-religious, but they didn't try to pretend to be religious either. \_ Hmm. You and I have different memories of Ronald Reagan. -- ulysses \_ I admit, Regan is probably the biggest stretch in that group. He certainly ditched pleantly of church though. \_ Reagan used religious rhetoric, but I am fairly certain he was not a religious man. -- ilyas \_ Al Gore was a fairly religious man. Not only was Tipper absurdly conservative, but I know for a fact that Al attended church often, because my gf went to the same church. It didn't really help him win. \_ I'm pretty sure it hurt him. I would have voted for Gore had it not been for the tipper/lieberman religious asshole axis. |
2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:34627 Activity:moderate |
11/3 Historically, what is the longest duration which we had a republican president? what about democratic? \_ see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_president#List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States \_ see : http://tinyurl.com/5hna3 |
2004/10/31-11/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:34478 Activity:kinda low |
10/31 Polls predicted a solid victory for Thomas Dewey over Harry Truman in 1948. Truman won. In 1980, polls showed Reagan and Carter in a close race, but Reagan won by a landslide. What really happened in 1948 and 1980? \_ "Dewey Defeats Truman" was based on early returns, and the Chicago Tribune needing to go to press before enough returns were in. Carter/Reagan was an example of undecideds breaking to the challenger. -tom |
2004/10/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:34437 Activity:high |
10/29 Do we have any motd archives going back to the 80s? \_ I *used* to have some, but moved them to /csua/tmp/mehlhaff/motd_archive, and then some idiot went and cleaned out all 'old' files from /csua/tmp. I might have offsite backups, but dont want to pullthem backup if they're just going to get deleted again. -EricM \_ Given that quite a few people seem to be running motd archivers, I think it's a safe bet that they'd stay around somewhere, and it'd be a really cool thing to have. -John \_ would have been interesting to compare the political battle: Reagan vs. Carter, Reagan vs. Mondale (?) \_ I just looked up election week from 1996, and it was all about random technical shit. The motd, like the country in general, has never been this divided, politicized, on angry. \_ where is this located? \_ Past ennui, make a left at disgruntled, frustrated despair will be on your right. If you hit blind rage, you've gone too far. \_ You mean like aaron? \_ Most of the alumni who post on the motd and wall about political junk were still in school in 1996 and were too busy studying and worrying about graduating to waste time w/ political non-sense. \_ Reagan vs. Carter: There wouldn't be much discussion. Carter was an utter disaster for this country. If you were old enough to remember you wouldn't even consider that a debate. Carter is now running around certifying stolen elections for his socialist pals in South America. The man Carter was an utter disaster for this country. If you were old enough to remember you wouldn't even consider that a debate. Carter is now running around certifying stolen elections for his socialist pals in South America. The man is a disgrace. \_ The world-writeable-motd didn't exist in the 80's. |
2004/10/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34150 Activity:nil |
10/15 http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/naes/index.htm Strong support for Dubya and dislike of Kerry on this survey of servicemen and women and their families. Note the strength of support when the breakdown is given for the soldiers only (not including family members). \_ I applaud the strenght and resolve our armed forces have in implementing free market reforms in Iraq. Do they realize Paul Bremer thinks implementing a flat tax and reduction of tariffs are his main accomplishments in Iraq? - danh \_ Military personnel in a non-draft military tend to be Republican. They also tend to favor strong military action over diplomatic solutions and sanctions. Cf. military personnel support for Reagan over Carter. On the other hand, would someone please explain to me how a survey of 655 service personnel accurately reflects trends in a military that now has over 200 times that number on duty in Iraq? \_ If your complaint is that they also need a survey for boots on the ground folks in Iraq, then it's warranted. ... but, I don't see military higher-ups authorizing pansy election surveys while they're trying to fix Iraq. \_ I'm sorry, I just don't get the methodology that says that the opinions of 655 people translates into an accurate picture of all military personnel. How does this work? \_ Like any other poll, it's basic statistics. You may wish to consult the concepts of "sampling" and "margin of error." This is how any poll works. That said, selecting a representative sample is very difficult, and lots of polling organizations get it wrong - even good ones. c.f. Gallup's accuracy issues of late. \_ Right, so I read up on Annenberg's methodology and the basic stats page below. My question then is how accurately this reflects the views of the boots on the ground, whether the same results hold true for reservists currently on duty, and what questions were asked, since the specific wording of the questions could influence the results. Kudos to the motd for helping me to get a grip on this. \_ Note your points were already brought up ... three replies before your post. \_ How do polls of non-military citizens of 600-1200 meaningfully represent *millions* of people in a state if you're unwilling to allow the same 600+ to represent ~130k? \_ Sorry, not trying to be a troll, but genuinely curious. How does this actually work? \_ You may find this link helpful. And oh yeah, obGoogle. http://www.isixsigma.com/library/content/c040607a.asp \_ thank you! \_ Is this the part where we're supposed to call them stupid and uneducated and braindwashed? \_ This is the part where we talk about yermom. |
2004/10/8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:33978 Activity:high |
10/7 If Bin Laden were found in the next week or so, do you think the election would favor one party or another? \_ Yes. Dubya. Duh. \_ W. might just be delaying a Bin Laden capture in time for the elections. At the very least, an early capture of B.L. might have kept W. from invading Iraq. \_ I worried for a while that this was a possibility... but if they were going to pull this rabbit out of the hat, don't you think they would have dont it already? Seems too late at this point to not appear calculated \_ If Pakistan can pick him up, basically anytime, then maybe they can "bargain/extort" more for producing B.L. for W. than whatever was agreed to before. \_ I think you need more tin foil in your hat. \_ Think reagan/carter/hostages... \_ Think "I'm an idiot" you moron. |
2004/10/6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33945 Activity:nil |
10/4 "if you compare the language used to describe Jeffords to the language used to describe Zell Miller [after the Democrat's pro-Bush speech at Republican convention], you will know almost everything you need to know about the modern media." Remembrance of Contracts Past http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/691zjgqk.asp \_ Except Jeffords is right, and Miller is wrong. \_ I know nothing of Jeffords, but Miller tried to challenge his interviewer to a duel. Now THAT'S news. \_ Honk if you demand satisfaction! |
2004/9/7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:33389 Activity:high |
9/7 After the Democratic convention and the last couple months, is it too late to recast Kerry as anything other than the Vietnam guy? \_ Certainly not. If he picks two or three main points and gets the talking heads to parrot his talking points, he could easily enter October as the "We can do better" guy. \_ IMO, Kerry can spend a little time on Vietnam (basically be morally outraged and say it was all done in '96), but focus on for George W. Bush: W. stands for "Wrong". \_ Play populist. Show how GWBs policies have favored the rich and screwed the middle class (no-one likes to consider themselves poor). Ask "Where's Osama?" and point out half-assed security measures. \_ Do people have a memory that extends further back than 2 months? \_ It's easily modified. E.g., even though there were no WMDs in Iraq, nukular weapons are the real threat. Our use of force in Iraq caused Libya to give up its nukular program! Anyway, the whold world thought we'd find WMDs in Iraq! \_ Bush had more than 2 months to change perception. \_ Is this your first presidential campaign? The campaign season just officially began. \_ Gallop poll, since 1980, at the start of September (polling number eyeballed from graph) and actual result: 1980 Reagan tied, Reagan won at 50.8% 1984 Reagan ahead at 57%, Reagan won at 59% 1988 Bush ahead at 48%, Bush won at 53.9% 1992 Clinton ahead at 50%, Clinton won at 43.2% 1996 Clinton ahead at 53%, Clinton won at 49.9% 2000 Tied, Bush won by winning the tie breaker If you bothered to do some research, you might actually learn something. Is this your first election? \_ No, I have followed many campaigns. That is why I know any question asked at the start of the campaign season asking "is it too late" is really really stupid. \_ I see. And it's just coincidence that the candidate leading the race in the start of September has won every presidential since the 1980 (that I've bothered to look)? In fact, since the 1930's (when Gallop starting tracking elections), only in 1960 did the leading candidate in the start of September lose an election. In 9/1960, Kenneday was behind 46% vs 47%, and he won the election with 50.1% of the vote. Nah, just a coincidence. \_ No, it just shows that elections are decided by something other than personalities. The economy in September determines the winner in November, except during exceptional years. \_ Now, how does this claim jive with your previous claim that "*any* question asked at the start of the campaign season asking 'is it too late' is really really stupid."? (Emphasis added.) \_ I believe he's claiming that this is an exceptional year. I would tend to agree. !the above guy \_ Note that he didn't say "in an exceptional year". He stated it as a general principle. Note also that he repeatedly asked "is this your first election?". The only reason to ask that would be to use the history of previous elections as a guide to what will happen this time. This is clearly contrary to a claim that history doesn't apply because this is an exceptional election. |
2004/9/2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33289 Activity:insanely high |
9/2 It takes a republican to put Elaine Chao, the first Asian American women in the U.S. Cabinet: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/01/gop.main/index.html \_ more like, she had to marry a republican senator first. \_ Republicans are oppressing her with their big white penises? \_ http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/chao-bio.html \_ I am sure she's very capable herself, but that alone isn't usually enough. \_ that is right. Chinese communities knows Elaine Chao for years. and, if she never married to a powerful senator, she would never gotten where she is now. Further, I hate her policies, and that alone is good enough for me to discredit her despite she belongs to the same ethnic tribe as I. \_ That's fine. There are lots of Irish politians I don't support. I think race based support for anyone is stupid. \_ I don't think the gwbush administration is racist. I think they just hate poor people. \_ I hate those racist republicans! We need more equal opportunity supporters like John Kerry and his all-white all-the-time campaign! \_ Yeah, like the way GWB has more non-whites in his administration at any level than Clinton did in 8 years and Kerry has on his staff now. But don't let facts trip you up on the way to the next meeting of the proletariat, comrade! \_ You respond to obvious sarcasm by pretending it is an honest statement. Boy are you stupid. \_ Hi fool! I was joining in on the sarcasm fun. Thanks for adding your idiocy to the motd. We didn't have enough stupid people here already. Everyone understood and let it be. How'd you get so stupid? \_ But wait, say the Republicans, we're not racist. We put Colin Powell and Condi Rice in positions of power (where we can veto them immediately if they get uppity). See? How can an Administration with token blacks possibly be oppressing blacks? Oh, that's right, by cutting valuable social services that help to redress more than 228 years of discrimination and outright oppression. \_ By putting people on the public dole, we lift them up and give them incentive to do better from one generation to the next. Er uh, yeah. Right. Have you ever been on the dole? It is the most anti-incentive thing I ever experienced. \_ Except that the programs Bush has cut haven't only been the welfare checks. He's also cut housing subsidies, funding for pre-school education, and tons of counseling services. If it was welfare alone, I'd be right there with you, but when you take away the means to improve, that's just wrong. \_ Then you'd be unique among the left who think welfare reform is the ultimate evil. \_ Untrue. See "Clinton and welfare reform." (And if you're going to restore, restore it all.) \_ BWAHAHAHAHA! \_ Hey, can I have some of that? My people were totally oppressed for longer than yours. -- ilyas \_ Than mine? I'm a Danish-Irish-Pole; my Danish ancestors were oppressing my Irish and Polish ancestors before Columbus was ever born. \_ Wait, ilya, I missed the part where Russian Jews were brought over in ships to do forced labor for their entire lives on cotton plantations, and then "freed" only to face official government policies of segregation and discrimination for 100 years. \_ Dude! You had ships? We wish we had ships. We had to go to Egypt and Babylon ON FOOT, UPHILL BOTH WAYS, long before your ancestors even knew what slavery was. -- ilyas \_ This conversation has reached epic stupidity. You don't think Jews have ever been SEGREGATED? \_ You miss the point. American government policy and its people supported slavery and, later, "Jim Crow." American government policy had nothing to do with the oppression of the Jews - if anything, we helped to save what was left of them with WWII. The plight of the African-American is a uniquely American responsibility. \_ The plight? 1) stop using crack, 2) stop shooting your neighbors, 3) send your kids to school, 4) install some values in your children, 5) stop listening to music that glorifies thuggish street life and says all women are whores and property. That would be a good start. You know, that whole self responsibility thing. Maybe we need a Federal entitlement program to encourage more self responsbility? \_ I'm the guy who wrote the bit about tokens, and even I can tell you straight up that American government policy at several points had plenty to do with the oppression of the Jews. We nearly didn't even get involved in WWII because of anti-semitism. Look, both Jews and African Americans have suffered. Cutting support to one because the other's not getting a leg up is just plain stupid and spiteful. \_ I repeat, WHERE'S MY PIECE OF THE PIE!? My ancestors suffered, damn it! Gimme gimme gimme! -- ilyas \_ I blame the Jews. \_ And why not? Everyone else does. The weak always make good targets. \_ Um, alright you should dig up the American government and its people (who were around at the time) and get them to pay up. See, the rest of the world has gotten past the feudal concept of familial inheritance of legal responsibilities. Maybe you should too. -- ilyas \_ Do you support increasing the estate tax? \_ jesus fucking batshit. why don't you spill some blood in the sharktank while you're at it? \_ Do you support sending people to prison for what their 4x great grand parents did? \_ Hey, it's not regressive to see that the current social situation in the ghetto is a direct result of both that "peculiar institution" and Reagan's policy of cutting assistance and enrichment programs, as continued by the current administration. \_ It may not be regressive, but it is BS. The "great society" did not increase the speed of blacks entering the middle class, it DECREASED the speed. Furthermore, prior to the great society, ghettos were pretty safe. Now no one lets their kids walk down the street in the ghetto. Woohoo! Did we ever get a great society from LBJ! \_ Your claims are ludicrous. Please back them up. \_ Yours is more so. How does flooding an area with government cash encourage anyone to do better with their life? Please back up the claim that the ghettos are a result of Reagan's policies and slavery. There were shitty ghettos and crime long before Reagan was around. \_ And yet another fallacy: throwing money at the problem does nothing. Spending money to improve schools (read: not on vouchers), provide retraining, educate children through Head Start and other pre-school programs, and provide drug-, health-, and job-counseling decreases crime and social welfare. \_ Spending money intelligently works. Throwing money at a problem, by it's very nature, does not solve problems. The schools are fucked because parents won't take responsibility for their kids in your nanny state and the teachers unions are all about the teachers unions and couldn't give a fuck about the kids. \_ I notice you have not provided the evidence. Perhaps because it does not exist? \_ I notice you have not provided the evidence. Perhaps because it does not exist? See how we can both play that game? You made a stupid statement. I challenged it. Then you try to back your statement by saying I didn't back mine when you have provided no backing for your earlier statement. That turkey doesn't fly. Your debate fu is WEAK! \_ This is the first time you have requested evidence. I can provide plenty of it. \_ It isn't but thats ok. You're doing your best and for that I think you have earned a social promotion to the next level so we don't damage your self esteem. \_ Corporations live forever and can write contracts far outlasting the life of their signees. I think they can be held responsible for their actions 150 years ago. \_ Sue them. \_ Change the law so I can. \_ BWHAHAHAHA!!! SO FUNNY! Poor baby! You are such a victim! What exactly are you going to sue them for and who? \_ There are plenty of corporations that benefitted from slave labor and could be sued. For economic damages of course, what else do you sue a corporation for? Are you this ignorant and rude in person? \_ I asked you to name them and what you'd sue them for since you weren't damaged by it. Are you this obtuse in person? \_ A very quick google gives: http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/03/26/slavery.reparations http://www.millionsforreparations.com/lawsuit-ww.html I think you can make an economic argument that the descendants have the right to sue. We already return solen art to the decendants of the victims. But the law would have to be changed to make this possible. \_ Tell us about the legality of the sacking of Jericho and the displacement of the Canaanites, ilya. \_ Without the Infinity Trident we're defenseless against the Five Jew Bankers! \_ John is that you? \_ Where's the magic spear and shield?! I must have the ring else all hope is lost! \_ You idiot! We made up the Five Jew Bankers! \_ http://internationaljewishconspiracy.com (Relax, it's a satirical site, not racist.) \_ How did a conversation on Elaine The Asian And The Big White Penises become so intellectual? \_ Where exactly did it become intellectual? \_ I agree that the claims that the Republicans are racist are silly and counter-productive. It is not surprising that the Republicans are the first to put an Asian woman into the cabinet though. There is a great J. K. Galbraith quote about how it is the fate of American politics that the party that is not believed to embody a particular quality is the one that actually has to put it into practice. Just like how the Democrats are the party that actually has sensible, business- and growth-friendly economic policies. The Republicans don't need to have these, because everyone assumes that their policies are economically sound. The first Black or Female U. S. President will be a Republican. - (one of many) motd liberal \_ thank god, there are people on motd has non-volitile memory. \_ last week we caught a Jewish spy, for some reason, we don't have the cox report and all that witch hunt. Racism at work... (if the motd-format God would like to come bless me, I would be appreciative, otherwise sorry about the formatting) \_ I would except those other morons put their crap in the middle making me uncertain who is writing the parenthetic. --motd formatd \_ Chacellor Chang-lin Tien would have been another asian in the cabinet but the big China stealing nuclear secrets brouhaha made it impossible. \_ Tien was from Taiwan, not Mainland China. \_ it doesn't matter. wenholee is from taiwan too. incidentally, so it elaine chao. \_ Elaine Chao's chinese name means Little Orchid. \_ Does it ever occur to you guys that Lincoln was a Republican? \_ Somewhat clever troll, or didn't pay attention in U.S. History. Which one are you? \_ Are you saying Lincoln was a Democrat? \_ Yeah, Lincoln didn't want to ENSLAVE Americans, otherwise he would be a Republican! \_ CSUA has its own Elaine |
2004/8/12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32864 Activity:nil 70%like:32845 |
8/12 Hard fact is, Kerry froze up during the Cold War <DEAD>www.tardrepublic.com/focus/f-news/1189962/posts<DEAD> \_ Um, being against deficit spending is not dumb. And Reagan == Iran-Contra. And well, Dubya ain't no Reagan. \_ So ceding central america to the Soviets was a good idea? The Soviets were pouring hundrends of millions into Nicaragua. Why don't you condemn Carter in Afghanistan? |
2004/8/11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32834 Activity:very high |
8/11 Wouldn't even Republicans agree that any administration that purposely leaks classified info (in the latest case, the identity of a Al Queda operative working for us) for political gain, endangering this country's security in the process, should be removed? Isn't this on the level of Nixon's crimes, if not greater? \_ Wouldn't even Democrats agree that any administration that purposely sold nuclear secrets to China in exchange for campaign money, endangering this country's security in the process, should be removed? Isn't this far above the level of Nixon's crimes, if not far far greater? \_ Yeah, if such a thing actually happened, it would be. But since it is only a fiction of some paranoid loons imagination, I not going to worry about it too much. Forget your tinfoil hat? \_ Which Clinton administration official admitted that this happened? Condi Rice actually ADMITTED the name was leaked by the Bush admin \_ It's minor compared to what Nixon and Reagan administrations did. Nixon used the CIA to counter the FBI investigating his reelection committee's illegal activities. Reagan sold arms to an enemy state to fund an illegal war. This said, what Bush's admin did was just really stupid, not illegal. The Valerie Plame thing was illegal. \_ Nixon/Reagan stuff was clearly wrong ... but did it give aid and comfort to a foreign enemy we are at war with? Scale vs. direct effect. \_ Why no recrimination for Clinton buying arms from Iran to give to the KLA? So having another Soviet satellite state in our hemisphere would have been a good thing? \_ 1) Because after nearly 20 years, attempts of normalization of relations with (supposively moderate) Iran through economic mean is not a totally bad idea. \_ The arms tranfers were illicit, just like those in Iran-Contra. \_ Sigh. Context has no meaning to you. -EOT- 2) The US Congress had outlawed the sales. Both El Salvador and Nicaragua were economically, politically, and militarily incapable of threatening the US. \_ So a Soviet controlled Central America would have been no problem during the 1980's? \_ The US told these nations "our way or the highway." They took the highway and Cold Warriors struck back. If the US had tried to fix the oppressive (pro-US) regimes, socialism wouldn't have taken root. \_ I had never even heard of this charge before. Are you sure it is not one of those "who killed Vince Foster" type Clinton-hater legend? \_ SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! - Bill O'Reilly \_ He only says that to people repeating liberal nonsense after they've had their turn. \_ Only 40% of Americans believe the Bush administration would be \_ And when encouraging people not to speak out about the war. And when the son of a man killed on 9/11 tries to point out that the terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. \_ Only 38% of Americans believe the Bush administration would be capable of that. http://i.timeinc.net/time/covers/1101040816/poll/images/poll_2.gif \_ No, it's only incompetence that led to the al Qaeda operative's name being leaked to the press at an inappropriate time. Who exactly leaked it? Tom Ridge says he doesn't know. Rice implies the name was purposely released by the administration to press. http://csua.org/u/8jx \_ It's worse than that. The guy had flipped and was giving the Pakistanis viable intelligence, plus feeding Al-Quada trash. Knowing that someone had been found drove Al-Quada back underground instead of into the hands of authorities. \_ I'm just talking about the motive, not the results (which are as severe as you say). I say incompetence, not politics. |
2004/8/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:32706 Activity:high |
8/5 Hey, what happened to my "Obama as Max Headrom" post? \_ I'd like to see it if you can repost it. \_ It wasn't all that interesting. I was just pointing out that Obama's angluar face and vinil like skin remind me of Max Headrom. Only interesting because it's been deleted twice and edited once. \_ Well, Ronald Reagan looks more like him, IMO! \_ One of the "Back to the Future" movies had a diner scene in which all the waiters were celebs "headroomized". The MJ Fox character is helped by Reagan. |
2004/8/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32650 Activity:very high |
8/3 Teresa Heinz is too much of a bitch \_ Apparently you missed out on Nancy Reagan. \_ A rich Republican one from South Africa no less. Nancy Reagan was actually liked. Kerry's okay, but if he can get along with that bitchy Republican wife then you have to wonder how strong his principles are. She's not that hot either. \_ sugar mommy \_ As they say about porn stars: its all about the money, honey. And just because Nancy was "liked" doesn't mean she wasn't a crazy beeyotch. Have you ever seen the clips of the "Just Say No" speech? \_ Do you seriously think that Laura Bush is hotter? \_ No, Nancy Reagan was an EVIL BITCH. Teresa Heinz is a bitch on the side of GOOD, that is, if she were a man, she stands for something, and won't take your stupid crap. Now, if you imagine Dubya as female, Georgina Bush would just be a stupid, drunk bitch. \_ your republican talking point email wasn't that funny today \_ I like Teresa Heinz very much. She speaks frankly and doesn't pretend to be someone other than herself, unlike most American politicians who wears many masks. \_ I agree, she's not pretending to be insane, she really is! \_ kind of like bush being dumb? \_ why do you think she is insane? \_ All Demoncraps are insane, by definition. \_ Demoncraps? I bow to your debate skills. \_ you prefer a stepford wife like laura bush, with her fake smile? \_ How about someone who is not a Republican senator's wife who got all of her money from an evil corporation? \_ What's evil about condiments? \_ Its not like she's from DeBeers. \_ Ignorant slut! Don't you know the cruel exploitative history of Heinz ketchup? The tomato slave gangs, the Mexican "ketchup coup" in 1971 (covered up by the liberal media of course), those frustrating glass bottles... and Heinz was a Nazi. And later a communist. \_ At least he wasn't a commie-nazi -McBain \_ My brother roomed with Chris Heinz freshman year college. Privileged information says she's not all that bright and definitely not a nice person. \_ What about Hillary? |
2004/8/2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32629 Activity:high |
8/3 And here's a big up yours to all the Sandinistas-lovin'-commie-ass liberals from the 80's. http://csua.org/u/8ey \_ Nicaraguans reflect upon history of their country and the long running Reagan-sponsored civil war. \_ 1. stop editing my posts. post your own. 2. nicaraguans didn't do the reflecting in the article. a sandinistas-lovin'-commie-ass liberal did. \_ Yeah, the US is way responsible for the Nicaraguan disaster in the 90's. I just love how all these communist paradises happen to fail. |
2004/7/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32484 Activity:nil |
7/26 Does anyone have a link about Dubya's best 10k time? This recent http://espn.com article has his marathon and 5k times. It's difficult to google his 10k time. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=merron/040726 |
2004/7/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:32307 Activity:high |
7/15 Michael Moore is even more of a scumbag than I thought: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/johnmccaslin/jm20040713.shtml \_ Best. Nutty ring wing rant. Evah! \_ Rant? It isn't a rant. It says the family is pissed off because Moore used their son's death for his propaganda and didn't even tell them much less give them the humanly decent option to say "no, thanks". \_ When you have a public event in a public place, you open yourself up to reporting of that event. That is called freedom of the press in America. I hope the family does sue. They will lose. \_ Who said it was public? Was it public? Who filmed it? Why does he lack the common human decency to at least inform the family it will be there. How sickening to show up at a movie and see yourself at your son's funeral. If you think this is a-ok, you're just a sick bastard and not a human being. \_ Arlington Cemetary == public space. Perhaps you really didn't know that. I think the First Amendment is a-ok and that it is really sad that you are against it. \_ Guess you missed this. From the article: "The family does not know how Moore obtained the video..." I assume, therefore, it was not a public event. \_ Do you assume that Yosemite Park is not a public space as well? There is no presumption to privacy in a public space. So if you are walking down the trail in Yosemite and I take your picture, I can publish it. That is the foundation of our free press, that people are allowed to report on events that occur in public. \_ Ohhh... that's why he's such a fat turd. I hear human flesh is quite fattening. |
2004/7/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:32212 Activity:high |
7/10 How Multiculturalism Took Over America http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14164 \_ How about the part where whitey took over America? And how everytime whitey feels threatened, they enact a law to "protect" their culture, though, this isn't really the original American culture....just whitey culture. \_ KILL WHITEY! \_ Enact a law? Such as when the Republicans crushed the Democrats and brought about a victory for civil rights in this country? \_ Wow, when did this happen? I was too busy watching the Repubs getting coopted by the far right loonies and shredding my civil liberties to notice. \_ I think he's confusing "Democrats" with "Confederacy." \_ Considering the South was solidly democrat until the 1980's I don't think you know what you are talking about. \_ Ronald Reagan brought about a victory for civil rights? How? By showing that even an actor with Alzheimer's can become president? \_ Since you are historically ignorant why do you persist with this polemic? Your time would be better spent reading a history book. \_ sincere question to OP: where did you grow up (state/region)? \_ seattle, south florida, virginia (DC), north carolina. \_ as a native northern californian i found the viewpoint of the article to be laughably sheltered. his fear of "the new pioneers" is telling of his desire to freeze progress now that "his" culture has reached its peak. i think he assigns too much malice to those of us who appreciate the mixing of cultures taht is intrinisic to the modern economy. (i asked about origins because i am increasingly aware that i understand the pacific rim mindset more than some of my u.s. the pacific rim mindset more than [i do] some of my u.s. brethren's) \_ Of course you are smarter and more perspicacious than every else, especially the crude masses who live outside of urban areas like SF, Ny, Hollywood, and Boston. That said, please identify the virtues that have arisen from multiculturalism in the past 2 decades. Ethnic cuisine doesn't count. \_ it's not so much that I think it has virtues as I think it is the truth. people mingle; people mix; they do not assimilate. the slow pace of some backwoods places gives the false impression that culture is static. the article ignores how the US changes after EVERY batch immigration. the virtues invclude not taking an isolationist's stance with our heads in the sand and asses in the air. let me add that i think the core principle of our government, namely federation, naturally extends to multi-culturalism. there is no "we" that owns the civic stage with any uniform cultural identity. the wonderful future I hope for is when all culturual identities are equally as impotent and silly and we can get on to individual merit again. |
2004/7/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:31167 Activity:high |
7/5 Read a detailed transcript of Cheney's comments to Sen. Leahy: http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2004/062504.asp \_ woot! \_ w00t! \_ Wow, that's almost clever. |
2004/7/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:31161 Activity:very high |
7/4 How much did the government spend on Reagan's funeral? \_ Newsweek says "just under 10 million" - danh \_ about this much: http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4026 \_ Don't be stupid. We take care of our Presidents, dead or alive. No one but a dumbshit questions how much money was spent on their funerals or their 24x7 secret service detail while they're alive. It isn't even a rounding error in the Federal budget. \_ If I were a president I would appreciate all the perks while alive but a huge and expensive funeral just seems a waste. \_ It isn't for the President. It is for the rest of the country. Obviously, dead people don't care. \_ Why do people care about a dead body? |
2004/7/2 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:31127 Activity:very high |
2.7 The Godfather is dead: http://csua.org/u/80r \_ That's what happens when you chase a kid around with an orange peel in your mouth. \_ He's the third, I guess. -- ilyas \_ The body's not cold, and they couldn't resist showing a picture from the horrible "Island of Dr. Moreau"? Damn. \_ REAGAN IS THE STANDARD! \_ He could'a been a contenda, somebody, but Ronny sold him out. And now he's a nobody, relegated to the back end of a state funeral. \_ Hey, Bart. How'd you like to escort 5,000 Big Macs to Marlon Brando's island? \_ I watched Last tango in Paris while packing boxes for a move. My friends couldn't believe it. Why? \_ I'm guessing you're either not the kind of person who gets many dates, not particularly adventurous romantically, or incredibly experienced and unimpressed by the movie's contents. Many people would watch LTiP with a date or significant other. \_ I didn't see sex/romance as the point of the movie, and sexual content, while prevalent, was not of the titillating kind. It seemed full of pain, the opposite of a date movie. \_ You have a poor grasp of what makes a good date movie. \_ So a good date movie is Das Boot? \_ see, the goal is to maximize emotional distress. then she turns to you for comfort! \_ But this is SO Machiavellian! \_ F9/11 is a great date movie. |
2004/6/30-7/1 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:31100 Activity:low |
6/30 Prostitutes ready to work overtime for family-friendly Republican National Convention! http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/206962p-178564c.html \_ Bringing back the Times Square of Reagan's day! \_ And here I thought putting most of the Repub delegates in hotels in Hillcrest was inspired. |
2004/6/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30973 Activity:very high |
6/23 NYTimes reviews "Fahrenheit 9/11" -dgies http://movies2.nytimes.com/2004/06/23/movies/23FAHR.html /csua/tmp/fahrenheit911.txt \_ "Mr. Moore is often impolite, rarely subtle and occasionally unwise. He can be obnoxious, tendentious and maddeningly self-contradictory. He can drive even his most ardent admirers crazy. He is a credit to the republic." See, I don't understand this. To a partial observer like myself, this just looks like, for lack of a better term, cocksucking. -- ilyas \_ Yes, because all begrudging praise for people we don't like is cocksucking. Cheney? Likes to have "swordfights" in his mouth. Bush? Satisfies the rich and loves bukakke. See how fun this is? \_ Sure, I understand begrudging praise. But I don't understand how in this particular case, the praise follows from what was previously said. Being rarely subtle and obnoxious does not make one a credit to anything, be it one's parents, one's race, one's country... -- ilyas \_ There are any number of comedians, actors and politicians to whom the same adjectives would apply, and they are just as much a credit to this country as this author posits for Michael Moore. -scotsman \_ Like Al Franken and his popular radio show! \_ Yes, but those characteristics don't make them a credit. Those characteristics are negative. Hence my problem. -- ilyas \_ It's not an if-then. It's "He all these things that people tar him with, and thank god he's there." Those characteristics aren't necessarily negative. -scotsman \_ All those characteristics make him a credit to his country if his country also exemplifies those characteristics. \_ perms \_ fixed, sorry. \_ It's funny that f911 is rated R and The Green Berets is rated G. \_ why is this even an issue? are there kids who aren't 17 now who will somehow manage to vote later this year? \_ Have you *seen* the Green Berets? \_ Did you see Burning Columbine? footage of executions, etc. PG-13 \_ Do you mean "Bowling for Columbine"? \_ Seeing corpses of actual people is probably more disturbing than phony violence. Nothing wrong with that but it's not PG-13. \_ I see dead people... on the news. I think. It's all kind of a haze mixed with the web media. A corpse is a corpse, of course, of course, and kids can look at a corpse of course, that is, of course, unless the corpse is in Fahrenheit 911. Thousands of folks with their kids went to look at Reagan's corpse, boxed though it was. There are hanging Jesus corpses in all the churches. Bah. \_ This must be a troll. I can't believe you can't tell the difference between showing a 15 year old cartoon violence and showing a 15 year old the bullet riddled dehumanised corpse of some poor dumb dead bastard lying in the street. Or between a dead guy in a box and the same corpse in the street. Or between a symbolic carving or Jesus on a stick and a dirty bloodied corpse in the street. Go away, troll. \_ You think 15 year olds aren't on the web? I remember being 15. It depends on how it's presented, but don't doubt those FPS-playing, pot smoking sex-having kids are exposed to much worse if they so choose. They saw jets flying into the WTC. \_ Hi Lea. Sign your name. \_ I always sign my name iff it's mine. This isn't. -chialea \_ Are you trying to make it rhyme? \_ What's more amusing is that Moore appealed the rating because an R-rating might decrease the audience. Sorry Moore, the rating system is on the content, no the /in/tent. \_ http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723 \_ Why do you hate America? |
2004/6/18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30904 Activity:high |
6/18 Ronald Prescott Reagan: "My father never felt the need to wrap himself in anybody else's mantle or pretend to be anybody else. I don't know what's wrong with these people -- they have to keep invoking him. It is their administration, their war. If they can't stand on their own two feet, they're no Ronald Reagans, for sure." \_ Why does Reagan's son hate America? \_ RR's gay son loves his dead father. \_ Is he actually out? Or is it just assumed that he's gay? \_ A WORLD EXCLUSIVE! MICHAEL REAGAN 'OUTTED' ON CSUA MOTD! |
2004/6/18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30890 Activity:very high |
6/18 Reagan's cyber-war: http://www.fcw.com/fcw/articles/2004/0426/feat-strange-04-26-04.asp \_ The same sort of tech-theft and crap is going on now, but with China instead of Russia. \_ Why do you hate China? \_ MSG gives me a headache. \_ MSG is Japanese, not Chinese. \_ Why do you hate Japan? \_ huh huh, turns out US owns the French a big favor. \_ Here it is. Direct action from Regean's Security Policy Directive #75. http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsdd/nsdd-075.htm |
2004/6/17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30872 Activity:nil |
6/17 For those of you who felt that there was too much Reagan worshipping going on: http://www.jacksonhamiter.com/reagan \_ Server not found. \_ sorry, fixed |
2004/6/17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/SIG] UID:30855 Activity:very high |
6/16 Arch liberal 9th Circuit topples Mojave desert cross (WWI veterans memorial) Why don't we redo the crosses at Normandy and Arlington while we are at it. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1155068/posts \_ We just swap out one God for another. \_ for the record, I'm an athiest jew and a liberal, and i think this is totally retarded. \_ for the record, I'm an atheist jew and a liberal, and i think this is totally retarded. [80 columnd, spellingd] \_ I'm a liberal atheist and I think it's wrong for the government to put up or maintain a religiously-themed monument, but I don't see the constitutional imperitive to remove one. \_ so are you anti-cristmass trees on the town green also? -laj \_ Christmas trees are pagan/secular. I'm anti-nativity scenes. \_ what about menorahs? \_ No. No general secular usage. Maybe in another generation they will be sufficiently stripped of religious meaning. \_ I hope not. Keep your christmas time sales crap to ruining your own culture. \_ Arlington doesn't have crosses. Oh. there is the Argonne cross. \_ Thanks for the chuckle. I love to watch the Freepers drool over themselves in anger. \_ It's better than watching them drool over themselves idly. |
2004/6/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30819 Activity:insanely high |
6/12 Ronald Reagan Started a War That Rages Today ...explains today's political landscape http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/dhenninger/?id=110005205 \_ blue M&M, red M&M, they all wind up the same color in the end \_ You mean the money he gave to Saddam, or the money he gave to Osama? \_ I am a no fan of Reagan, but I want to point out that he is not the only person whose short-sighted policy has costed us. Example. USA's policy to lure USSR to declare war with Japan in WW2. We allowed USSR to occupy northeastern part of China (major arm factory, which they in turn arm the communist in China), as well as half of Korea. USSR declared war with Japan for *ONE DAY* without firing a single shot. \_ The USSR was far scarier than any terrorists around today. The mistake was not nabbing bin Laden in the 90s when he was right there for the taking and we didn't accept the offer. \_ In retrospect, the red scare was a hype. \_ In retrospect you either weren't there or you are simply blinded by your own agenda. Or perhaps you're one of the few people upset that the Soviet Union is no more. Did you shed a bitter tear the day the Wall came down? Were you happy the Clinton administration didn't pick up bin Laden when he was offered to them on a silver platter a few times? \_ I guess this is proof that hindsight isn't always 20/20. \_ it is sad that you haven't learned your lesson from history. Communism wasn't all that scary because there are two types of communism. There is the Soviet style communism expansion, and there is a chunk of countries choose communism over western european's imperialism. Of course you being a white imperalist never see this. But for your information, communism in Cuba, Vietnam, Korea, hosts of Southeastern Asian nations, and China in great extend, all belong to latter. Tragically, many policy makers in USA were as simple minded as you are, lump all communist country into one gigantic group. If you bothered with each nation's history and analyze the root of communism individually, there is no reason to panic as the way we did. \_ I vote this 'dumbass post of the week.' -- ilyas \- it's up there. --psb \_ They're all dictatorships. The USSR installed communism in eastern europe and effectively they were puppet states. Those people didn't want to be behind the "iron curtain". But that's what communism gets you, just dictatorship. You think North Korea's is in any way at all representative of the people there? Then there's China, see how it stagnated for decades until they started embracing the imperialist capitalist running dog economics. The power structure there currently lets China function in a reasonable way but it's corrupt and unrepresentative and keeps control of the press etc. just like any other self-serving dictator like Saddam would, comrade. \_ The other guy may or may not have learned any lessons from history, but goddamn -- you're almost completely ignorant of it...and severely prejudiced too. Thank you for your infusion of humor into the motd, chicom troll! \_ Ah yes, the old variation on the "there is more than one kind of communism and we're the 'good' kind" nonsense. It makes me just laugh when you put China in the non-expansionist column. I'm really not in the mood to get into it with chicom troll this late at night but anyone who passed a grade school history class should know better than your drivel. In any event, you're also off topic since it was a terrorism vs USSR comparison. No one gives a damn about China. |
2004/6/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30817 Activity:insanely high |
6/12 Fox News gives positive review to "Fahrenheit 9/11." Damn liberal media! http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122680,00.html \_ Damn liberal movie critics! Damn liberal movie goers! Damn liberal movie renters! Who else did I miss? \_ Damn liberal movie directors! Damn liberal movie distributors! Damn liberal people in damn liberal documentaries! \_ "Damn hippies" -S. Crothers. You forgot that. -- ulysses \_ It's called "Fair & Balanced". Fox isn't a conservative news outlet. They do shit like this all the time, you just ignore it in favor of the other stuff you don't agree with. \_ Sorry, I call bullshit. Editorial policy drives bias no matter how much is done to prevent it - hence rightward tilt in WSJ articles or leftward tilt in NYTimes articles. Truly "objective" reporting is an impossible fantasy, and striving for it usually does more to obscure the truth than to reveal it (i.e. "White House reports sky is green; some Democrats disagree"). Fox reporting oozes bias. \_ objective "reporting" a fantasy? ok, sure. reporting is crap anyway. the only media model i'll accept is a combination of original source material, like cspan, with a moderated comment forum, like slashdot. until we go to that model, the press will continue to undermine, not bolster our democracy. \_ HAHAHA! moderated comment forum! jeezus. And CSPAN isn't original source material, it's politicians blabbing. \_ Let me guess, you think CNN, MSNBC, ABC,CBS, LAT, are all centrist sources of information? \_ They are corporate sources of information. They will print whatever they thinks makes money. Let me guess, you buy into the "liberal media" myth? \_ LAT, NYT, WP do not apply -- these newspapers are driven at least equally by personalities as well as corporate profit. TV stations, it's debatable either way. \_ Let me guess, you buy into your own "corporate media" myth? The newsrooms and editors are predominately liberal. Why is that so hard to understand? \_ well, they are (1) corporations and (2) media, therefore: corporate media. What, you think they do this for free? \_ Since they control all information and they're mostly liberal, there is no competition so they can charge for their own version of the news. Only very recently has more centrist news been available which in the last ~5 years has over taken their leftist competitors in TV viewship, and radio listenership. AFAIK the newspapers are still left controlled. I'm not aware of any mass market printed news that isn't left biased. \_ It's not hard to understand, it's just untrue. \_ Uh, whatever. That's been checked a few times over the years. You're simply ignorant or lying. Don't bother coming here with one liner bullshit. \_ I bow to your superior 3-liner lying ignorance. \_ Sure, most reporters are liberal. Most owners are conservative. They kind of balance each other out, but when push comes to shove the owner fires the liberal reporter. \_ Reporters don't get fired unless they fake stories and even then it takes dozens of stories and years to come out. The owners are not vetting stories and you know it. The editors who are mostly on the left do it. How far do you think a reporter would get in the typical newsroom if he was known to be a registered Republican? His career would be dead and you know it. It does not balance out in any way in the general case. \_ "Fox isn't a conservative news outlet." So if you compare Fox to CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS, would you say Fox is the "least liberal" of the aforementioned stations? \_ Good try. I would say CNN and the others are losing ratings share to Fox because they cater to the left, not the center where most people, by definition, live. \_ Are you insane? Are we watching the same stations? The same CNN that ran like a gajillion fawning non-news reports about Reagan last week? THAT is a liberal media outlet? I'd like some of what you're smoking, if you don't mind. \_ Reagan is not a good example. Every station wanted to out-do the other in pro-Reagan coverage; now he's dead, the liberals don't want to appear as if they are dancing on his grave. \_ Nice dodge. I suppose the coverage of the run-up to the Iraq war isn't a good example either, or anything else substantial? Nope, the boogeyman of the Liberal Media is still out there, never to be defeated! \_ Hey, all I said was that Reagan was not a good example. \_ Pre-war, everyone but whatshername in Ber/Oak was in favor of it. We didn't instantly find 100 tons of WMD (until it recently started showing up in other countries) so that makes them sycophants? How many times have you seen Kerry described as "arch-liberal, John Kerry, jr. Senator from Mass, under Ted Kennedy"? Never. How many times have you seen, "arch-conservative so-n-so, Senator from xyz"? All the fucking time because anyone who isn't a Democrat has a 50/50 chance of being tagged as an arch conservative. Or better yet, extreme or ultra conservative. You will *never* see an extreme ultra arch leftist like Kerry described that way. \_ You are confusing cause and effect. Fox *is* a conservative news outlet -- whether the cause is corporate profit, a vast right-wing conspiracy, the little green men in your pants, or all of the above -- the effect is still the same. \_ Fox provides left, right and center. You only see the right because you're blinded to how left the left really is. Left looks normal to you so only the right stands out for you. \_ Wow, you really need to look in the mirror and think about this statement. The center, as defined in this country is somewhere between the democrats and the republicans, and most mainstream media outlets run stories that give voice to both of the major parties. Those newspapers that endorse candidates endorse both republicans and democrats. In other words, they are centrist, at least to those not blinded by their right-wing prejudice. Fox news aligns itself with the extreme right wing of the republican party, and doesn't give any voice to the opposition. They only look "normal" to extremists like you. \_ Once William Hung's CD sold 100k copies, everything, including this, is possible. -- Coming soon -- flying pigs and hell freezing over. \_ I have to admit that I bought 99,998 of them. He bought one for his mom and this drunk dude picked up the other copy. \_ thank you, NERFAMC |
2004/6/15-16 [Recreation/Food/Alcohol, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30811 Activity:insanely high |
6/14 Even better than ketchup as vegetable, USDA declares that french fries are a vegetable! Or is that Freedom Vegetables? http://csua.org/u/7rs (yahoo news) \_ it's like the Ents took a long time to decide something obvious \_ Ketchup isn't a vegetable, it's a fruit. \_ Look, a fruit bat! \_ Eric the fruit bat? \_ The USDA never said ketchup was a vegetable but it's up there with Al Gore Invented The Internet jokes. \_ They were considering classifying it as a vegetable for school lunches. The fact that they even considered it is enough... \_ 'They' consider all sorts of stupid things. I'll bet you there are war plans on a dusty shelf in the pentagon somewhere for what to do when Britain turns against us, invades Florida and nukes the New York and Washington. Just because it was considered doesn't mean anything. You take your government way too seriously, IMO. \_ Uh, the point was/is that governments suffer from dilbertesque idiocy and lack common sense. I don't see how you could grok that I "take government too seriously" from that. Perhaps you are projecting... I think it's rather sad that our tax money is being wasted on studies such as "should ketchup be classified as a vegetable." Apparently you don't. Perhaps you'd like to pay for my share in all stupid studies, because I'd certainly like a refund on my tax dollar. \_ I think it's worse than sad. I think government is too big and too stupid. I think our taxes should be 10% at most and all the stupid programs, welfare, etc, should go away. I also think it's a hopeless cause. \_ read the cia's own account of the government conspiracy to conceal the existence of extraterrestrials--even in the absence of any such ETs existence: http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/97unclass/ufo.html \_ Ok...? But what has this to do with ketchup, the USDA and Al Gore's inventions? \_ It's an example of government idiocy which may appear somewhat sinister, but is really just plain old idiocy. hence it supports what the post one level up was saying, which was why i posted it. \_ Ah, ok. Thanks. I'll check out the link when I get home. \_ But he DID!!!! Remember the information super-highway??? \_ Remember the Alamo! \_ Wrong. The Reagan administation did propose classifying ketchup as a vegetable until public outcry forced them to back down: http://mimi.essortment.com/historyketchup_rlju.htm \_ Why do you hate America? \_ Yes yes some idiot always has to bring up some bullshit. Move along. I was there. You were in diapers. \_ obBothWaysUpHillThroughTheSnow \_ Off topic, eh? I said you were ignorant, not that my life was harder. \_ wimp. we had to fight sabertooth tigers for our lunch and access to the modem pool. This being before fire, clubs or dsl. \_ tigers? you had tigers?! jeez, what kind of goddamn wet behind the ears punks are they letting in these days, anyway? \_ This is accepted fact. Stop with your blatant attempts at mythologizing. \_ Accepted fact among your "thank god he's dead, I'm going to rent Taxi Driver to celebrate" friends. The rest of us remember the truth. \_ Wow. You are truly deranged. http://www.fact-index.com/k/ke/ketchup.html \_ http://fact-index.com? uh huh. \_ Wrong. Of course, this is the "liberal Washington Post" so I am sure you will discount it: http://csua.org/u/7s6 \_ Discount it? Yes, but that's better than simply deleting it instantly which is what you do when I post links to back my statements. |
2004/6/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30799 Activity:insanely high |
6/14 The Myth of Reaganomics http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1544 \_ http://www.nationalcenter.org/WCT010804.html \_ MISES! fuck that I use to think that was the bomb 5 years ago... then I realized how inefficient markets are, and there is nothing we can do to stop it perfect competitions DOES NOT WORK- it has been proven- its the whole line of research called Neo-Keynesian, led by some buy named Romer from Stanford (at least that is where he use to teach) \_ If we had perfected the market or government or anything else we'd be doing. It isn't perfect but it is certainly proven to be more efficient than a heavy top-down command economy. \_ Hey, where'd the reply go that said this was from a right wing nutcase site? If you had read the article you'd see it is quite the opposite. Stop knee-jerking. -!op \_ decent article; thank you -darin \_ I am no fan of Reagan, but I have a hard time accepting this article as credible. For example, he oversimplifies the issue of dumping as something which is purely beneficial to the American consumer. I thought dumping referred to situations where foreign governments subsidized production costs and sold them below cost in order to put local firms out of business. That definitely does not follow the spirit of free trade. --jeffwong \_ Dumping also can be used to stabilize a local commodity. For example, the EU dumps agricultural products globally to keep their food costs stable. \_ helo, this is another topic a little large for the motd but: while dumping exists in theory ... the idea of killing off a domestic industry to later apply monopoly pricing, but in reality this is extrmely unlikely. first of all, if the foreign country has multiple suppliers, they will compete among themselves. it would be odd for either all of them to collude to sell at the lower price ... if only one them to collude to sell at the lower price. If only one acts, then that firm is making all the losses in return for only part of the mkt when the loss making eventually stops. if a foreign country wants to subsidize you "forever" If a foreign country wants to subsidize you "forever" that might not be so bad. when the banner of dumping is being waved it is almost certainly going to be an industry group and their "captured" regulators and politicial and not any kind of broad consumer group or academics. [you can waved it is almost certainly going to be an industry group and their "captured" regulators and politicians, not any kind of broad consumer group nor academics. [you can google for (mexican tomato florida dumping)]. also you cannot naively look at prices. something like 75% of the trade vol between the us and japan is between parts of the same firm, so the transfer prices are not necessarily "true" prices. while i dont ness buy the comment about EU price stability [i think it is about income support for domestic political reasons, not price stability, nor mercantilist market conquest], but it is correct that another wrinkle has to do with capacity management, so you cannot immediately assume a price differential represents dumping [this is a somewhat involved scenario [see e.g. Ethier, Wilfred: "dumping", in J. Political Econ.] these comments are relvant to the involved scenario, see e.g. Ethier, Wilfred: "Dumping", in J. Pol. Econ.]. n.b. these comments are relvant to the post ~1980 era, as the legal regime as well as poltical realities have changed over time. ok tnx. --psb \_ Hi Partha. You should learn a useful English trick of structuring your thoughts into paragraphs, rather than throwing up all over the motd like kinney, punctuation and readability be damned. Thank you, come again! \_ Wow. Partha and Kinney in the same thought. Never thought I'd see the day. \_ excluding "helo ... ok tnx --psb" there are 278 words in that posting. this is to convey something that would take about 1.5 pages and a graph and 2 footnotes to do "uncompressed" ... so yes, it might be a little lossy. --psb \_ It's 'lossy' because it's poorly written, not because it's compressed. Write better, don't look like a dumbass. \_if i am willing to spend t time on something that t is partitioned between content and form. i am sorry you disagree with my tradeoff. if you want to edit it and send me a note, i'll consider pasting that in. sometimes i'm willing to write something up nicely and put it in ~psb/MOTD and sometimes currente calamo is the best i can do. if you have some particular interest in this and want a clarification, you are welcome to send me a mail. --psb \_ your lack of form dimishes the quality of the content by making it unreadable. free flow thought is available by trying to talk with any of the fucked up homeless people babbling on the streets. \_ hey partha's response was pretty good considering the average quality level of content on the motd. The gist of it makes sense. Do you think he's going to waste time carefully editing his reply to please you? -jeffwong \_ He should waste his time carefully editing his reply to please me, though. -- ilyas \_ It was ok, but really, if you're going to bother writing that much, why not stick in a few commas and maybe a period here and there? If the point is to make a point, then grammar, spelling, and punctuation count. If the point is to just fluff his ego then it doesn't matter if anyone else can read it. \_can anayone name a single successful dumping case where the person complaining wins in court rather than just pressuring the govts to compromise if not out and out losing in court? --psb \_ Didn't the various asian memory makers get smashed a few years ago? \_ These guys are a libertarian think tank, so they don't really believe in regulating markets much. I don't really agree with that part, but I thought that whole thing was well researched, well thought out and reasonably accurate. -op |
2004/6/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30764 Activity:insanely high |
6/11 For those who think it was sheer dumb luck that Reagan just happened to be President as the Soviet Union collapsed. Have a look at National Security Decision Directive #75. Scanned straight from the archives: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsdd/nsdd-075.htm \_ Some on soda have been arguing that, while it was certainly Reagan's prerogative to spend heavily on defense, he had no idea that the Soviet Union would collapse in trying to keep up with the U.S. If you ask me, though, he should still get credit for it. Although I think it's also likely a Democrat would have spent just as much in the face of the Soviet threat. -liberal \_ http://tinyurl.com/2vnpa (His spending vision) \_ You mean like a Cold War warrior like Carter failed to do? The Nixonian detente idea probably looked good at the time and they really couldn't understand how screwed up things really were behind the Iron Curtain in Nixon's day, but it clearly wasn't working by the time Reagan came on board. It isn't just a simple case of spending heavily on defense. It was an active plan to sucker the Soviets into destroying their own economy to keep up. It was economic warefare. One tiny example: we gave them and sometimes let them steal technologies that we already knew weren't viable and had abandoned so they could dump oodles of cash down a black hole. That isn't merely heavy spending. That is an active plan, a strategy, to destroy your enemy. So, in fact, yes, Reagan believed quite strongly that the USSR was set to collapse if enough buttons were pushed hard enough. Also, go read his private papers that were published a few years ago. He was writing in-depth political commentary and philosophy for years during which time he was lambasted as a bozo by the press. \_ "Lambasted as a bozo by the press"... Maybe he was in the pages of the Nation, but its an accepted fact that Reagan had some of \_ "Lambasted as a bozo by the press"... Maybe he was in the pages of the Nation, but its an accepted fact that Reagan had some of the most positive press of any president in the modern era, due in no small part to the amazing public relations people who constantly worked to carefully massage his image. Even after his death, they are working overtime - witness the years of elaborate planning behind all of this celebration (which the press has conveniently failed to report, acting as if it all spontaneously erupted from nowhere). In fact, the press would often _ignore_ the fact that Reagan couldn't seem to speak clearly, writing incredibly positive reports about his press conferences where he was so garbled that his aides would spents hours afterward "clarifying his remarks." \_ It is an accepted fact? You can say that but that doesn't make it so. I was there. I read the newspapers, I saw the TV reports. Bozo, cowboy, and idiot was the constant refrain. As far as the funeral goes, *all* Presidents are required to make their funeral plans *while still in office* so you're barking up the wrong tree on that one. And I'm shocked that you seem to be the only one unaware that Reagan was showing signs of Alzheimer's in his last 2 years of office. Everyone knew. His announcement letter later was a surprise to no one, so no shit he was sometimes a bit off at the end. What are you trying to say with that? \_ You see what you want to, I suppose. "Idiot," "Bozo," "cowboy" as a constant refrain? Sure. Whatever. Selective memory is a wonderful thing. \_ I said, Reagan should get credit, if you didn't see that. If you want to say that "it was an active plan to sucker the Soviets into destroying their own economy to keep up", you need to back this idea -- which is hardly mainstream -- up. Otherwise it's just intellectual masturbating from a Republican, and we know how much that is worth. -liberal \_ I posted a primary source. If you didn't read it, then why are you here asking for evidence? I already posted it. What more do you want? I also personally recall this being talked about at the time so I'm not sure where your mainstream is but I didn't make this shit up in the middle of the night. I'm not that smart. I posted a longer thing below if you'd like to respond to that. \_ Admittedly, I only read the first page, but on what basis are you suggesting that Reagan's policy of competitive spending was a conscious ploy? All I see is a resolve to be bigger, better, and more powerful than the Soviets in every arena so as to show them the error of their ways. \_ But ... as you just said yourself ... the resolve to be bigger, better, more powerful was there... That's all there was to the ploy -- the Soviets had a choice of keeping up and ruining themselves, or falling behind like China. Why are you confused? \_ How did you manage to form an opinion after reading only the first page? What sort of reply were you expecting? You don't see it because it is there yet you did not read it. The basis upon which I suggest that Reagan's policy of competitive spending *among other things* was a concious strategy to destroy the Soviet Union is in those pages. Sheesh. Read it and then come back and let me know if you still think I'm full of shit but at least put in some trivial effort to read the most real world document you'll ever see from the time period instead of some reporter's stripped down version before expessing your disbelief. 99% of URLs here are from some shitty online newsrags which all have some bias or agenda in some direction. This is primary source material. Read it and find enlightenment. \_ Wow, thank you for goading me into reading the document. I see a very concious strategy in place to destroy the Soviet Union, and I am now happy to report that it does not rest on competetive spending at all. Instead, as noted in the first page, the plan calls for a resolve to be bigger, better, and more powerful than the Soviets in every arena so as to show them the error of their ways-- as I sussed out from the first page. The only place that even mentions draining the Soviet purse is where the policy talks about keeping an occupation of Afghanistan as expensive as possible-- until the Soviets withdraw. More importantly, this document shows very clearly where the modern GOP got their strategy for owning the debate and marginalizing their competition. Bush is the successor to Reagan; how sad to see him squander the opportunity the Gipper's strategy gave him. \_ I shall explain since you're not getting it. This is a policy directive. What that means is this goes from the President's desk as a general plan and outline for action to all the 3 letter spook agencies, the pentagon, and the state department for implementation and execution. No, the President doesn't ever come up with super detailed specific plans such as "let's give them this broken missile guidance tech so they waste money on it". That is what the spooks and others get paid for. This primary source shows exactly what I claim it shows, namely, that Reagan wasn't merely lucky to be around at the right time. They USSR would have collapsed in on itself later if we had continued the same containment policy we'd been following for the previous ~40 years, but that might have been another 10, 20, 30, or more and you'd still be concerned about living long enough to have kids. What Reagan did was step up from the containment policy to actively pushing the USSR's weak spots in an active effort to push them over. Growing up in the 70's, me and all my friends made ghoulish jokes about nuclear death and not living long enough to see college. My wife's very little sister who was born in the early 80's is completely ignorant of the concept. It's an amazing thing to talk to someone born late enough to be unaware of the Cold War and see how their differently their concerns and fears are from those born earlier. \_ Like you, I'm a child of the 70's. And like you, I thoroughly enjoy not having to live under the threat Mutually Assured Destruction. Where we differ is this: While I see a will to dismantle the Soviet Empire in this document, I don't see any policies that resulted in the economic instability that the USSR was already lurching toward. I see a lot of pomp and circumstance, but none of it contributed directly to the thing that finally killed the Great Bear: namely, that a corrupt state-run economy is doomed to fail. I'm glad the USSR fell, but Reagan shouldn't get the praise simply because his administration wanted it to happen, any more than Bush should get to claim to have brought down the Berlin Wall. These things were virtually inevitable. In the meantime, due to Reagan's nuclear brinksmanship, I and my friends were more than certain that the world would be over by 1988, much more so than we'd been before he started his John Wayne politics. |
2004/6/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30753 Activity:moderate |
6/11 1985: Kerry Asks to Postpone Anti-satellite Weapons Test until After Reagan-Gorbachev Summit http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1152045/posts Why delete an article form the Wash. Post??? \_ Why post an article from 1985? Oh, yeah, because the Right has nothing stronger on Kerry than whether he toed the Gipper's line. God, I'm going to enjoy watching Kerry win. \_ It's called 'history'. The man has a ~20 year record in public office. You're saying we're only allowed to see him for his last 6 months or something? Next you'll be bitching about not getting URLs from the early 80s. \_ If that's what it is, link to that, not freeper garbage. Here's a real link to wash. post: (Robert G. Kaiser is communist?) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32927-2004Jun10.html "...Gorbachev brusquely dismissed the suggestion that Reagan had intimidated either him or the Soviet Union, or forced them to make concessions." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25142-2004Jun8.html Washington, D.C.: Your piece in the Post today was excellent. What do you believe Gorbachev is thinking when he reads this week's Economist or all of the other nonsense about how Reagan won the Cold War? Robert G. Kaiser: I haven't seen the Economist piece, but I think Gorbachev made clear his reaction to me: "That's not serious!" In my view it is profoundly insulting to Gorbachev, and to the citizens of the former Soviet empire, to give an American primary credit for what happened at the end of the 1980s in Eastern Europe. Every American president from Truman onward was vigilantly, and expensively, anti-communist and anti-Soviet. As Gorbachev pointed out, this cost us trillions of dollars. But it did help prevent any spread of communism beyond the borders of the empire Stalin created after World War II. Reagan's biggest historical advantage was to be on duty when the end came. But I am confident that my grandchildren will read that Gorbachev himself was the principal hero of this drama. \_ So if Carter, that simpering wimp was on duty when the USSR fell you really think we'd give him credit for it? No. Because he \_ No, of course you wouldn't. didn't do jack. Oh yeah, there was that great malaise speech and we tired yellow ribbons on trees and posts for the hostages he couldn't do a damned thing about. |
2004/6/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30751 Activity:insanely high |
6/11 Would any Dems or Reps disagree: RR > GB > GWB \_ I'd say GB > RR > GWB -liberal \_ I agree. GHWB was much more of a pragmatist, and much less of an ideologue than the other two. I didn't agree with a lot of his policies, but his presidency didn't fill me with terror. \_ The man was head of the friggin' CIA!! What the fuck is wrong with you? Pramatist? You mean the way it's ok to just fucking shoot someone in the head if you don't like their political philosophy?! \_ Yes, he was a republican and a cold warrior with cia roots, but he also understood the value of diplomacy. And on the economy, he said "no new taxes" but when it came down to it, he wasn't willing to bankrupt the country the way his half-witted son is doing. It may be largely subjective, but, like I said, as much as I disliked him and his party, he just didn't scare me like Bonzo or Dumbya. \_ So he was a vicious bastard, a killer, a thug, and he was the King VB,K,T for a few years before becoming President and you think that's ok because he raised taxes? You're nuts. \_ calm down. \_ I'm calm. You're praising a thug. \_ so how would you order the three? \_ GWB > RR > GB. GWB and RR never ordered anyone to be murdered. \_ I didn't agree with him, but I could respect his point of view and way of doing things. \_ In what way did he do things? What are you talking about? \_ at least GHWB saw some real action - got shot down by japanese plane. \_ GB , RR >> GWB -liberal \_ RR >>> GB + GWB - moderate \_ Has anybody else noticed that in the beginning of the last century we had 3 persidents with alliterative names? WW, CC and HH. Were alliterative baby names a fad in the mid 1800's? \_ You have discovered our secret! Now you must die! \_ RR > GWB > GB -conservative \_ agreed, except RR >>>>>> others -another conservative \_ Agreed. -- ilyas \_ what makes GWB > GB? \_ GB was a flip floppy wishy washy man that no one liked for good reason. GWB is nothing like his father. That makes him better than his father in this case. \_ Take away the propaganda, and what you're left with is left hand amputed > deaf > blind. The choices already suck. \_ More like lobotomy in the current case. \_ Yeah, he's a real dumbshit. So how is it that this dumbshit has control of all 3 branches of government? How much more stupid are your guys if they let him do this? \_ America wants small government and protection for the homeland. America thinks you need more guts than brains for this task. Think Kerry: brains (maybe), no guts. \_ He got elected during a time of peace. Security was low on the list and "homeland" wasn't in the vocabulary yet. \_ The economist article on Reagan was great. "Clearly the man was no intellectual. Yet surprisingly, he was the man for the job." Lenin was an intellectual. Sometimes I wonder if we need less intellectuals in govenment. -- ilyas \_ Did the economist fail to read Reagan's papers? Must be or they just had an axe to grind. \_ nah, lenin was an ideologue, just like RR and GB. \_ Lenin was an intellectual. \_ You would. \_ No one wants an "intellectual" as President, when you could have a "strong leader" instead. But, everyone wants an "intelligent" leader. Big difference. everyone wants an "intelligent" leader. Big difference. And even though I completely disagree, nearly all Republicans would say that Bush is intelligent. \_ No. I would say Bush is a somewhat above average "Joe" kind of guy who follows through on what he says. No one can pin the "wishy washy" label on the man. Sometimes in life it is better to just *do* something, even if it is the wrong thing than sit on your ass wondering what to do. Doing nothing is often the worst option. We call it 'leadership' when you decide *before* seeing the poll results what you're going to do. \_ But it's not so good when you decide without considering the long-term consequences. This kind of "leadership" is like that of the first lemming leading the others over a cliff. \_ I said "sometimes". And yes "sometimes" it is better to act immediately than ponder the longer term consequences becausing pausing to do so takes time during which things may get even worse than whatever your long term consequences were from the initial decision. It also means not going all wiggly when the rubber hits the road and things don't go perfectly. In real life they never do. A man who understands that has leadship potential. \_ Reagan "glazed over in meetings" and let his aides write all his speeches and make policy decisions. I'm not sure these are admirable leadership traits. The economic policy of huge tax cuts, increased spending, and increased payroll taxes makes little sense to me. If you believe in small government you should cut the services, not shovel the debt into the future. \_ Yes, it's true. You have discovered that he was suffering from Alzheimers in his last years. This may come as a shock to you, but the rest of us knew it at the time. \_ My officemate and I are TAing a class for my advisor. He basically lets us handle most of the decisions for the class, including grading, the kind of midterm to give, etc. Does this mean he is a bad teacher or not intelligent? Reagan's spending was mostly military, and I would say they were due to specific international circumstances at the time. His record wasn't perfect, but as The Economist noted, Reagan was a libertarian at heart. -- ilyas \_ You guys got everything all mixed up. Dubya is The Great Delegator. \_ I don't consider big tax-cut + big spending to be an example of leadership. It's the easy way out. It's just ignoring reality. Whatever Reagan was at heart he never consistently applied it to policy. From the article: "...spent much of his presidency compromising the free-market principles...", "one of the more protectionist American presidents". Add to that his lying about Iran-Contra. I don't think any of this points to strong principles. I consider Truman the greatest 20th century president by the way. That was a guy who had both capability and responsibility, who actually led rather than function as a figurehead. "The buck stops here." \_ lied about iran contra? next you'll say the actions in central america were evil. you know, freeing the people from the evil sandinistas? yeah much better to let that shit continue and allow the ussr to establish a base in our hemisphere. brilliant. \_ so it's ok for the president to knowingly break laws passed by Congress as well as U.N. sanctions, as long as it's for the noble cause of aiding guerilla death squads against a democratically-elected government and appeasing Iranian terrorists who were at war with Iraq who we supported. Brilliant! Oh and the lying, piff. \_ Break laws? Name the law. And yes it is absolutely ok for the President to ignore the UN. You're a bit confused about who was running Nicaragua at the time. You're aware that the now truly democratic governments that have been elected since then are all very pro-US and very very happy that the US saved them back then? We're talking here about governments elected by the now free Nicaraguan people. Free people who keep re-electing pro-democracy, pro-US governments? Maybe you think they'd prefer to get the sandinistas back or miss those butchers at all? They only miss their dead relatives killed by the illegal sandinista government. \_ sheesh, might wanna work on that signal to noise ratio re: nicaragua. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandinista And ignoring the U.N. is one thing. But when the United States happens to be signatory to international treaties including accepting the U.N. charter then it's not the president's prerog- ative to violate them. \_ Which propaganda is that? \_ Right-wing == corporate media propaganda Clinton-haters, Bush-lovers Left-wing == traditional liberal media Clinton-lovers, Bush-haters \_ So the right = propaganda, the left = goodness++? Okey! Glad you cleared that up in an unbiased and rational way. |
2004/6/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30738 Activity:insanely high |
6/10 Why no one mentioned the fact that Reagan dump 10 billion dollars to support Islamic Extremist in Afghanstan, and GWB is now eating the bitter fruit? \_ carter started it \_ Why no one mention you have bad grammar like FOB? \_ because corporate media is utterly corrupted. \_ Because the first is not the direct cause of the second. You just skipped 12 years of history to make that leap of logic. \_ And FDR dumped 100 billion to help the Soviets. Why no one mention eating bitter fruit? \_ Becuase throughout our history we've almost never considered the long term consequences of almost any of our policy. \_ Yeah it would be better if the USSR was still around than a few rinky dink sand eaters. I grew up while the USSR was still very strong and I had a lot more fear of nuclear death than I do now of terrorism. I honestly didn't expect to live to see my 20th birthday when I was 10. I'm much older than that now. \_ Because given the choice between the big and the little evil, intelligent people go with the little one. |
2004/6/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30727 Activity:very high |
6/10 Ray Charles, RIP. Something tells me that he isn't going to get the travelling corpse treatment. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5182959 \_ Why would you expect the "travelling corpse treatment"? \_ Just in comparison to another recently deceased famous person. \_ You mean "former president" -- not just famous. \_ Elvin Jones and Steve Lacy have also recently passed away. :( \_ And (sadly) 99% of the world has never even heard of them. \_ who? \_ Which President was he? Slot machines? \_ Ronald Reagan, former two term President of the United States of America vs. Ray Charles. Hmm. I'll bet Ray doesn't get a marine drum roll, a ride of air force 1, a 21 gun salute or a state burial either. It must be Republikkkan racism. \_ Come on. The Reagan-mania over the last week has just been ridiculous. They're acting like a Saint died, or something. |
2004/6/10 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30721 Activity:insanely high |
6/10 Why is Reagan credited with "winning the cold war"? Isn't it basically Gorbachev's doing? All Reagan did was quadruple our national debt. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/foreign/reagrus.htm http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/kbank/profiles/gorbachev \_ He is credited with it because he did. I laughed my ass off the other day when one of the complaints from some leftist blog was bitching that Reagan destoying the Soviet Union put an end to any hope for detente. Unreal. \_ In Soviet Russia, Cold War wins YOU!! \_ Well, Gorbachev himself credits Reagan with ending the cold war: http://csua.org/u/7om \_ He says "made a huge, possibly decisive, contribution to creating conditions for ending the Cold War". That's not the same. \_ Pretty close though. Within epsilon. \_ So Hitler made a huge, possibly decisive etc. for ending the Third Reich, by his various blunders. The conditions for ending aren't the ending. \_ Hilter didn't come out and say 3rd Reich is going away and I'm going to make it happen. Reagan said that he was going to bring about the end of Soviet communism and he put into place policies to that end. That is the difference. I know YOU don't care but I still felt like mentioning it. \_ Wow, talk about turning reality on its head. A good rhetorical attempt at twisting words to suit your agenda but silly when presented to an audience with more than 1 brain cell. \_ When the Soviet Union collapsed, I didn't hear anybody crediting Reagan. I heard credit going to the collapse of their economy. \_ And the entire intel community saying "Holy shit. We didn't expect that..." \_ Two words: Zero Option. Look them up. \_ USSR collapsed because Gorbachev was an idiot, really. Although his reforms that were meant to modernize the party and the economy, he accidentally unleashed forces that lead to the disolution of the soviet union. Today he might be writing in his memoirs that this was his original intention, but that's complete bs. The truth is that he was plain incompetent as a leader. His reforms, specially in the economic areas, usually didn't go beyond rhetoric. \_ His reforms led to greater freedom and the breakaway of the client states and so forth... whatever he intended, incompetent or not, this was basically his doing. He clearly intended moving towards more openness and reducing the command economy. \_ Well, the ussr had their own expensive vietnam going on in Afghanistan. They had to spend hugh sums on this war, and on continuing the cold war with the US increase in defense spending (modernizing and expanding), and SDI. The ussr couldn't keep up, financially - their old economy collapsed on itself. Reforms were the result which we all know didn't work out so well. So the Reagan administration's was able to end the cold war w/o firing a shot by outspending the ussr. Probably a good use of the money considering the alternative. \_ so why didn't China and North Korea collapse? They never kept up. it's just not that simple. \_ You said it yourself. They never kept up. The USSR was attempting to keep up and couldn't play that game. China and NK haven't tried and haven't kept up either. If China or NK was to engage in an all out WWIII style blood bath like the US & USSR were prepared to do for almost 50 years they were be crushed like bugs before it even started. If the same thing happened with the USSR, the odds are good that all human life on the planet would have been snuffed out. If China or NK tried to keep up they would collapse too. Why? Because our system, our culture, and our society are superior. \_ right... so if life would have been snuffed out anyway, USSR could have really cut back without any particular danger to their empire. So it seems to me the real difference is that under Gorby, the USSR failed to keep up the autocratic iron fist. China never let up. \_ no, they couldnt because eventually something like star wars would have worked and other tech advances would have made their land forces obsolete as well. if we had continued dumping billions into SW we might have a functional system today which would make their nukes useless, or useless enough. our modern land forces of today would have obliterated their forces of 25 years ago. I agree with the iron fist part, except: 1) the USSR had to do something, Gorby tried something and lost, 2) China has not kept up and can not stand up to the US today. China is not the US military equal the USSR once was. \_ exactly. liberlize economy first, but retain strong political control, like what putin is doing today. \_ It takes Leadership to cut taxes, recognize your enemies in the face of nuclear war, and spend on defense. (And defined in this way, as many Americans do, Democrats don't have Leadership.) \_ JFK? Reagan increased the total tax burden on the middle class btw. He cut income taxes and raised payroll taxes, shifting the overall tax burden down. Overall collections as a percentage of GDP changed only very slightly. \_ You need an unbiased URL to prove the first two sentences, and not from an opinion column. \_ Reagan DID lower income and corporate taxes but raise payroll taxes. It shoudlnt' be too hard for you to find a URL. -second opinion \_ Then find one. Your opinion is worth the bits it takes to print them. Probably less. \_ Look, I am not going to do your research for you. Taxes as a percentage of GDP is a prety easily obtained stat. Is the WSJ unbiased enough for you? http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/mhelprin/?id=65000365 http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/mhelprin/?id=65000365 \_ Dumbass. Yes, you, dumbass: First two sentences. That does not include "JFK?". The person who makes the unconventional claim must back it up. \_ The only reason it is "unconventional" to you is that you are economically uneducated. I do not have the time to educate you, that is something you have to do yourself. Here is more data: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm Look at Federal tax burden as a percentage of GDP in 1980 and 1989. \_ Are you JUST NOT FUCKING UNDERSTANDING? "First two sentences." \_ Okay, I see the confusion. You should have said second and third sentences. I will research this and get back to you. I am busy at work right now. \_ It is in this book: http://csua.org/u/7ol Look at the source of federal revenue through out the Reagan Era. The percentage amount from payroll taxes increases and from income decreases. Reagan raised payroll taxes numerous times. Here are CBO numbers: http://csua.org/u/7on Income tax dropped from 8.9 to 8.0 while Social Security went from 5.8 to 6.7, perfectedly offsetting the decrease. \_ and the ad hominem begins. conservatives lose! \_ Actually, I'm a Democrat, and I'm not thinking of switching. I just can't stand it when some liberal makes a claim far out of left field without some backup. Republicans think we're all idiots, and I'm not going to help them with that myth. \_ No, we don't think you're all idiots. If that were so we would've destroyed your entire movement decades ago. We think that many of you are well meaning but either confused or simply wrong and the rest are simply selfish to the point of being evil. I do appreciate you coming forward and trying to bring the level of debate above the usual "yoo teh suk!" that we see on the motd from the fringes and the echo chamber. --conservative \_ It takes Intelligence not to waste trillions on nukes and star wars and tax cuts while promising balanced budgets and accruing massive debts. Defined in this way, Republicans don't have Intelligence. \_ The same Americans would say that if we had Carter in there, we wouldn't have spent as much, the Soviets wouldn't have spent as much, and the Evil Empire would still be there. The same Americans would say the deficit-spending was money well spent, and without big government too. \_ Reagan also passed some of the biggest tax _increases_ of any President. \_ Do I have to continue this? The same Americans would say that raising taxes was necessary to support defense spending in the arms race with the Soviets, to keep Social Security solvent, and to not let the deficit go wildly out of countrol and to not let the deficit go wildly out of control (and it was wild) -- all worthwhile causes. \_ But wait, so its okay to raise taxes to pay for war and control the deficit?! Why can't we do that now?! \_ Because tax cuts stimulate the economy. Lowering taxes asctaually increases revenue! taxes actaually increases revenue! -- voodoo economist \_ Hehe, ok so you're saying that raising taxes stimulates the economy? That high taxes will increase revenue *over a period of time* and not just initially? That high taxes create private sector jobs? Okey, dokey! \_ Of course it is more complicated than that. Taxes spent in economically useful activity tends to grow the economy faster than when that activity doesn't happen or only happens at the whims of the market. Universal public education, paid for by taxpayers, has been shown to be a win by many diverse economies. I think universal healthcare is too, as demonstrated by countries like Canada, where they spend less as a percentage of GDP (by far) but get similar results. Tax money wasted stupidly or in fraud is always a drain on the economy. Compare The Netherlands vs USA economic growth rates over time to see that higher tax rates do not always strangle the economy. \_ So you're saying the command economy is better than the demand economy. I think the failure of the Soviet Union and now China moving to a demand economy buries that idea. Money siphoned off to the government can never be spent as efficiently as money spent directly in the private sector. What the government can do that the private sector can not is big public works projects that benefit everyone such as building/maintaing the highways, defense, dams, and other large projects that are unlikely to yield direct monetary benefit or are impossible for the private sector to deal with. Re: Netherlands. Uhm, yeah, let's compare a homogenous highly controlled tiny country that doesn't have a military or any of the other problems the US has as a large nation and only super power to the Netherlands(???). It isn't even worth discussing. How about you compare the US to some other country or group of high tax countries that can almost equal the US in some way? You know, the apples to apples thing? Try Germany, France, Britain, etc. combined. Netherlands? That's laughable. The mouse that roared. \_ Heh. In my current game of Victoria, I am playing as Netherlands. It's 1850s, I still control Indonesia, and I am rivalling the US for the #2 world power status (Britain is #1). Netherlands used to be powerful back in the days. Didn't they make Japan a satellite state at one point? -- ilyas \_ Those in favor of the war should pay more taxes. \_ That would be great! We could all choose what government services we want to pay for. I have no kids, so screw education! I also have no need for social security, medicare, or welfare, so I'm not paying for them either! I think you should run for office on that ticket. \_ Amen, brother! I'm totally in favor of us each only contributing as much as we take out! My taxes would drop from a total burden of just over 50% (fed, state, etc) to about 5%. \_ Sure. Make sure to vote for me. I'll be running as CSUA party in '08. \_ You're using CSUA account...that's part of education. As for social security, you'll need it unless you plan to die before 67. \_ I don't need the CSUA account, I'm paying way more in taxes for education than the value of a CSUA account. Do you really think you'll get back even a fraction of the money you put into social security now? Here's a hint: save money. \_ No but it's more for helping out those who need it. How do you like seeing those senior citizens sleeping out on your streets if there's no social security? Here's my hint: MAX out your 401k. Save money is not getting you anywhere. Same goes with welfare. No welfare means more bums in yoour neighborhood. or maybe you pay extra tax to have govt to deport them somewhere else or pay extra to move to richer place. It's totally your choice. \_ No welfare means fewer crack heads after they either get jobs or starve to death. I'll pay an extra 1% for funeral costs for the first year or two it takes to shake the garbage people out of the country. \_ But what if the crackheads decide to start burglarizing your house and carjacking you so they can afford to eat? Now you've been robbed and possibly shot and you then have to help pay the $50K per year to keep them in prison. \_ Prison? No, 2nd amendment. Anyway I think more highly of people than you do. Most will work if forced to. \_ It doesn't take much carjacking to eat. drug adicts rob to pay for their habit, not their dinner. (yet another legalization arg.) -phuqm \_ I have to disagree whether you need education or not. In someway you used the education fund already by having gone to public schools and UCB. Just because you don't need it now doesn't mean you got ripped off by the govt. Without this education fund, your parents would have paid a premium to get you educated. \_ Very little of your education costs go to teaching students. If this was a pure undergrad school most of us could easily afford it with a part time job. \_ I think you pay education not solely for yourself, but for a better society. Just imagine what's like to live in state with no public education. You'll end with so many kids on the streets doing random things. \_ Duh, that's what the second amendment is for. \_ Yeah, that is working out real well in places like Afghanistan and Congo. \_ They don't have the other body of laws or culture to support a non violent pro-gun culture. The Congo? Yes, when barbarians get weapons they kill each other. Big surprise. \_ You'll never know if you need welfare. \_ I'm hungry and cold. Send me your money. \_ We PRC Chinese made the USSR collapse. We kicked them out of the house and cozied up with Uncle Sam. Then we did a punitive expedition against Vietnam, after which the USSR sent huge amounts of money to their Vietnam lackey. USSR also had to deploy many divisions along the world longest land border. Not long after we punished the Vietnamese for being traitors, the USSR invaded Afghanistan in part to surround China, and got their butt kicked there. In conclusion, it is us who brought down the USSR. We rule. \_ Kind of true. If a large country was supporting Afghanistan/Iraq, I am sure the outcome would be different. Too bad the Soviet is too chicken to do what the US did to them in Afghanistan! \_ The Soviet? What is the Soviet? Whatever it is there isn't a the Soviet anymore. Perhaps that is why the Soviet didn't do anything about Iraq? \_ The USSR invaded Afghanistan for oil and a warm water port. Why would they want an even longer border with China? Not only is this not even "kind of true", it isn't even internally consistent. \_ Really? Then how come Afghanistan has neither a port or oil? They have invaded Afghanistan just to put another satelite country under their belt. I think that was the main point, though most Russians themslves don't know what was the point of this war. I have read somewhere that it was mostly Brezhnev's idea who after having recieved lots of literary awards for his WWII trilogy "Malaya Zemlia" imagined himself to be the world's greatest military commander and ordered the Afghanistan invasion right before his death. \_ Warm water port to a river? What for? \_ Uh, you're kidding right? Russia and then as the USSR has been trying to get a warm water port for _hundreds_ of years. \_ I just don't see how a river port is worth invading a country. \_ Yes, but their goal was to reach Mediterranean Sea, not the Indian Ocean. They were actually pretty close to reaching the Mediterranean but were prevented by the British and other allies of the Ottoman empire. \_ Why would they want a longer border? No, it's not that they want a longer border, it's just that the USSR likes to threaten and bully. That's what the USSR is about. Until it fell apart. Warm water port is just part of the whole picture. Mostly USSR wants to dominate the region, with help from friendlies like India and Iran. \_ So they conducted a 10 year war in Afghanistan just because they're mean? And a warm water port and a shitload of oil was secondary? Ok, yeah, that makes lots of sense. \_ they thought it's gonna be just a few months. countries that sent most aid to the mujahadeens: us, china, saudi arabia. china was poor and stingy. why would it send aid in this case? and no, there is no oil in afghanistan. ussr has plenty of oil, they don't need more oil. |
2004/6/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30719 Activity:very high |
6/10 Hoping to draw parallels between our recently departed 40th president and the current one, the White House today revealed that George W. is known fondly among the staff and cabinet as "the Great Communicatator." The President was unavailable for comment. \_ exactly, Reagan is unavailable for comment as well. \_ CFR (Call For References) on this claim. -emarkp \_ Are you the type who reads The Onion and tries to verify the quotes? \_ it's supposed to be a joke. communicator unavailable for comment. ha ha. -tom \_ I guess this worked better out loud, but read it again. Imagine Bush trying to say "communicator" in public. Communicatator isn't a typo. \_ Dear god, is it possible to kill an already dead joke all over again? Good job, motd! Ha ha indeed. \_ Yeah once tom got on here trying to 'explain' to us unedjumikated plebes it was dead dead dead. After that it just didn't matter any more. |
2004/6/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30711 Activity:high |
6/9 Reagan's death to help Bush's election, yay! Republicans rules!!! http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/09/inside.edge/index.html \_ Maybe they planned it? He really died a while ago, and they just released it now when Bush needed a boost? (Watch out for the sudden capture of Bin Laden next month...) \_ I hope this is a joke but it's hard to tell on the motd these days. Anyway, donning my tinfoil cap for a moment, if they were going to 'release the body' for political reasons, late October would be a better time or during some serious PR crisis. |
2004/6/8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30677 Activity:insanely high |
6/8 BAHAHAHA. Go to http://www.somethingawful.com and scroll down for "The Ronald Reagan Rap." Sample verse: Laying flowers on the grave of the Waffen SS, Straight playing Jimmy Carter and cleanin up his mess, You're an old school shoota, Central America booty loota, Poppin collas and stabbin Y, Droppin' dollas on SDI. \_ boy that's funny \_ at least it showed some imagination unlike most of the venomous drivel going around the last few days. \_ Yawn, it's just Dubya-hate carrying over. I would guess most Reagan haters on soda just remember Iran-Contra, "I do not recall", deficit spending, and trickle-down, and assume it's mean-old-bastard neocon Reagan. Then again, I don't remember anything substantial to like about him. \_ Don't forget the Savings and Loans mess ("All in all, I think we've hit the jackpot," Reagan said as he deregulated the SnL industry), the HUD corruption scandal, EPA corruption, the Pentagon procurement scandals, etc. etc. \_ It could be that most of the Reagan mourners just miss the '80s. Don't forget your pastel jacket. |
2004/6/8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30672 Activity:insanely high |
6/8 Troll all you want but I spent 10 hours waiting to see Reagan. 5 hours to travel 4 miles. 5 hours in line. Starting at 12AM. \_ 6 hours total for me. 1 hour to travel, 5 hours in line. Started at 8PM. Was worth it. No cameras were allowed. -- ilyas \_ so was the coffin actually open? \_ Hell no, the man was 93 with Alzhiemer's. It's just a flag covered coffin. \_ Then what's the point of going?!?!? \_ The chicks! Reagan's corpse is a babe magnet. \_ so was it worth it? How did he look? Pics? \_ I still think he should be embalmed. \_ And placed next to Lenin's in the Kremlin. \_ No! Permanant display on the bridge of the USS Ronald Reagan. \_ With his hands epoxied to an old-school ship's wheel. \_ why not bike from tierra rejada rd & take esperance dr to the r. reagan library ? (just have to avoid the bullets...maybe..) \_ There seems to be something inherently wrong with riding a bike to pay last respect to Reagan. \_ Yeah, better to drive your H2 out to Humboldt and cut down an old-growth redwood tree in tribute. \_ Because Reagan had all those ties to the oil industry? What? |
2004/6/8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30666 Activity:nil |
6/7 Hey I heard that Reagan is still here in CA for one dya only! Let's get a bunch of us to go down there and show how much we respect him. We can spit on his coffin. That'll show em! \_ A fellow alum called me and wanted us to follow him around the US. It's Reagan-palooza! I'd carry a big picture of him in front of the parade^H^H^H^H^H^Hfuneral procession, Chinese-style, and he'd throw out fake billion dollar bills with Reagan's face on them. Just like olde times! We'd even make concert-type tshirts. \_ Troll. \_ I dare you to do it, oops i forgot, you're a spineless liberal |
2004/6/8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30661 Activity:high |
6/7 So I guess its okay to play politics with Reagan's death if you're a Republican: http://csua.org/u/7n9 (latimes link) \_ Idiot troll and a liar. From your own link: '"Don't allow any of the commemorations to turn into a political rally," he advised. "If any Republican says at a memorial service that we should win one more for 'the Gipper' " paraphrasing Reagan's famous line from "Knute Rockne All American," in which he played Notre Dame football star George Gipp, "they're sunk." In fact, Gillespie and other Republican leaders have avoided that faux pas so far.' So no, it's not ok, they're not doing it, the LAT didn't say they are and you're a troll. Why should your crap stay on the motd any longer than the mislabeled freeper links? \_ Who's the idiot? You're quoting a CNN political analyst, not a GOP representative. Look elsewhere in the article. \_ You're the idiot. Quote something from elsewhere in the article you troll. \_ Fourth paragraph: "But unofficially, several Republican strategists said the nation's outpouring of nostalgia and respect for Reagan may have offered Bush an opportunity to improve his flagging popularity - if he can find a way to don the mantle of his well-loved predecessor." Of course nobody's going to say this directly ON THE RECORD. And then there's the quote later from Bush's campaign spokesman: "The life and example of Ronald Reagan reinforces how important conviction and determination are in a president," which is clearly directed at their opponent. Come on. Don't be a fucking tool. Its right in front of your face. \_ Most of the benifit the article speculates about is just a general side effect of Regan-nostalgia. Of course Bush is going to give a eulogy, are you suggesting he shouldn't? And of course he'll say nice things about Regan, and of course it will look good for the cameras. Are you suggesting he shouldn't? How do you think Bush should handle this to elminate any possible political misuse? -jrleek \_ He should avoid drawing false parallels between the fall of the Soviet Union and the invasion of Iraq. \_ It's already happened. Republicans have praised Reagan's accomplishments as the touchstone for the World's Only Superpower for the last decade while ignoring the bad stuff. Democrats couldn't dare attack the poor old man with Alzheimers' for fear of looking mean-spirited. Even now, all the Republican praise centers around the Reagan Myth, while the Democrats will praise his "style" and his "patriotism" never mentioning Iran-Contra, S&Ls, internal corruption, the deficit, brinksmanship, secret wars, etc... |
2004/6/8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30660 Activity:nil |
6/7 "By the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations." -Haynes Johnson, from *Sleepwalking Through History: America in the Reagan Years* |
2004/6/7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30646 Activity:insanely high |
6/5 Reagan's last words: "Vote for Dubya Bush" \_ I think we should embalm Reagan for public viewing forever. \_ The Mississippi River is now the Mississippi Reagan. \_ The "Star Wars" anti-missile laser system will be named the anti-missile Raygun system. \_ The Ronald Reagan Memorial Space Based Weapons Platform (Bonus g33k points for knowing what show that was featured on) \_ Can you at least wait until his body is in the ground before mocking his death? \_ No! Mocking continues for the next 100 years! \_ I believe OP is mocking the Karl Rove and Falwell types who want to make GWB seem a mystical religious figure. \_ Was this a B5 reference? \_ "If you've seen one redwood, you've seen them all." \_ To nursing staff: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" \_ you know, if Reagan were the president who vouched for pre-emptive attack on Iraq, Syria, and N Korea, you'd be fine with that. Presidency is all about media relationships and charisma, and as long as he looks good in front of the camera (Kennedy, Reagan), you'd believe any bullshit he has to give. \_ The respect that all sides are treating Reagan with is very interesting, and very American I think. Its probably one of our traits I'm most proud of. An English friend was contrasting us with his culture, where if (for instance) Margeret Thatcher died there would probably be a good chunk of the population openly celebrating. Anyway, I'm no fan of Reagan or his policies, particularly his (non) response to the AIDS epidemic, but he DID go against a lot of nutty Republican hawks like Cheney and bargained with Gorby. For that he gets a lot of credit from me. \_ I know too many people who lived through the results of his policies in Latin America to have anything but bile for this man. On top of that, I remember my family struggling through the results of his domestic economic policies. \_ Gorby on Reagan: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/07/opinion/07GORB.html Having the leader of the opposing superpower write a elegy like this is not bad either. \_ All he ever wanted was the chance to be in a commercial for Pizza Hut. \_ I think the coverage is a bit TOO reverant. I was reading the Tri-Valley Herald, and amidst paragraphs lauding all the "good" things Reagan did was a one-line mention along the lines of "He was involved in the Iran-Contra scandal, which was a scheme to funnel aid to Central-American anti-communist forces." Absolutely no mention of the atrocities perpetuated by the "friends" we helped, including Saddam Hussein. \_ You don't see too many people writing shit like that because the man is dead. You aren't supposed to smear someone in their obituary. Show some class even if you can't show any respect. \_ Actually that does hinge on respect. You won't see fawning obituaries for Saddam. \_ One thing to watch out for is the "most popular president ever" meme which I've seen a lot of in the last couple of days. Apparently it was actually Clinton: link:csua.org/u/7mh (pollkatz chart) \_ The whole fatherly, reassuring presence of Reagan I think is the main reason people like him. 80's children have nostalgia for him. I think people liked Clinton a lot but the constant noise about the sexual scandal stuff and whitewater and whatever else republicans could carp about eroded the "dignity of the office" and all that. But it was the republicans' own dogged scandal-hunting that kept this stuff in the limelight. In any case I think it's what got Dubya into office. \_ Reagan won reelection by sweeping 49 states. It's not a surprise that many people respect him. \_ By all means, respect him. But it should also be mentioned that he did some Very Bad Things. \_ You had 93 years to mention the Very Bad Things he did. You can give a dead guy a break for a few days until after he's in the ground. \_ I won't tell you that Reagan was a bad or evil man, and I will absolutely agree that he did (for the most part) what he thought was best for the country, but we need to remember his foibles and misdeeds now before the cult of Reagan becomes irrevocably entrenched. He was a man, no more, no less. [edited by op to be less obnoxious, sorry] \_ Yeah! I hate Margret Thatcher for saving the British economy! \_ You blithering idiot. I didn't say anything about Thatcher, and neither did my friend. For all you know, he *loves* Thatcher. However, he's not an American, so he's able to consider the idea that others may have a *different* opinion than him. Sheesh. \_ Ha! Thanks, you gave a good laugh by assuming that was responding to you or your friend directly. You're silly. \_ Reagan's repeal of 70% tax cut for the rich-- totally Republican. While I disagree with a lot of his policies, I'm ok with that because he's such a handsome charismatic guy. Now Bush... has no charisma whatsoever. \_ Agreed wrt Bush's charisma. \_ Please don't overwrite posts. Use motdedit. \_ Bush has charisma. A *lot* of charisma. What he doesn't have is Reagan's speaking ability to the camera or large crowds. Everyone who has met him personally writes/says later how incredibly charming he is. I haven't met him so I can't say anything about that but yes his public speaking skills are very weak. \_ sorry, either you're so uncharismatic that you actually think he's charismatic, or you're just plain dumb. \_ Bush is charming to the citizens he meets, but charisma, he lacks. \_ I don't get the not smearing people when they are just dead part. If it is out of consideration for the family, I can understand. But in principle why is it ok to smear people when they are alive, and not when they are dead. Isn't it more important that what you said is the truth, or at least what you truly believe in? I prefer the Zorba the Greek approach: treating living people as more important that dead people. \_ I have no problem with critizing Regan, or any other dead person, in context. However, using news their death to tangent into cheap insults is pretty low. \_ Obviously a dogpile of critisism is not polite, but when it's a polarizing political figure who dies, fawning praise without any mention of his faults seems like little more than propaganda. \_ I agree. I haven't bothered to read the articles, they aren't worth my time. (But I'm reading the motd? Nevermind.) But really, is acting ghoulish on the motd really the correct response? |
2004/6/6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30633 Activity:very high |
6/5 Reagan was right about almost everything. http://www.andrewsullivan.com/people.php?artnum=20010204 \_ "Thanks to the peace dividend of the post-Cold War world, and the free market expansion that Ronald Reagan initiated, America is now enjoying record surpluses." \_ ob you mean clinton's surplus \_ "The era of big government is over." Your boy Clinton was smart enough to realize that he better start parroting Reagan to stay popular, political affiliations be damned. \_ You make a far better case saying, "Because Reagan won the Cold War, Clinton could reduce defense spending". What do you think? If you're going to credit Reagan / the Republicans for Clinton's budget surplus, you might as well credit Kerry / the Democrats for trying to get Bush bringing the UN back into Iraq, and a still-functioning safety net in the U.S. \_ ... Wow. \_ 28% tax for the filthy rich instead of 70% is good? Bull. Lets get it back to the Carter era and maybe the rich oil/construction bastards could pay back what they stole from us. \_ What makes someone filthy rich? At what point have you decided someone is making *too* much money and should not be allowed to have any more? And where should that money go, exactly? To people who have done nothing to improve their lot in life or society as a whole? Taking money from one person to buy votes from another is not what democracy or this country was supposed to be about. If you don't like what you're paying for oil or building materials, go off grid, sell power back to the rest of us and build your own house somewhere. Others have done it. I don't want to pay 70% taxes because you're unwilling to live up to the demands of your own philosophy. \_ Filthy rich: making money off of the misery of other human beings; squeezing out more profit by slashing workers' healthcare and human dignity; indulging in immoral business practices but using your enormous profits to buy votes for legislation to keep those practices legal. \_ So where's the legal distinction between "filthy rich" and someone who's just rich? Do you believe that all people who have a lot of money are evil and opportunistic and should have that money taken away from them? Or would you pass tax laws for the rich based on some subjective criteria of their individual merits? How much money constitutes "rich"? What about evil opportunistic middle class people who indulge in immoral business practices? Do you believe it's wrong to have a lot of money, however it was acquired? I really appreciate your well thought-through, differentiated political views. -John \_ Actually, John, I'm not for new laws, just the equal and fair enforcement of existing labor and business laws and the elimination of the numerous tax-shelters and dodges that allow unscrupulous corporations to avoid paying taxes and fines on crimes committed. \_ This is fair enough, but your original phrasing left a lot to be desired. I am personally envious of people who inherited a lot of money or have it for whatever reason (no judgment about whether or not they deserve it) and feel that yes, they should pay more taxes than joe sixpack, but that's a far cry from punitive wealth taxes (a la Swedish attempts at wealth redistribution.) -John \_ That's the only question of John's you answered? Wow. \_ Well, I thought the rest of the questions hinged on the assumption that I wanted new laws to punish the filthy rich; since I dispelled that misapprehension, it seemed pretty clear to me that I didn't need to actually come out and say that I have no problem with people making all the money they want through fair, legal, and ethical business practices. \_ Except ... will you introduce a 70% tax for 'the rich' or 'the filthy rich?' Reagan repealed it for all the wealthy Americans, while are you bitching about the criminal wealthy. [Freeper link deleted because you are an ass who uses ip addresses to hide the freepness of it all] \_ You would've deleted it anyway. Freeperboy only tries to hide his links because you always deleted them instantly when he was not trying to hide them. I think the freepers are a bunch of idiots no different than the leftist echo chamber on soda but you can't hold it against him for trying to hide his links when being honest only got him purged (probably by you) that much faster. If you left his links alone and just did the mature thing (ignore them), then he would post a link every other day or so, get no replies and eventually just go away. You only make it worse by highlighting his posts through endless post/restore wars. You give power to something by trying to silence it. You should know that long before now. --conservative but not a member of the freeper echo chamber \_ Somebody else might have deleted it, but I would have let it stay. -op \_ If a freeper link added any value to the link it points to, I could understand keeping it around. As it stands, there's no reason (apart from freeper vitriol) not to simply post a direct link to a credible news source. I'd feel the same way if someone started posting fark links. \_ free economy-- rich gets richer and poor gets poorer. I support the 70% tax. \_ Die communist scum die. |
2004/6/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30631 Activity:nil |
6/5 RIP Ronald Reagan \_ It's bedtime for Bonzo. \__ Oh smart comment. And what have you done in your life up until this point? Help throw down communist regimes? Or trying to build a new one here? \_ Been in a movie with a chimp. At this rate, I'll be President in no time. How about you? \_ Heh, you are a credit to your political wing. -- ilyas \_ When lilacs last in the dooryard bloom'd, And the great star early droop'd in the western sky in the night, I mourn'd, and yet shall mourn with ever-returning spring. |
2004/6/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30628 Activity:high |
6/5 Ronald Reagan dead at 93. RIP. \_ Only the good die young. \_ dumbass. \_ Only the young die young. \_ rude comments deleted. he's an ex-president. show some respect. he's dead. let him rip. |
2004/5/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30211 Activity:very high |
5/12 The Revolution Will Not Be Blogged http://www.mojones.com/commentary/columns/2004/05/04_200.html (why blogs suck as political force, basically) \_ here's a shock; masturbation sucks as a political force, also. -tom \_ I disagree. There are a ton of wankers in politics. \_ but outside the ASUC, it won't get you elected. -tom \_ did someone get elected to ASUC for masturbating? \_ Can you prove there is no God? \_ it's a reasonable question, dammit. tom made it sound like there's a story there, and i want to hear it. \_ I think there was a "Masturbation Party" a few years back. I don't know if they won. -tom \_ And I wasn't invited? \_ You were, but you didn't come. \_ You're a founding member. We signed you up while you were "busy" pushing your "political agenda". \_ That is what this guy gets for spending all his time reading echo chambers. Blogs have already proven to be good fundraising tools. |
2004/5/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30122 Activity:very high |
5/9 The Wages of Appeasement http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004952 \_ Can't a freeper even tell that this guy is a looon? \_ coherent rebuttal please. The WSJ is now a freeper publication? Do you know anything about V. hanson? \_ the editorial pages in the WSJ are pretty close to freeper territory \_ So the largest newspaper in the US is in freeper \- i do not believe that is still true. usa today climbed past WSJ, unless that has been reversed. --psb \_ USA Today is a newspaper? \_ Sure! Its the Cartoon News! territory. What does that tell you about your politics? \_ That I can see blatant unrelenting partisanship when I see it? The New York Times editorial pages are just as bad, but anti-Bush. The WSJ gave up any pretense of being anything other than a partisan rag about six months ago. So have most publications in the country. http://www.lyinginponds.com/archive.200301.html#20030103 \_ The WSJ published the name of a juror in the Tyco trial \_ Great. Another "wasn't Reagan soooo GOD-like?" article. Let's look at the reverse angle. Reagan's cowboy "More Nukes" attitude began the split in American-European relations. He appeased the Iranians after the hostages were released, took sides in Lebanon (resulting in 241 Marine deaths), and responded to that by invading Grenada. Claiming "appeasement" has been of the great boogieman arguments. ALL politics has meant weighing the options and every choice not to attack or invade can be seen as "appeasement." The concept is political oversimplification for the masses. Otherwise, the US and USSR would have nuked each other in the 60s. \_ Well, it turns out Reagan was right about trees causing pollution: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3700565.stm I'm sure all his other kooky ideas will soon be vindicated as well. \_ Nice Red Herring. Stick to the topic, please. \_ Next you'll have complaints about trees producing CO2 at night. Oh, and catsup will qualify as a vegetable. \_ If you've seen one vegetable, you've seen them all. \_ Ironic isn't it that Reagan is now is a vegetable whose only use it continuing to produce pollution. only purpose is continuing to produce pollution. |
2004/5/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30020 Activity:high |
5/5 Did you catch former Ambassador Joe Wilson telling Jon Stewart that Karl Rove should be run out of town on a rail? Most excellent. \_ Who's Karl Rove? \_ http://www.famoustexans.com/karlrove.htm AKA, the guy who leaked the identity of a CIA operative to punish her husband for writing an editorial critical of the Administration. \_ Well last night Wilson was intimating that he thought it was Scooter Libby (Cheney's Aide) or Rove or one other guy. \_ Is this confirmed? Is this still in investigation? \_ Sorry, not yet, if ever. Wishful thinking on my part. \_ That was pretty kickass. |
2004/4/30-5/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:13497 Activity:high |
4/30 I am impressed, GWB knows about bit from byte. He said "..... one bit". Wow. \_ That's nothing compared to Al Gore, who invented the internet. http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue5_10/wiggins Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development. \_ You know, if Star Wars had succeeded and Reagan had the physical capacity today to say "I created Star Wars", all you freepers wouldn't be saying that Reagan invented laser-based-weapons. Fortunately, for Reagan, Star Wars was only something you watch in movie theaters and he never had a chance to make such statements that would be intentionally misinterpreted. \_ If Star Wars (SDI) had happened under Reagan then he could say he "created" it. The internet didn't happen under Gore either in the sense that he made it happen nor in the joking sense that he literally created it with his mad skillz. \_ You squished 2 posts. Use motdedit. \_ Do any laser-based weapons exist today? \_ Deployed? No. There's a prototype of a chemical-powered laser mounted in a 747 which detects and destroys missiles. Last I heard they were planning on bringing it into production. \_ but he did!! \_ he took the initiatives. \_ alg0r > joo http://csua.org/u/74z http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore#External_links \_ urlP? |
2004/4/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:13421 Activity:very high |
4/28 Watch Out Berkeley, Ronald Reagan University will snatch all the smart kids in the country: http://csua.org/u/73m \_ Hmm... They say they will only admit applicants with SATs of 1400+. If you have a 1400+ SAT, why would you want to attend a brand new university, and not one with an established reputation. I guess if you really love Raygun... \_ and they expect 10,000 students \_ i had 1400 SAT and i hated berkeley \_ Too many commie pinkos? \_ wait, is Pinkman a commie? \_ Too many ugly women. \_ That's changed. Blame geordan and mice. \_ With a 1400 SAT, you cannot convince us you had time or skillz to meet women. \_ Funny, but there are attractive, socially adept people who aren't as dumb as you. \_ Yes, true, but I somehow doubt you are one of them. \_ I thought 1400 was near the minimum now for Berkeley. No? \_ I think median is around 1350. \_ According to LATimes, average was 1342: http://csua.org/u/73n (log/pwd: csuamotd/csuamotd) \_ Median for EECS is significantly higher, I just read that it's SAT 1460, GPA 4.45. \_ That's interesting, but what does it have to do with Ronald Reagan University? \_ Why the comment here? The topic of 1400's started up 5-6 posts ago. \_ I'm guessing you're a non-priviledged Asian minority type. \_ Misinformed white guy perhaps. \_ What would they teach there? How to get the best dollar selling missiles to Iranian terrorists? Best ways to funnel money to illegally fund wars in South America? Top five ways to lie to Congress? \_ [formatting fixed so threads make sense] \_ How to do all of the above and still have people deify you. \_ ^people^stupid people |
2004/4/26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:13383 Activity:moderate |
4/26 NYTimes is running an editorial promoting marijuana decriminalization http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/26/opinion/26SCHL.html \_ An article written by Eric Schlosser. 'Eric Schlosser is the author of "Fast Food Nation" and "Reefer Madness."' Just so's you know. \_ Right. Thanks for the correction. \_ how is this a correction? is the piece no longer on http://nytimes.com because Eric Schlosser wrote it? \_ Someone performed sed s/editorial/article/ on my post. \_ It's neither an article nor an editorial. It's an op/ed piece. \_ Has anyone been able to get nytimes working with the web browser links? I can do it with lynx, but not links. tia. \_ Wow. Was it really necessary ot modify my posting like 4 times? -op \_ Yes. It is easier for the weak minded to modify your post instead of replying intelligently to it. When my posts are modified I accept it as complete and total victory over the vastly inferior intellects that invest the motd. |
2004/3/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:12911 Activity:kinda low |
3/28 Let's take some prespective on Dick Clark. He was the host of American Bandstand through 7 presidents. His emcee style, whatever it may be, obviously wasn't unpopular enough for his show to get on the air under Eisenhower and remain under Reagan. So he's really old. Big fucking deal. He played the music of the bands that were popular. This somehow makes him a sellout? Does it not disturb you that his show is no longer on the air? Because he hosts the New Years celebration, his experience is negated? mumble mumble player mumble mumble haters... |
2004/3/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:12884 Activity:nil |
3/26 Carter's Man in Managua http://www.affbrainwash.com/archives/007518.php |
2004/3/19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:12748 Activity:moderate |
3/19 Proof that we are morally superior to the neocons. http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/03/19_neocon.html \_ Couldn't you have just pointed to http://kpfa.org and gotten it out of the way? \_ I'm still waiting for a definition of "neocon". Other than "ooh, they're scaaaary." \_ I have posted this many times. Did you not see it, or do you disagree with the Christian Science Monitor defintion? http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html \_ Hadn't seen it. I must have been too slow and missed it before motd purging. However, how is this different from just plain conservative (at least the "what they believe") part? Also, how does this definition of 'neocon' imply the http://democraticunderground.com link's assertion that neocons have "utter disdain for any and all governmental social initiatives"? \_ I'm not sure if they call themselves neoconservatives, but here is a statement of principles by the guys who everyone *else* calls neocons: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm I would define neocon as someone who agrees with this set of principles. \_ "the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to "override strategic considerations" -- Does that mean that when Bush guts regulations neocons think it is bad (just kidding) \_ "neocon = jewish." \_ I guess it's trying to distinguish this group of republicans who call themselves conservatives but whose policies don't match more traditional conservative principles, as e.g. Pat Buchanan. \_ Pat Buchanan is NOT a traditional conservative. He is a flaming moron. It's like calling Trotsky a traditional liberal. \_ Your frustration is understandable but the comparison is inapt. Buchanan would probably be satisfied with the term "traditional conservative". If Trotsky (or Stalin) heard you call him a "traditional liberal" he would have been at best...displeased. He would probably have tried to have you shot. \_ Inept. Actually their feelings on the matter are irrelevant. Both are poor choices to represent the mainstream of the respective movements. \_ I prefer Trotsky to Stalin. Anyway, Stalin is neither a liberal nor a real communist, actually. |
2004/2/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:12361 Activity:moderate |
2/23 I just finished reading Reefer Madness by Eric Schlosser, the author of Fast Food Nation. I highly recommend it. Especially since the big issue of 2004 is jobs and outsourcing. Market forces have no value or soul. That's why we pay $2 for a pack of strawberries while the illegal immigrants pick the berries during the day and sleep underneath a bridge at night. It's a very well researched book (75 pages of notes and references). \_ Stalin had a soul and Hitler had strong values. \_ Pathetic attempt at Godwining a thread - foiled! \_ Intentional invocation of Godwin's law will not work. \_ Mocking the op is different from godwin trigger. get a brain. \_ Strong centralized government has no soul either. -- ilyas \_ the book doesn't talk about needing a big govt to fix the problem. I think he wants the public to be aware of the issue. For myself, I try to shop at Whole Foods as much as possible. Their stuff is more expensive, but that's because they pay their employees higher wages and their suppliers also pay a living wage. \_ Making the public aware of the issue will not do anything. People are naturally selfish, and economics are naturally market driven. So to stop any sort of perceived nastiness you need to stop natural behavior, which can only happen with strong government. -- ilyas \_ It is not an either/or proposition. -ausman \_ The chapter on marijuana got me thinking - I can't think of a single sane person I know, liberal or conservative, that thinks the War On Drugs is a good idea or should continue. So why does our drug policy remain insane? Schlosser's argument is interesting - since liberals are perceived as being "soft on crime," the drug issue was a perfect way for them to appear tough - hence Bill Clinton had the highest rate of drug incarceration of any president in history. \_ Ronald Reagan once remarked that the surest road to immortality is to be born a government program. This is why the War on Drugs is still with us. I am not even sure moderate conservatives support it anymore. Almost no liberal does. -- ilyas \_ Ronald Reagan also escalated the War on Drugs, especially marijuana, more than any other president before him. Hell, he's the one that _created_ the "Drug Czar." Before Reagan the country was on a slow course towards decriminalization of marijuana, and in fact 10 states already had. That said I appreciate the quote. As for who does and does not support it, it seems that no thinking conservative or liberal does yet not a single actual elected official will dare to come out against it. \_ How many liberals do you know? How many conservatives do you know? How many others? Have you considered that when you express your deep felt emotions on a hot button topic most people who disagree with you yet value your friendship find it easier to just agree and move on rather than get into a heated debate and damage or destroy your friendship? \_ Well, I think that my friends tend to be open-minded and don't allow things like politics or discussion thereof to ever "damage" a friendship. Arguments are fun! That said, I think you'll find a huge spectrum of thinking people are in firm agreement on this issue, from the Economist to the Libertarian party to the Green Party to the Cato Institute and etc. ad infinitum. That's extremely rare, nay unheard of, yet politicians from both parties just mutter about "the children" and then hand out more life sentences to nonviolent drug offenders (who, as Schlosser points out, are merely engaging in Adam Smith's capitalism at its purest). \_ exactly what does the president have to do with drug incarceration? \_ Are you this stupid? Are you aware of what "federal prison" is? A "mandatory minimum sentence?" How about the "Drug Czar?" No, never mind, you're just another clueless motd nerd. \_ I could have sworn that laws were drafted by Congress. \_ And the president signs and executes them. DERR! And for our next Civics lesson... \_ The number of drug cases in federal prison is actually a pretty small percentage. The reason for the large increase in drug incarcerations is programs like "three strikes", adopted by many states in the early 90s, which put such cases in state prison, and which the President has nothing to do with. \_ "Why should marijuana be illegal?" "Because it's bad." "Well why is it bad?" "It's illegal." \_ second hand Highs \_ no, because mj makes people stupid and destroys their initiative which is bad for society. \_ I know plenty of people who have tons of initiative when they are mildly high. Anyway, when did stupidmaking mean illegal? I mean are we going to make Everyone Loves Raymond contrabrand next? \_ But why is alcohol legal then while marijuana is banned? "We tried banning alcohol but prohibition didn't work." or "Alcohol is a traditional part of our culture, so it's OK." \_ Neither. I think it should be. \_ As does alcohol and TV. Next. -John \_ Added no value to discussion. Next. \_ Allow me to explain John's point, since you seem too stupid to get it yourself: Many things make (some) people (who overuse them) apathetic and/or tend to be "bad for society". That, in itself, is not enough cause to ban them. (Or else we would be banning many other things as well). Clearly there is some other reason to ban it, and there are plenty just none that are reasonable. If you can come up with some (one?) to demonstrate otherwise, we would be glad to hear it. -phuqm \_ How about providing welfare at taxpayer expense for the tycoons of the prison-industrial complex? Easy re-election for petty government officials who claim to be tough on crime but do little of real use? Oh, wait...you said "reasonable." Never mind. \_ I think that's not the reason. Isn't there still a question as to the health effects of mj? It seems like mj has the potential to do more lasting harm to ones mental faculties. \_ No, there's no question; pot has long-term health effects, different than alcohol but certainly not any worse. \_ and not much worse than smoking regular cigarettes. \_ I know MJ has caused lasting harm to my mental faculties. Oh, wait, you're not talking about Michael Jackson. Nevermind. \_ I'm so sorry. Did Michael Jackson rape you when you were a child? \_ right... \_ [deleted for irrelevance] \_ Oh my god! Not a discussion! |
2004/1/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:11972 Activity:nil |
1/27 Anyone have a recommendation for a decent digital sniper rifle scope? \_ What's the diff between a digital scope and your bog standard tube-with-lenses-at-either-end? -John \_ just curious, what is wrong with an optical one? -- can't shoot anything beyond 150 yards \_ y00 sux0rz!!1 my gild w1l r0x0rz y00r sux0rZ gild! h@r! \_ how are digital scopes different? \_ they're kewler!1 i hav wun in doom3, d00de! \_ ask on http://www.freerepublic.com \_ what's wrong with a leupold vari-x? \_ my g1ld doom3 hax0rz sk0pe r0xrz y0r lamER lop0ld! \_ you are most likely a troll. But to those who know, what is the advantage of a digital scope? \_ http://www.nightvisionplanet.com/atn-dgtlu.html \_ Seems like a waste. You really only need one good reticle, and once you learn to use it well it'll be more than sufficient. For those who have the time/interest, there's a book by Maj. John Plaster called, "The Ultimate Sniper," that has a chapter on choosing and using various reticles. |
2004/1/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:11742 Activity:nil |
1/9 IMF: US budget policy will destabilize and threaten the world's economy. http://csua.org/u/5i5 \_ Please explain how, as more nations become industrialized, thus enter the global economy, that the U.S. economy GAINS further influence? The U.S. could have relegated everyone else to eternal squalor after WWII, and NOW its affects are more powerful?! \_ yeah, there weren't any other superpowers after WWII. \_ Trade makes countries interdependent. Duh. \_ Don't you America haters ever give up? \_ If I hated America, I'd leave. As it happens, I love America, I just hate the people who are trying to destroy it (the Bush administration and their dittohead followers.) \_ They said the same thing about Reagan oh young one \_ And the fallout from reagan's dismantling of the new deal has been ramping up ever since.. \_ Dismantle? Reagan didn't dismantle anything. He created this elaborate Star Wars system where satellites shoot other satellites in space with giant "lasers" and they get blown to smithereens. Don't you watch TV? \_ Buffett said this months ago: http://www.pbs.org/wsw/news/fortunearticle_20031026_03.html \_ Understand that these guys don't say anything without the intent of making a profit \_ I sense in you an entertaining rant waiting to burst forth onto the motd. Come on, let's hear it. |
2003/12/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:11382 Activity:nil |
12/9 Nancy Reagan opposes replacing FDR with Reagan on US dimes "When our country chooses to honor a great President such as Franklin Roosevelt by placing his likeness on our currency, it would be wrong to remove him and replace him with another," she said. "It is my hope that the proposed legislation will be withdrawn." http://csua.org/u/57m \_ but we already replace Washingon Airport in DC with Reagan Airport. What is one more replacement? \_ All Millard Fillmore schools are now Ronald Reagans. The Mississippi River is now the Mississippi Reagan. \_ my original point was that if those who think Reagan's "accomplishment" is good enough to replace the name bears the name of *THE* Founding Father, what is the big deal of replacing *MORE* Founding Father's figure with his? \_ Heh. If FDR is a founding father, I am the Queen of England. \_ Go directly to English 1A. Do not Pass Go! Do not collect $200. \_ and "replace the name bears the name" is English? |
2003/11/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:11238 Activity:moderate |
11/26 Granted she and her husband got $540K for 80 of them from the Chinese government, but what exactly is a "Military Intel486 DX2 microprocessor"? I know what an Intel 486DX2 CPU is. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16259-2003Nov26_2.html \_ maybe one of those special radiation-hardened ones like they used in some nasa spacecraft. \_ I don't think it costs $53,000 to harden a chip for radiation. \_ It takes about $5 worth of lead, maybe $50 to manufacture the specific casing, air vents, etc.... \_ and how much r&d and testing to manufacture a small number of chips for non-commercial purposes? Yeah, you're right, each chip should be retail price+$55+$8 s/h. Nerds.... \_ Why do you think the sale price of an item illegal to export would be even close to the manufacturing cost? \_ On the other hand, wasn't our own military buying $15,000 toilets during the Reagan '80s? \_ Yeah, but they were radiation-hardened toilets. \_ Yes, some during the Reagan era when a Reagan era audit uncovered the problem going back through the Carter era, but it makes the joke better if you leave out the truth. \_ Source? \_ I'm old enough to remember. Find your own links if you're not. It isn't history to me. \_ Ah, so you have none and are basically just spewing nonsense. Thanks for clarifying that! \_ I don't have a link that says Nixon resigned either or that the hostage crisis happened during Carter's time but I remember those, too. Must be that they didn't happen. Or we could apply logic and figure out that gross abuses of budgets don't spring up over night, it takes years for that sort of government stupidity to fester and then see that it had to have been going on. Hmm. You're right. Before the web and urls there was nothing. Time didn't exist. There was no web at the time so anything talking about that time can't have happened. Thanks for clarifying. History didn't start until Netscape, right? Here, try this although I know you'll just dismiss the source since it's only the President saying it: http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/resource/speeches/1986/21086d.htm \_ Thanks for the link. And I didn't ask for a URL, I asked for a source which you've finally provided. Netscape, right? \_ Thanks for the link. \_ In my day, we had to walk 6 miles barefoot through the snow, uphill, to find out about government waste! |
2003/11/6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:29620 Activity:nil |
11/6 Sanity from the Economist http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2189237 \_ You just wanted to tie in to the Beanie thread below: "For all his rhetoric about keeping Washington in check, Mr Bush, as one Republican analyst puts it, has been spending like 'a drunken sailor'." \_ yeah, but it's all on the war against terrorism, not on government handouts and abortionists -troll \_ I thought it was all spent on Halliburton contracts and scaring Americans into thinking they're faced with imminent nuclear destruction. |
2003/10/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:10571 Activity:nil |
10/10 Arafat dead soon. All the lies and rumors and denials reminds me of how the Soviets handled their leaders being sick (or dead for a few weeks sometimes). http://nypost.com/news/worldnews/7776.htm \_ while I agree in principle that the PA is likely to lie through their teeth about this, it's also clear that everything in this article is based on rumors. If he's really about to die, wouldn't isreli spies know that? And if they knew that, why the very recent public death threats against Arafat? That bastard should have been executed in public years ago, but he seems to be remarkably resiliant, and I'll believe he was at death's door only when he finaly dies. \_ yes, it's rumors. that's all we ever got from the soviets until a few days after they each dropped dead. that's all i was saying. contrast to this country where we're told about carter's hemroids(sp) and every other disgusting personal health fact. well except for clinton, but whatever. -op \_ where is dick cheney? \_ in hiding for security reasons \_ and reagan \_ in his home slowly dying of a horrible disease. \_ or FDR, or JFK... \_ dead. also dead but he met with Elvis on his alien ship before they got him. some would say that's why, too. \_ Well he was trained and financially backed by the Soviets... |
2003/8/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:29415 Activity:insanely high |
8/20 http://207.44.245.159/article3807.htm It is obviously time to give the Germans another ass-whipping. \_ um, this site will be taken down by the government in no time. Why do you think it has no domain name? -long live GWB \_ This was eye-opening. Thanks for posting it. \_ To what in particular do you disagree? with his stated facts? \_ 'Vorwaerts' is very closely affiliated with the Social Democratic Party. Their motto translates to "partisan, political, initiative". Draw your own confusions. -John political, initiative". Draw your own confusions. -John \_ You draw a vague comparison with a foreign political party and a motto... I'm ok with this, unless you believe you're making a point about something-- or are we supposed to follow "Social Democrats" to "Socialism" to "Communism" to "If you're aren't with us, you're with the terrorists"? \_ That article was published in 'Vorwaerts'. As a quasi-organ of the SDP, it is bound to have a slant. It's not a vague comparison. -John \_ When was the last time the biggest threat to freedom and security--both for you and the world--the US president and his world-- was the US president and his administration? The article has some very good points. \_ Draw your own conclusions. |
2003/8/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:29246 Activity:very high |
8/5 Be careful what you read in public. Sad what America is turning into: http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/2003-07-17/rant.html \_ that's nothing, http://www.csua.org/u/3tx is much more frightening - danh \_ The public defender even recommended 4 months, so clearly this is not the whole unbiased story. \_ much more frightening and much more believable. \_ this particular type of hysteria predates 9/11 by a good 20 years. ever since Wargames came out, prosecuters and judges have been on the lookout for "evil geniuses." unfortunately, they set the bar pretty low both for evil and for genius. a guy from my highschool got crucified by the local law enforcement types for some crap on his bbs, and i'm pretty sure the numbnuts prosecutors were convinced he was going to start WWIII from his commodore 64. \_ this kinda thing use to be covered by "free speech", but I guess that's a thing of the past. Heil Bush! Heil Ashcroft! \_ You guys do realize he was encouraging people to throw maltav coctails at police, right? I'm not sure that was ever ok. \_ Here's the article that guy was reading: http://www.weeklyplanet.com/2003-06-11/cover.html and whine. \_ This same rhetoric was incessant during the Reagan administration. We saw the result - althought, granted Bush is no Reagan. Fox news has ~ 2 million viewers, compared to upwards of 40 million for the broadcast networks. I enjoy reading you sissified twits squirm and whine, so keep Raging against the Machine. \_ are you sure it's 2 million and not closer to 100 million? \_ This is an unreadable screed, even to one who is generally sypathetic to the position. |
2003/7/23-24 [Reference/History/WW2/Germany, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:29118 Activity:nil |
7/23 More academic execellence from Berkeley UC BERKELEY STUDY - What do Hitler, Mussolini, Reagan and Rush Limbaugh Have in common.... http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml Too bad Hitler was a socialist. \_ Putting a general label like 'socialist' on what passes for Hitler's political philosophy is a bit simplistic. I trust you've had a browse through Mein Kampf and a some good work on Nazi economic policy in the 1930s to help you come up with that statement. -John |
2003/7/7 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:28952 Activity:high |
7/7 Justice Breyer: U. S. Constitution should be subordinated to international will. A justice goes on television to argue his case. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/941589/posts \_ Scalia's a homophobe! (News bulletin!!1!) \_ At least he defined the homosexual agenda. |
2003/6/19-20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:28775 Activity:nil |
6/19 Reagan won the Cold War and can't even enjoy his victory. \_ that's just like a product of berkeley to not understand the idea of greater glory of the U.S. |
2003/5/26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:28552 Activity:high |
5/25 Check out this game http://www.smalltime.com/dictator.html It's guessed all my characters -- Arnold Jackson (from Different Strokes), Seven of Nine, Michael Knight, and Ronald Reagan \- This has gotten better. It got Laurent Kabila. It didnt get the Roman Emperor Galba. --psb \_ It got McGyver. \_ Yo, it's just the "animal game". I copied this out of a book in BASIC in 1978. \_ http://www.20q.net is more interesting. General 20 questions game. |
2003/4/23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:28194 Activity:high |
4/22 What's the stupidest thing you've ever seen? \_ G. W. Bush \_ /etc/motd \_ :O \_ Incredibly, I think the motd has become quite a bit more stupid since I joined the csua in '97. At that time, it was already the most stupid thing ever. Maybe it will eventually wrap around some kind of singularity and become really witty. \_ ...but this wasn't it. \_ The species known as Homo Sapiens \_ you said homo. \_ For contrast, I'll post some of the best. During the Carter-Reagan Pres. debates: Jimmy Carter (after some Reagan comment): "Look, Mr. Reagan doesn't even know the difference between a recession and a depression." Ronald Reagan: "If the president wants a definition of these concepts, then I will give him one. A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose your job. And recovery will be when Jimmy Carter loses his." Coincident with the '68 Democrat Covention (read Chicago riots) where attendees were waving VietCong flags and such. Gore Vidal: "That statement you made makes you sound like a crypto-Nazi." William F. Buckley Jr.: "Now you listen to me, you goddamn faggot. If you call me a crypto-Nazi one more time, I'm gonna punch you in your goddamn face and you'll stay plastered!" \_ motd censor censor was here |
2003/4/14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:28119 Activity:nil |
4/14 Mallard Fillmore (conservative policital comic) claimed today that when Reagan lowered taxes, revenue doubled. Is that true? If so, how is that possible? \_ wow you actually think things in Mallard Fillmore are true? mf is a piece of crap that comics page editors are contractually obligated to print to balance doonesbury. - danh \_ No idea if it's true but the idea is that due to lower taxes people and business have more money available to spend in the economy instead of throwing it away to the government thus making more taxable transactions occur. Imagine if the tax rate was 100%. Who would bother working? If it was 0% people would keep more of what they earned and spend more but then we wouldn't have any government services. The key is to find the right balance. We're still looking. \_ Right, but lowering taxes while massively increasing defense spending (and the deficit) doesn't do any good at all. The increases in interest rates that result more than offset the positive effects of the tax cuts. \_ I like to look at defense spending as wealth redistribution that benefits engineers among many others. \_ For one thing, that doesn't address the offsetting effect of higher interest rates and huge federal debts. For another, the positive economic effects of defense spending are completely overrated. Rather than creating investment for products that create further positive economic benefits (for example, building a delivery truck which allows a new business to make deliveries), defense spending only creates products that blow things up. \_ Gee, you're arguing for general effects, and I'm just glad that I'm getting some pork barrel from the government. Yes, there are negative general consequences, but those negative effects are paid for by everyone. So long as the benefits that I share with a smaller group outweigh the negatives shared with everyone, I still win. \_ getting your econ data from a really lame comic strip is not recommended. http://csua.org/u/d18 - danh \_ and even more! <DEAD>www.boss-tweed.com/mallard/mallardindex.html<DEAD> - danh \_ revenue doubling is probably fiction. total tax revenue did generally increase in the years after the the reagan tax cut of '81. the percentage of tax paid by the upper bracket increased also. however, it's silly to talk about tax revenue purely in terms of the effect from tax cut. there are a lot of other things happening that affect total revenue more. |
2003/4/9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:28041 Activity:nil |
4/8 The good ole days: http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/01/clinton.debt \_ yes, though helped by the 4 year roth conversions in 98 and a roaring stock market. Would have ended with Gore. |
2003/4/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:27998 Activity:high |
4/4 Making Peace: 100 Years of Leftist Failure http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=7092 \_ Makes perfect sense if you accept that FDR is a conservative and the Vietnam War was a liberal excercise. \_ If FDR is a conservative, i just got a lot more comfortable with my recently admitted liberalism -crebbs \_ It's truly amazing how you can take one or two lines completely out of context or just rewrite them from whole cloth and dismiss the whole thing based on your twisted and contorted version of what the article is saying. Why do you even bother making a vague reference to the article? Why not just completely make up everything instead of making up 95%? \_ Your entire article is bullshit. It would make more sense to call it Making War: 100 Years of Conservative Success. \_ It wasn't my article but unlike you I at least read it and since I actually have read a history book I understand it. \_ Who has started the major wars of the 20th century? How many times did liberal France invade conservative Germany? To blame a liberal for failing to contain conservative agression is literally perverse. |
2003/3/27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:27876 Activity:nil |
3/26 unconfirmed Russian sources stated that Vice President Cheney's oldest daughter is in Jordan right now intended to be part of the human shield bound for Bagdad. \_ what, the gay one? \_ must you put a label on everyone? \_ I believe you're assuming I think being gay is a bad thing. \_ No. I think you're putting a label on her. You could have described her in so many ways but you chose to merely reduce her to a label. "the gay one". As if that's all she is. I made no assumptions. \_ Speaking of Dick Cheney... His awesome neo cold war policy is going to cause WWIII. I'm just glad we're going to get a second chance. I was afraid I'd never see it in my lifetime after the USSR fell apart. From CNN: http://csua.org/u/bac \_ Glad to know you've got this all worked out and it's going to WW3. Who exactly is going to be engaged in this war? Did you ever consider dropping out and going straight into the State Department so you can save us all from this madman? Please bring your vast experience in world affairs to the global stage. The world won't survive without you leading the way! \_ This is EXACTLY what all the wackos said about Reagan. Is it necessary to remind you of the result? \_ multi-trillion dollar debt? \_ Which payed for all of the military hardware we are now using. Reagan presented a balanced budget every year. \_ But that darn Republican congress just couldn't resist loading up with pork, right: http://www.lafn.org/politics/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html \_ Dems have controlled Congress since FDR. Reagan had two years of a Republican controlled Senate, half of Congress. Why do you libs pretend that you want smaller government, its silly. \_ it's the republicans who pretend they want smaller government, and use phrases like "big gubbiment liberals". Now we have a Republican president and Congress--how much would you like to bet that the deficit and the national debt both rise signifcantly over the next two years? -tom \_ Conservatives wants smaller governement. Liberals want larger government. Do not confuse political parties with political philosophies. It's overly simple. \_ Ex-frickin' zactly. The largest gov'ts has been created by Republican efforts with Democratic backing. The Reps like their big gov't in the form of a vast military state, is all. The Dems pretty much do, too, since the bases are "good" for their constituencies. It's all good You'll all be able to get jobs working on military projects locally soon so stop complaining. \_ And people wonder why I talk about moving to alaska to get away from all this gov't bullshit? Both parties are guilty of bloating up the gov't. \_ Who created Social Security? Who allowed access of Social Security receipts for general expenditures? What VP then cast the deciding vote in the Senate to tax Social Security. Who proposed and almost passed a balance budget amendment, defeated only by one senator? \_ do you want to bet or not? -tom \_ Unfortunately Bush is Clinton-lite, however, this is far better than electing socialists. 800 billion + goes to Medicare, who created these programs? I'll stick to try to making the Reps more conservative, thanks. \_ Isn't it a "shooting gallery" along the highway to Baghdad? Seems like the only thing she'll shield is a blown up motor vehicle. |
2003/2/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:27501 Activity:very high |
2/22 Help fast for our President: http://www.heartlight.org/fast \_ Does President Sheen need my prayers? I'm there! We love you and your centrist inclusive message President Sheen! \_ President Sheen? What d'you mean? Are you trying to say that Bush is just an actor? that Bush is just an actor? \_ EIN REICH EIN FOLK EIN BUSH! \_ he's not smart enough to be an actor. \_ as if any actor could be smart enough to be a president. \_ appearently not. Look at how fucked up Ronald Reagan was. \_ I sincerely hope this is a joke or a troll. |
2003/2/23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:27498 Activity:very high |
2/22 The BBC & The Perils Of Reporting From The Islamic Republic Of Iran http://iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news_en.pl?l=en&y=2003&m=02&d=17&a=7 Plus 12 minutes video Thank you jimmy carter and ramsey clark. \_ really, it was carter who sold arms to Khomeni to help him suppress rebellions? \_ no, you must be thinking of Bill Clinton who bought them from Iran to arm the mujahideen in Bosnia and Kosovo. \_ Carter is secretly a radical islamic terrorist who masterminded the whole thing. I think he has something to do with Al Qeada too. \_ We saw some of his (and Bill's) handiwork in North Korea too. Please pick up a history book. \_ http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/chap_27.htm \_ LOL I love when people post this. Carter himself tried to lavishly bribe the 5 or so Sandinista generals to woo them to the US. Of source, we know generals to woo them to the US. Of course, we know delegated to the President. the result. Incidentally, war powers are explicitly delegated to the President. Of the 200+ conflicts since the founding of the Republic Congress has declared war ~ 5 times. The overt funding by the Soviets to the Sandinistas was well in excess of 1 Billion. As a proxy for the Soviets, Castro had a large military advisory and fighting contigent there as well (not to mention angola and elsewhere in africa) Right back at ya: Clinton Approved Iranian Arms Transfers Help Turn Bosnia into Militant Islamic Base http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/DCH109A.html \_ What does any of that have to do with Iran? Please try to stay on topic. \_ the topic is Republican administrations providing arms to Iran, and the freepers don't want to talk about that. \_ Under the Democrats People exploit people Under the Republicans it's the exact opposite |
2003/1/21 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:27176 Activity:high |
1/21 I read that tuition/fees/whatever is going back up to pre '98 levels. How many of you plan to get jobs and start voting republican? \_ why? we need to raise taxes to cover the deficite. how can the republicans help? \_ why dont you get a job and pay your 38% in taxes to help out? \_ You don't get it. You should lower taxes when there's a deficit, in order to stimulate growth which will lead to more revenue. That's what I learned from Reagan. \_ Yeah. Economic theory proposed by Alzheimer's patients and supported by coke-driven stock brokers is exactly what we need. \_ Totally. Anything proposed in the past by anyone now sick or dead is worthless. I mean, who needs math thought up by some crazy dead virgin? (Newton) |
2002/12/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:26842 Activity:very high |
12/16 Ollie's Army Takes Grenada, Again http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2002/45/ma_152_01.html I can't imagine a ship I'd much rather see come down with a Norwalk-like bug. [deleted and restored-- guess it's not just the lefties doing the censoring, eh?] \_ Maybe it was deleted because it's such an obvious troll? Since when is anything about Ollie news? Link from the center and right that get deleted are from main stream/leftist news sources. This is noise from motherjones for christ's sake. Hardly main stream or unbiased. They make ABCCNNCBSNBC look right wing. \_ gee, the freerepublic links are never obvious trolls \_ Straw man. You're ignored what I said. I'm glad that frereper links get killed. They're stupid. You also purge standard main stream/leftist links. \_ How this a "straw man?" You do know what that means, right? \_ Sure do. Do you? How is it not? I never once said anything about freeper crap. Freeper crap is troll fodder and everyone here except the freeper poster would easily agree on that. I'm talking about mainstream links on real news items that get censored because certain lefties don't like to see real news that doesn't fit their world view. \_ Aw, does the widdle right-winger not like leftie news posts? Suck it up.... \_ I don't care. Just be aware of the difference between propoganda and biased drivel and real news. When you figure out the difference, you can take off your debate training wheels and say something worth the bits required to store it. \_ You've obviously mistaken MotherJones for a news outlet. Mother Jones discusses and critizises and opines on the news. They have journalists on staff and as contributors. But I don't think anyone would be willing to claim that they are trying to be a "fair and unbiased news source". They embrace and trumpet their agenda far and wide. --scotsman \_ Exactly. Same shit as the freepers. \_ Except that motherjones actually attempts to include historical context and hard facts. If you had compared to, say, the Economist, your statement might have some weight. |
2002/11/14 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:26547 Activity:nil |
11/14 Big Brother is coming: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40942-2002Nov11.html \_ "Poindexter said any operational system would include safeguards to govern the collection of information. " At least there will be a Minority Report! |
2002/11/6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Reference/Military] UID:26433 Activity:high |
11/5 Hah! I always knew Reagan's Starwars could *never* work! What a ridiculous waste of money and we got *nothing* for it. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2407807.stm \_ Knocking out artillery with photons != missile defense. This is a different weapon. Congrats to the engineering team. \_ are you really this stupid? \_ no, i always thought of myself as "that" stupid. got any other stupid-questions-not-worth-asking that you'd like to ask? \_ Dear Moron, look up the work "rhetorical" in the dictionary \_ wow pretty snappy for a freshman. were you the "smart kid" in your high school? \_ Clearly he didn't agree with the implied answer. \_ What part of the article says that Reagan's "Star Wars" could never work? \_ the sarcasm part? \_ the "are you really this stupid" part is that shooting down one thing, that you fired yourself, doesn't say anything about whether you could shoot down everything that a particular enemy wants to shoot at you. It's obvious you can't. \_ Ah yes, the man who could fly before he could crawl.... \_ how much does a high-tech defense laser with missile tracking guidance system cost? how much does an artillery shell cost? \_ You're looking at the wrong numbers. If the laser costs say $150m per unit but can limit the effectiveness of enemy artillery by say 25% then it's easily worth it. It'll break enemy morale to see their shells shot out of the air and the technology will be useful for other things like oh say killing 100% of enemy artillery units in LOS for a few kilometers. Would you prefer our troops get blasted by 100% of enemy artillery instead of 75%? \_ are you really this stupid? \_ Obviously the answer is yes. Why do you keep asking? \_ "There you go again!" Do you really think this is some sort of genius quality reply? Obviously you must since you keep rehashing what never should have been said the first time. Take it back to the sandbox. The rest of us are in college or have graduated. \_ Except tom. \_ you serious? tom never graduated? \_ Where did you come up with your $150m figure? If it was that cheap, it might be worth it. The truth is that something like this costs Billions and won't be coming down in price much soon. Not to mention being far too fragile and energy consumptive for actual combat duty. \_ I was guestimating but I was wrong. It was $118m. It was in one of the articles on it from slashdot. \_ This is for ICBM, SCUDs, etc., not artillery shells. Laser detonation of a missile was demonstrated in the '70s \_ 70s?? URL? \_ I did it in a top secret experiment using my grade school science kit. If I tell you any more I will have to kill you. \_ Oh Jesus! I already knew that! Now that you spilled it the MIB will be arriving at your door step in a few moments. |
2002/9/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:25891 Activity:high |
9/14 Blinded VIGILANCE Unfortunately Reagan's politicization of the CIA is omitted, but useful information nonetheless. Read about diversity quilts and 'moral' espionage at our intelligence agencies. When a civil aircraft crashed into the White House in Clinton's first term, the running joke in Washington was that it was James Woolsey trying to get a meeting with the President. http://laurea.topcities.com/911/sew.html \_ It all went downhill bigtime when that idiot Carter said our agents could no longer associate with known criminals and other unsavory types. As if the local girl scouts would know anything. \_ But this is par for the course for the modern liberal (as opposed to the classical liberal who believed in something). It's more important to feel good and look good than to be right or efficient or successful. |
2002/8/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:25723 Activity:high |
8/28 Why must we fight the Iraqi's head on? Why can't we use other means like assassination? \_ I've always wondered if the gwbush administration has a bunch of crack smoking linguists on their staff, what the heck is a regime change? has their ever been a "regime change" in history before? are they still saying "homicide bombers"? - danh \_ That's 'cunning linguists' to you, bud. -John \_ Cause we are not very good at assassination, but we are really good at bombing the shit out of bad mamas. \_ And we're bad at combining the two. Reagan and Libya (Khadafi), GB1 and Iraq (Hussain), and Clinton and Afghanistan (Bin Laden). The problem is lack of decent ground-based intelligence. Can't hit them if you can't find them. \_ Libya was fine. They were pretty much in their place after that. We never intended to kill Momar, just scare the shit out of him which I think the bomb in his backyard tennis court accomplished that just fine. GB1 fucked up by not finishing the job the first time but that's not at all the same as pulling a Castro a la Kennedy. Both Clinton and GB2 screwed up the Bin Laden/Afghanistan thing, true, but both were afraid of the anti-war body-bag counting left in the media who love to see dead American soldiers on film. \_ Wrong. Reagan aimed for the palace and Khadafi wasn't in it at the time. Killing wives and kids doesn't count. \_ Ah, but you'd lose huge amounts of pork for the defense contractors who've been hit hard by the end of the cold war. Libya funded activities after that (see Lockerbie bombing) Hussain was a "high-level target of opportunity" during the Gulf War. They could never track him down. \_ Nonsense. Find any semi-respectable reference that says my buddy Momar was a direct target. They knew where Saddam was because Wolf Blitzer was reporting his movements from his hotel room. GW1 had specifically stated we are not targetting him personally. Thanks. \_ are you implying that the multi-million pound allocation to the British intel is better than the multi-billion dollar allocation to the CIA? \_ Hell yeah. They have James Bond! \_ Yep. The USA relies too much on technology and bureaucracy, not enough on human intel. August's wargames proved that an unsophisticated approach to communication and basic slight of hand can devastate the tech-laden, middle-management bloated American military machine. The whole missle shield crap? Spend a couple of billion bribing the tech folks on the other side to sabotage their country's efforts or buying all of the "loose" nuclear material. Cheaper and easier. \_ Ah, but you'd lose huge amounts of pork for defense contractors who've been hit hard by the end the cold war. All those Sun buildings on the bayshore frontage road in Palo Alto near Charleston used to be Lockheed and Loral. \_ You make it sound so simple. Just bribe everyone on the other side. My God! Why didn't anyone else ever think of that? Oh wait, they did. Those people are all dead or in Siberia now and hey guess what? Not everyone is bribable. Glad you're here to generate these great national security plans. Why are you being wasted here on the motd when you could be in some bunker on the east coast coming up with this great stuff? \_ Everyone is bribable. It's just a matter of what you bribe them with. It's the CIA, NSA, and the folks in charge who don't trust bribery. And you don't bribe everyone, you bribe the right people. |
2002/8/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:25508 Activity:very high |
8/5 UN part of sex slave trade. Knew it before. Here's more on it: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-376444,00.html \_ Give them more money! Go Koffi! \_ I don't get why Conspiracy Theorists, Rightwing Republicans, and etc. want the U.S. out of the UN? I consider the UN nothing more than a rubber-stamp of the U.S. international policy. If anything leaving the UN reminds a little too much about pre-WWII. \_ I encourage you to investigate more thoroughly, ie. beyond CNN and NY Times. The UN was founded by Soviet agents and Marxists, and that legacy remains today. There have been numerous violations of US sovereignety. If you applaud this, that's another matter. Reagan wanted us out, so did Nixon. They have the ICC, now they want a standing army, an outlaw of all firearms, and global taxation. That it 'reminds you of pre-WWII' further reveals your historical ignorance. \_Whoaw, you need to get off of the drugs there. So who REALLY killed JFK? \_ LOL go read a history book and published U.N. documents - or can you read? Facts were stated contrary to the assertation, and all you're capable of is trite invective that would be expected from a 12 year old - right... \_ Restored. All function pointers and no reality makes Jack a Geek Boy. You're at Berkeley. Get well rounded and aware. It's your last chance. This is easily the most important URL the motd has seen in a long time. \_ This is exactly why we cannot condone the international criminal court. Think of all the charges against US servicemen for using sex slaves and abusing little girls and boys worldwide. court. Think of all the charges against US servicemen in peace- keeping and liberation operations for using sex slaves and abusing little girls and boys worldwide. |
2002/6/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:25058 Activity:very high |
6/9 awwwwww, man! my troll got deleted! must train harder. \_ even kinney trolls better than you. \_ ouch! 6/9 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/06/09/MNCFLEADIN.DTL Secret FBI files reveal covert activities at UC Bureau's campus operations involved Reagan, CIA \_ [ kinneydrivel deleted. ] Kinney if you don't acknowledge human rights, I would be happy to shoot you like a dog, next time we meet. I know you wouldn't object. \_ murder isn't about human rights, per se. and btw, you don't have the "right" to be alive anyway. \_ Umm, yes, you do. It's not inalienable though. -RAH \_ From where does this "right" derive? Do only humans have it? Do only Americans have it? \_ Yes. Terrorists (that is, non-Americans) have no right to live, and we're finally enforcing that. |
2002/6/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:25051 Activity:very high |
6/9 awwwwww, man! my troll got deleted! must train harder. 6/9 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/06/09/MNCFLEADIN.DTL Secret FBI files reveal covert activities at UC Bureau's campus operations involved Reagan, CIA \_ \_ Reagan?? that guy was just a figure head, an actor.... As for the substance of the article.... really who cares... you see in my view our entire system sucks big eggs. The whole idea of man has certain freedoms is a joke. The case about that guys computer which contained the details of 9-11 but the fbi couldn't look at in until they had a search warrant, obivously that case is blown out of proportion but still the issue is that MAN doesn't have the rights. But you then get into a little game theory,, how do you try to keep the average mans rights, well obivously that means you have to break the rules for certain indididuals for the better of the society. Ya so what the fbi was looking into UC faculty and heads, who knows what else they were doing and hasn't been disclosed nor never will be disclosed. That should NOT be the issue- they main point to EVERYTHING should be- was it done to better society? Know that is a debateably point on "whoes" society, but still I hope you get my drift. This article just says that out of 6000 people - 1 person was harrassed. Is that the price we pay.... maybe, if that one person happens to be a friend of mine its hard to sell but what if that one guy was really making like bad for millions others, in that case its a no brainer. The idea of MAN's rights needs to be considered in much greater debt. Much like the 3 laws of robots and the creation of a zeroth law, protect society over all else.... if that rule wasn't created......but it initially din't exist because people were to worried about the safety of each individual life. This is the argument you trying to discuss, but this argument is just beyond current media and press. Instead they like to get political and crap. \_ [ kinneydrivel deleted. ] Kinney if you don't acknowledge human rights, I would be happy to shoot you like a dog, next time we meet. I know you wouldn't object. |
2002/5/9-10 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:24772 Activity:high |
5/8 So how'd that anti-nuclear 80's style teach-in/propoganda-session go? Did you solve the nuclear crisis? I hope you figure it all out before the Berlin Wall comes down or something.... For some reason, Cyndi Lauper lyrics are now floating through my head... ah the 80s.... \_ Goes well with the deficit spending and draconian statements from the president, doesn't it? It was a $600 toilet seat on a P3 Orion in 1982. What will it be this time, I wonder, now that the military procurement is having a new dawn? \_ girls just waaaaaaanna have fuuuuuuuun, oh yeah girls just wanna! \_ hehehe. \_ So the anti-nuke thing went poorly, I see. 1982... I remember 1982. That was the year all the contracts signed in the late 70s came due and delivered those toilet seats and hammers. Good call but isn't it too easy to bash on the Carter folks? Hey, got any quotes for us from Reagan? \_ not all DOD mioney is wasted. I work 80 hours a week for 18k/yr of DOD money doing research that I think is important for America(trying to build a quantum computer.) that should make up for a couple toiled seats. \_ yeah, because all those contractors love waiting 3 years to get paid on their invoices. \_ silly child, they got paid in 79, the items were found in a Reagan administration sponsored audit. Gotta keep your agenda nice and shiny, all facts to the contrary, eh? \_ Sorry, what did toilet seats and hammers mean? \_ It's the name of my new band. You're playing drums. \_ Purchased when? Discovered by whom? Thank you for playing. You were 2 when this happened. You can't be expected to know the facts. |
2002/5/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:24664 Activity:insanely high |
5/1 The Jenin "massacre" death toll = 56 (I'm going to *ASSUME* that this wasn't censored repeatedly) http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020501-5587072.htm \_ Of course it was censored repeatedly. I'm still waiting for the hysterical British rags to make this front page news for a few weeks the same way they made the original false charges front page news. We know the British rags are all top notch and unbiased, right? They'll retract of course. Any good papers would. \_ Got a URL for any of these so-called British rags? \_ Where've you been? Go read the motd archives. We've discussed this at length on the motd before. \_ Typical straw man arguement. The Guardian and BBC, both widely quoted in the motd, have been pretty balanced. They always said things like "Palestinian sources claim massacre" and I defy you to show otherwise. Here is a recent BBC article about it, btw: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1957000/1957862.stm \_ Garbage. It's all in the archives. And go read your own BBC link. The non-BBC rags are screeching and anything but unbiased. \_ 26 israeli soldiers die to kill 56 in jenin? I think the non military "civilians" kicked well equiped israeli soldiers asses in that case. \_ Israel could use planes and bombs like we do, but they actually want to protect lives on either side. \_ Maybe because they weren't civilians? 2:1 in man to man street fighting is pretty good. The US no longer does this sort of combat. We just flatten shit from 50,000 feet. Imagine the outcry if Israel fought wars the way we do. \_ http://www.realjournalism.net/times.htm http://www.fair.org/extra/best-of-extra/washington-times.html \_ This is all FUD and noise. The http://fair.org link is so old it talks about Reagan reading it everyday. I doubt he's read anything of note for almost 10 years. \_So are you saying the moonies stopped being a cult sometime recently, or what? \_ Are you claiming that Reverend Moon did not say all that? \_ To both of the above: I'm saying I don't see how it matters. I want to take over the world also. So what? Please show in some way other than attacking the paper's owners that the information in the link is untrue in some way. The same information is elsewhere on the net. It must be a grand moonie conspiracy, eh? \_ http://www.mediachannel.org/originals/revmoon.shtml much more about Moon's attempts to buy influence worldwide \_ Anyone who reads the Washington Times for anything but humor value is seriously wacked. \_ That's nice. Do you have any evidence or alternate sources that this article is incorrect in any way? Please post your URLs so we can judge for ourselves. Thanks. |
2002/3/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Health/Disease/AIDS, Recreation/Celebrity/MichaelJackson] UID:24195 Activity:insanely high |
3/22 People born in the 70s and grew up in the 80s had: madonna, michael jackson, star wars, top gun, aids, etc. \_ I didn't have AIDS \_ Very few people have it. Fewer contract it. (read urls below) \_ Winner: Unclear on the Concept Award. \_ Those things existed, but so what? They were painful then and painful now and all of them are still here so what's the difference? (Tom Cruise is still here even if his earlier movies are forgotten) \_ Technically star wars is from the 70's. Or did you mean Empire and ROTJ. How about the people born in the 80s and grew up in the 90s? What is your equivalent? I'm wondering if there's a generation gap with you young folks. \_ fuck your pop culture. i was born in '76 and grew up in the 80's and know nothing for your pansy ass micheal jackson crap. DRI, Metallica, Iron maiden, motorhead, minor threat, black flag, repo man, thrasher magazine, skateboarding, setting stuff on fire, hating ronald reagan, being an anarchist, programming the apple ][e in assembler... \_ So Reagan was in office from 81 to 88 which makes you all of about 12 when he *left* office. And you were all of about 14 when the 80s ended. So you were a Reagan hating anarchist listening to Iron Maiden all through the 80s from age 4 to 14? Sure, kid, sure. We all know the 90s sucked but trying to worm your way into the 80s with bad math won't help you any. \_ They get nothing. They are weak and easily pushed to the wall. \_ Ewe! You are so 80s! \_ How dare you call them a sheep. \_ you mean there are people born in the 80s? How weird is that? \_ VH1, Win95, High Speed Internet, AIM, PlayStation \_ You really want to lay claim to vh1, win95 and AIM? \_ I'm just saying these are things that kids growing up in the 90's had. I'm not saying that they are good. Some other things that 90s kids had: Linux, Street Fighter 2, MTV's Real World/Spring Break, Gulf War, bad scifi (TNG, DS9, VOY, B5, etc.) \_ They had fewer parents, more pregnancies and higher rates of drug use and suicide, too. |
2002/3/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:24115 Activity:very high |
3/14 All hail Governor Davis!!! http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/03/14/ED40228.DTL \_ Yeah, the only problem is, Simon is a right wing nutcase. Congratulations Republicans, you elected the only guy who could possibly make Davis look good. \_ One day you leftiest will figure out your worldview is not the only possible valid choice. Then again maybe not, then you wouldn't be lefties. \_ You will lose, nonetheless. You can believe that aliens in Black Helicopters control your brain, for all I care. Just don't expect to be elected governor in a democracy. \_ in what way is he a right-wing nutcase? are you saying he is a right-wing nutcase compared to Ronald Reagan or Dan Lundgren? \_ A Director of the Heritage Foundation? You gotta be kidding. I am sure they love him in Orange County, but I bet you a beer he loses by at least 10 points. \_ A beer on a 10 point spread? No shit Sherlock, there are 10 points more Dems than Reps in CA. Duh. \_ actually, i was just asking, not disagreeing, i no longer live in ca. \_ Okay, he is anti-abortion, pro-voucher, favors deregulation, anti-gun control, anti gay rights. A lot like Lundgren, come to think of it, who lost by 20 points, if you don't remember. \_ 1) Exactly why should people be given preferential govt treatment based on their behavoir in the bedroom? 2) AIDS is a complete scam. It is 100% preventable, but irresponsible homosexuals want tax payers to bail them out for incontinent behavoir. This is common sense. \_ No, they just want equal rights. \_ They already have equal rights. \_ The right to marraige? \_ Gays have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. This is the exact same right straight people have. I see no inequality issue. \_ They do not have the right you enjoy to marry the person they love. If you don't understand this then you are either stupid or trying to deprive them of rights, or a troll. \_ The 2nd amendment is the ONLY guarantor of the Constitution. How blind can you be to not see this. And we all know how effective gun control is. \_ Gun control is very effective. I control my guns very well. I've yet to shoot an innocent or allow a child to gain control of my weapon. |
2002/2/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:23859 Activity:very high |
2/13 Who will win best actor? \_ russell \_ p. nunez. \_ if only! I'm weary of this hollywood navel-gazing. -PeterM \_ They need something to keep them busy. \_ don't be so crabby PeterM. You sound like such a crotchety old man. \_ then perhaps you should stop. \_ does it matter? oscars are nothing more than self-pats-on-the back and do not reflect anything but the liberal masses of the academy \_ Are we that peeved that Arnie never won an Oscar? \_ You and Rush Limbaugh are soooo cool. \_ Hey Genius, you trying to say Hollywood is anything but 99.9% liberal? You're on the same planet with the rest of us, right? The one where Hollywood is Left and proud of it? \_ Yes, I am saying that. How many former Hollywood movie stars turned Republican politicians? I can think of four without even trying hard, starting with the Right's Darling Boy, Reagan. Turn off that Limbaugh and read something a bit more balanced, like maybe the Wall Street Journal. \_ WSJ balanced? Propagandist of the capitalist world? HA! \_ No, it's more than that. It's an indicator of which actresses / actors have been sleeping around with the judges the most. \_ what a radical opinion...wow, you must be intelligent. \_ Stating the obvious doesn't make the poster stupid. \_ yeah those damn liberals gave a bunch of oscars to that damn communist propaganda "schindler's list" \_ WTF are you smoking? What does SL have to do with *anything*? You're aware the Nazi's were... oh ya know what? Just nevermind. Go find a history book. Sheesh. |
2002/1/15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:23567 Activity:high |
1/15 sodans beware: sf is outlawing homelessness.-brown \_ I'll bite: Yes, homeless people should be enabled by the government. Because you know that getting off the streets would ruin their lifestyle choice. Seriously, what really bugs me about this is that in the 80s when Reagan's people were saying some people preferred homelessness as a lifestyle choice they were harshly criticised (and rightly so). Now the ultra left is saying the same thing in the same way and anyone who tries to do anything that might actually help a person get off the streets is harshly criticised. As if the right thing to do is 'assist' the homeless at being homeless instead of helping with drug rehab, job training, and getting them cleaned up so they can get a job somewhere. Yes, rejoining and being a productive member of society is somehow a bad thing in some people's eyes. sodans beware: SF is a seething pit and a wreck of a city.-!brown \_ how is stealing homeless people's shopping carts going to help them? -tom \_ By returning property to the owners who agree not to have the homeless person arrested posession of stolen goods. \_ har har. -tom \_ You are looking at the problem incorrectly. Can you force someone who is an addict or has mental problems to get treatment without infringing their personal rights? How do you treat those who refuse your assistance? \_ well, before Reagan, there was federal funding to keep people who were mentally disfunctional, but not a threat to others, in institutions. Reagan's brilliant idea was that if you kick them out of the institution, they'll magically become functional. The thought process is really the same as Willie's--"the only reason there are homeless people is that no one has given them a kick in the ass." I'm sure Willie's campaign will be as much of a success as Ronnie's. -tom \_ So you meant those 6-foot 200-pound muscular healthy- looking homeless men can't get jobs at a moving company or a wearhouse? They look like I need more food than they do. \_ har har. -tom \_ The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread. |
2002/1/15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:23564 Activity:very high |
1/14 When Reagan was shot, Alexander Haig got a lot of crap about the line of succession and the 25th ammendment. I looked at the 25th ammendment and I can't find anything about the speaker of the house comming after the VP and the secy. of state coming 5th. Is it stated in the constitution anywhere? \_ yes. \_ I heard the same thing after 9/11 when they talked about why they were keeping Cheney away from Bush. \- hello. q.v. Article XXV is on minimal requirements on presidential sucession. the exact details and procedures consitent with this scheme is spelled out in a congressional acts (per II.1.6) general recommendation: there is a good edition of the consititution of the US printed by the govt printing office with a lot of tactical info and a good index. it's probably a couple of bucks. as we have learned with election 2000, the "u.s. govt finite state machine" doenst have all of its i's dotted and t's crossed. ok tnx --psb \_ How about those executive orders? I don't see anything in the constitution giving the president law-making powers. \_ and I see nothing in the constitution that forbids it. \_ To properly answer your question, NO, it is not specifically listed in the US Constitution. The 25th amendment does allow Congress to set up the order of sucession in Article XXV. So all the Constitution states is that it's up to Congress. Congress currently has an Act in place that states the specific order of sucession. Sorry, I don't remember where in the law books that one is located at. I'll leave that an exercise for the reader. |
2001/8/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:22065 Activity:nil |
8/9 Who said this: "Approximately 80% of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons released by vegetation, so let's not go overboard in setting and enforcing tough emissions standards from man-made sources." \_ go go google. Ronald Reagan (10 Sep 1980) \_ He was right then and he is right now. Reagan rules! \_ Riiiight. -Dr Evil \_ Someday you'll understand. \_ eh. what a dumbass thing to say. we were worried about dangerous chemicals dumped in rivers and CFCs, and he's talking about hydrocarbons? \_ He right. Tough environmental standards reduce the effectiveness of American industry and cause big losses in jobs because industry will move overseas to more hospitable countries. What's the point in "preserving the environment" when people are going to go hungry and die in the streets because they can't get jobs to buy food. \_ This doesn't quite hold up in a country with ~4% unemployment. Ask the workers in those countries overseas if they have a "hospitable" working environment. Get a fucking clue before you start blathering. --scotsman \_ It always amuses me when people jump to these absurd ideological extremes to validate their viewpoint. It's something that I see from highschoolers most commonly. It just seems so strange that someone could swallow someone else's specious argument and internalize it so fucking readily without really investing any of their own thought. Of course, maybe that's one of the reasons the preferred age for new army recruits is in the late teen age range. |
2001/1/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:20455 Activity:moderate |
1/27 More right wing extremist nonsense and lies about Raygun: http://www.nationalreview.com/weekend/books/books-nordlinger012701.shtml |
2001/1/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:20453 Activity:kinda low |
1/26 http://www.nytimes.com/books/01/01/28/reviews/010128.28brookst.html Comments on Ronald Reagan's 1976-1980 days with a few back handed Bush compliments but mostly a Reagan article for those too young to remember the man while in office. |
2001/1/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:20451 Activity:high |
1/26 http://www.nytimes.com/books/01/01/28/reviews/010128.28brookst.html Comments on Ronald Reagan's 1976-1980 days with a few back handed Bush compliments but mostly a Reagan article for those too young to remember the man while in office. [article mentions Ultimate Evil in positive light, must censor immediately! purge now!] God forbid someone should post an article with simple facts in it that few people are aware of. Please keep blasting this because you don't like the subject. You only further reinforce my theory about the anti-intellectual pro-censorship rant-only crush-kill-destroy politics of so many people from your extreme left end of the political spectrum. Free speech only for people who agree with you. |
2000/11/18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:19840 Activity:nil |
11/17 For the person who asked about Reagan's one vote in 76: http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/16294.htm |
2000/11/17 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:19827 Activity:nil |
11/16 1976: Carter 297, Ford 240, Reagan 1 (margin of 57) Was Reagan an independent candidate? (the above are electoral votes) \_ The electors are able to vote for whomever the choose. In 76 one vote in Washington (state, not dc) was cast for Reagan. Take a look at the following page: http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/case/3pt/electoral.html The relavent part: "Most recently, in 1976, a Republican elector in the state of Washington cast his vote for Ronald Reagan instead of Gerald Ford, the Republican presidential candidate. Earlier, in 1972, a Republican elector in Virginia deserted Nixon to vote for the Libertarian party candidate. And in 1968, Nixon lost another Virginia elector, who bolted to George Wallace. " \_ If you're hoping for (R) electors to switch votes, don't hold your breath... broken glass... broken glass. |
2000/11/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:19691 Activity:high |
11/9 If Bush wins the recount, Gore should have nothing more to say. If Gore wins the account, I think we will have a crisis. \_ That's what you said 8 years ago about Clinton and we now have the best damn economy in the world. \_ Thanks to Alan Greenspan, a Republican \_ And Ronald Reagan's tax cut in 1981 that allowed businesses to expand and thrive. \_ And Ronald Reagan's victory over Soviet Communism \_ And the Internet Revolution (by Al Gore) \_ Yeah. Al Gore the author of TCP/IP, UDP, FTP, HTTP, BGP, OSPF, RIP, RIPNG and countless RFCs and Internet Standards. Sustanining Member of the IETF! \_ Please post the article where Gore actually says "I invented the Internet". I mean the actual quote. Not where other people says he said he invented the internet but where he actually said it. Oh, of course, you can't find it. BECAUSE IT DOESN'T FUCKING EXIST. \_ Wow. Then when I saw that on a taped interview, it was a fabrication of the VWRC that controls the major media? Is there a controlling legal authority to keep the VWRC from completely taking over the media? What's the world coming to? \_ If Bush wins the recount, Gore will still demand a revote in 4 counties. \_ And while we're at it, let's cleanup the vote tally and check how many non-citizens voted *then* do a revote. Welcome to office, President Bush. \_ Thanks prodictivity growth in the service sector for the first time since yermama was skinny. -muchandr {deleted a few older threads to save space, not to censor them} |
2000/10/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:19431 Activity:high |
10/7 National Debt culprits: Johnson(D) $51,085 M 3.2%/yr \_ guns and butter Nixon(R) $133,604 M 6.7%/yr \_ vietnam Ford(R) $171,230 M 14.1%/yr \_ WIN = whip inflation now Carter(D) $275,676 M 10.4%/yr \_ national malaise Reagan(R) $1,780,214 M 23.6%/yr \_ reaganomics / military build-up Bush(R) $1,467,350 M 13.5%/yr \_ see above \_ sharp increase one year prior to gulf war Clinton(D) $1,496,997 M 4.7%/yr \_ what can i say? \_ point of inflection 1 year after being sworn into office. someone had to undo what bush and reagan did. \_ Debt, shmebt. Now that he finally has a real crisis to deal with, he shows how useless he really is. -John \_ what's the real crisis? oil prices? if so, ride bike! |
2000/10/4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:19404 Activity:very high |
10/03 Bush: "I don't care what the vice-president says, he doesn't believe in testing our kids" and hold schools accountable. <DEAD>www.algore.com/agenda/bluebook/p3.html<DEAD> "...we need to test our students" \_ Gore - lies about Grandma taking up-the-ass for $120 bucks while his dog takes the same up-the-ass for $20 .. turns out his example is made up. also, Gore special interest ends only after he gets his money from the monks. \_ All this is largely irrelavent. All politicans exagerate to some extent. What Bush-lick needs to focus on is not these kinds of mistakes, but rather the effect of BOREs misguided policies on ordinary americans. \_ There is only one issue that _clearly_ distinguishes these bozos: abortion. Everything else is muddled. \_ Government Regulation. if Bore GR++, if Bush-lick GR--. Taxation if Bore TAXES++, if Bush-lick TAXES--. \_ Not quite right. Gore has a little more clue on the debt. Gore is anti-tart reform, Bush is pro tart reform. \_ Bore doesn't have a clue about the debt. \_ Look, they are the same guy in different suits (though not even that last night at the debate). The only good reason to vote for Gore over Bush is because there are a few people in the his party who actually do give a shit. Anyway, everyone in the Bay Area should vote for Nader since Gore is going to win here by a large margin. \_ The valley's prosperity is due to the economic policies of great men like Ronald Reagan. Bill C was smart enough to keeps his hands of the economy, Bore isn't that smart and will screw it up. \_ The Great Ronald Reagan almost screwed our country permanently with his insane budget deficits. Clinton put us back on an even course. Tax-and-spend liberals in his party notwithstanding, Gore is far more likely to persue fiscal responsibility. \_ You are completely ignorant. Read the Wall Street Journal some time. The budget deficit that he grew was wartime spending. America has always run budget deficits during wartime. Since we won the cold war (which was possible only because of the zero-sum option of RWR) we can start reducing the deficit just like it was after all wars. BORE won't help with this, he would just like to spend all the money on more government programs. If any of you think that the COLD WAR wasn't a real war, you should try talking to members of the armed forces who served during that time. It was a real war and RWR fought it like a real war and he won. By winning he secured our freedom for generations to come. So it cost some $s. Better to sacrifice a few $s for long term freedom and prosperity. \_ You have obviously been reading the WSJ editorial pages and confusing their fantasy version of the world with reality. The Reagan budget deficits were mostly caused by foolish headed tax breaks for the rich justified as "trickle down economics." And I *did* serve in the armed forces during the cold war, did you?. It is not the same thing as being shot at. \_ yeah, kick some central american butt! \_ It was russian COMMIE butt that we kicked. Soviet Communism has been consigned to the ash-heap of history, just as RWR predicted. \_ Soviet is gonna fall one way or another. If you think RWR toppled it, you really have no clue about why communism or command \_ Regardless of Reagan's "almost" screwing our country and Clinton's cigar wizardry, Greenspan is far more accountable for preventing *possible* recessions and that still says nothing about Gore, his retarded tax policy, his taste for opportunistic lying (campeign funding), and a propensity for irresponsibility and unaccountability. But I'm sure you're right about his likelihood to "pursue" fiscal responsibility better than Bush... after all the pursuit of responsibility economies fails. \_ Reagan "almost" screwed our country; Clinton "almost" screwed Lewinsky, Lincoln Bedroom, Arlington, Missile Guidance... whatever. Get it straight brainiac. Greenspan put us back on course. And that has NOTHING to do with Gore... who indeed is more likely to pursue any responsibility than Bush who has had more practice being it than pursuing it. Oh, forget I said that... go back to your fantasyland You'd vote democrat regardless of who's running, probably because your parents did you pathetic reasons that companies like Cisco and Sun are able to little snailsniffing automaton for whom thinking-for- onself is a terrifying enemy. - (fucker) \_ GreenSpan was appointed by Reagan and has shown himself to be a supply-sider. \_ Our prosperity is in spite of the economic and moral policies of mediocre presidents like Ronald Reagan. The Federal Reserve and regulations in banking and stock markets, established long before rr, helped fuel and better sustain recent stock market manias. And the more tangible prosperity is due to the great minds & ideas coming out of universities like UC Berkeley and Stanford and companies like HP, Cisco, Sun and products like Netscape Navigator, Solaris and Yahoo. Not due as much to those punks in washington (dc). \_ RWR's visonary insights into economics, including his choice of Alan G. as FED Chariman, are the sole \_ "sole reason"? You LOSE right here reason that companies like Cisco and Sun are able to prosper. The reduction in Coroprate Taxes and Corporate Regulations that RWR made allowed people to do business more efficiently leading to unprecidented growth and \_ I paid BC + AB salary in taxes this year. I prosperity for all americans including morons like you who would otherwise be panhanlding on the streets of Berzerkely. RWR believed and implemented SSLF principles. His leadership has restored America's Greatness. \_ In that case, why is Greenspan advocating the use of the budget surplus to reduce the national debt instead of cutting taxes? \_ I believe that some of the deficit ought to be repaid, but that is not what Bore will do with the "surplus". He will expand government. \_ Err ... debt and deficit are two very very different things, even though one leads to the other. \_ The regulations I refer to were implemented in FDR's time. Plus, I am 95% sure I earn more than you and believe me Reagan did not do that for me, you rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth fascist hypocrite. America never needed it's Greatness restored because it never lost it. Republicans are all for affirmative action for the rich, like S&L bailouts and pandering to the religious freaks. \_ I paid BC + AB salaries in taxes this year. I will pay more next year. If it was not for RWR, I would never have had the opportunity to earn as much as I do. His vision was an america where everyone could be rich, rather \_ This is fucking hilarious. than an america where no one can ever be rich (socialist democrat ideal). \_ Wow, a republican who is proud of taxes enough to use them to try to justify his point \_ No, it was the other way around: products by Cisco Sun etc. helped improve corporate efficiencies and reduce costs which led to higher profits and greater ambitions (both in small/large and old/new companies which in turn contributed to stock market gains. Not just "lower taxes" which is all that republicans can ever say. \_ The economic environment created by RWR is what what allowed companies like Cisco and Sun to form and succeed Without his leadership in the early 1980s (for those of you not old enough to remember, 1979-1980 were years in which this country experienced the greatest economic down- turn since 1929) these companies and scores of of others could never have been created. Supply Side and Laisse-Faire works, RWR proved it; we are enjoying the fruits of his labor. \_ Wow, i guess RWR created the Internet then. \_ Since 1992, CSCO has gone up like 80000% \_ It's not often that us engineers are given our dues for making America great! So, please don't take away our credit, asshole! If you want to hero worship RWR, go learn from Monica, ok? \_ it's really pretty ridiculous to make this assertion. Well, it's not ridiculous when you have no real knowledge of the candidates' positions. But if you did, you'd know that they differ on most issues. -tom |
2000/10/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:19381 Activity:very high |
9/30 Perhaps the liberals in the viewing audience can explain something to me. Why is it that todays liberals (esp. democrats) have forsaken the princples of the founding members of thier party? Consider the following quote from Thomas Jefferson (a democrat for those who have weak memories): ... a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government ... All we hear from democrats these days is that we need more government with more spending and more regulation and more taxes and more control over the lives of individual. \_ blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah \_ I'll ignore the fact that this is an obvious troll, but, perhaps you missed the fact that the parties did a role-reversal. Remember, Lincoln was a Republican. The Republican party today looks suspiciously like a special interest group for aging white folks. \_ There are many republicans who still believe in the ideals that Lincoln and Reagan set for our party. Not all of us agree with loud mouth show-offs like Limbaugh and Gingrich. I believe that the true spokesmen for the Republican party are men like George Will, Tom Campbell and Thomas Soddel. \_ Ja, die Republikaner sagen "LEBEN UND LEBEN LASSEN" \_ Yeah, Jefferson also enslaved men and women. go figure. \_ Jefferson founded the first Republican party in America. The first three Republican presidents were all wealthy, aristocratic Southern planters--Jefferson, Madison and Monroe -- rich and privileged folks, much like today's Republicans. Later, the Republican party split into the (1) Whig Party (pro-expansionists/imperialists) and (2) Democratic-Republican party (composed of diverse elements that emphasized local and humanitarian concerns, states' rights, agrarian interests, and democratic procedures). In keeping with the egalitarian spirit of the times, that faction adopted the name Democratic Party. In the mid 1800s, the Whigs eventually split up by joining Democrats(pro-slavery) and Northern Republicans(anti-slavery). This new Republican Party (which is as we know them) had a presidential candidate called Abraham Lincoln who said: "The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all, or cannot do so well, for themselves, in their separate and individual capacities." Lincoln won the presidency without winning a single southern state. Of course, later, in the 1960s, lots of southerners joined the Republican Party because they feared the integrationist and pro-civil-rights Democratic Party. So they really are the same. Plus, FDR was a Democrat and he saved the country from ruin during the Great Depression by using the power of the government to assist down-and-out people and provide regulation and stability so that economic prosperity could flourish. \_ FDR introduced social programs (i.e. the institution of robbing the successful in favor of the mediocre and unsuccessful). The insane pyramid scheme of Social Security which will plague this country for many more years is FDR's legacy. The war brought us out of the Great Depression, not FDR. Did you know, btw, that FDR once remarked that all germans should be castrated (after the war)? He was a big fan of civilian bombings also, and he believed it was a crucial component of winning the war. \_ Uh... FDR died before the end of WWII. \_ And this is relevant to his views or his personality ... how? Hitler technically died before the end of WWII also. \_ Oh yeah, FDR is just like Hitler, huh? \_ Contributing to two world wars does not make them favorites. On his way to meet British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in Quebec, FDR told reporters on August 26, 1944: "We have got to be tough with Germany and I mean the German people not just the Nazis. We either have to castrate the German people or you have got to treat them in such a manner [so that] they can't go on reproducing people who want to continue the way they have in the past." |
1999/2/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:15405 Activity:high |
50-50 for obstruction of justice. \_ Now its time for endless debate on censure motions. \_ Not. Thankfully this CYA bullshit is dead. \_ I thought it was supposed to be > 50. Oh well. \_ No, after the house impeaches him in a majority, the Senate must convict on a 2/3 majority in order to remove the president. \_ Seriously, did anyone think that it could possibly be anything better than 56-44 to get him out of office? what a waste of time. Good job GOP, you just about guaranteed that you won't be in the White House for a few more terms. \_ Not. You haven't been in this country long enough to understand that no one but a few crackpots is going to vote against a Rep. candidate because of the impeachment. Don't be silly. The so called analysts and newspapers never manage to understand or guess correctly what the American people are thinking or going to do each election. \_ You base this on what? POLLS!? Hahahhaha, they don't poll the 'voters'. They poll the 'people'. Keep in mind that statistically the people they're polling are more left than the average voter. Voters are more conservative than "The People". \_ Not the way polls are going against Al Gore right now for 2000. \_ When Clinton originally ran people didn't think he had a chance even against his own party adversaries (Paul Tsongas) and look what happened. I think we should pull another Jessie the Body Ventura/Ronald Reagan and vote Bill Bradley into office. \_ Al is a stiff board nobody. Put him on stage in a debate against anyone with half a personality and then see if the voters choose a person or a 2 dimensional image. |
1998/11/4-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:14904 Activity:moderate |
11/4 What is this world coming to? Jesse "The Body" Ventura, former pro wrestler and co-star of Predator, wins a 3-way race for governor in Minnesota. \_ How could you miss with this campaign slogan: "Vote for me or I'll kill you." \_ i'm so proud to be a minnesotan! -- a proud minnesotan \_ Hell, I'm just glad new yorkers finally came to their senses gave D'Amato the boot. \_ What's wrong with Jesse? As if a so-called professional politician is any better? What this world is starting to come to is a United States where the people are tired of the two party demopublicans. I see Jesse as a vote against the republicrats. I see nothing wrong with electing such a man to a governorship. \_ And no one criticized Ronald Regan (an x-movie star) for being predident. Although, I don't think what he did to our national debt was such a great thing either. \_ Might point out that Reagan was once governor of this wonderful state, so there's even precident for the star becoming governor of a state. And Reagan's term as gov. is debatable on effectiveness. \_ Reagan fired Clark Kerr, widely regarded as one of the best University leaders this century. \_Incorrect. It was Edmund G. "Pat" Brown who fired Clark Kerr, over the Free Speech Movement. Reagan was more notorious for calling out the national guard on Berkeley and gassing Sproul Plaza, after Berkeley profs told him not to do it. Interesting note, Reagan was partially elected because he promised to "clean up that mess in Berkeley." \_ The highway patrol make good secret police \_ BLAIN ...bunch of slack-jawed faggots around here... (holds up plug) ...this stuff will put hair guaranteed... (chewing) ...make you a God-damned sexual ty-ran-toe-sore-ass... just like me. -Jesse "the Body" Ventura in "predator" |
1998/9/21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:14643 Activity:nil |
9/20 fucking coward. Judge Starr, Members of Congress, people of America, I banged her. I banged her like a cheap gong. Which is not news, folks, because if you think Monica Lewinsky was the only skin flute player in my orchestra, you haven't been paying attention. The only babes in D.C. I haven't tried to do are the First Lady, Reno, Albright, and Shalala, mostly because they're a little older than I like and they have legs that former Houston Oiler Earl Campbell would envy. Which isn't to say I don't appreciate Hillary, I do. If not for the ice-water coursing through her veins, I'd be pumping gas into farm equipment in Hope, Arkansas, and she'd be married to the President. So, let me set the record straight. I 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. Six years ago, there's not a man, woman, or child who didn't know I was as horny as Woody Allen. But, you elected me anyway, which turned out to be a good move on your part. Your other choice was Bush, an aging baseball player and part-time resident of some place called "Kennebunkport" who thought he could bomb his way into the White House. Before him, it was Reagan, who left the office with the same Alzheimer's he came in with. There was Carter before him who brought you a 17% prime interest rate, smiling the whole time like his lithium drip had just kicked in. Nixon before that coined, but never really understood, the concept of 'plausible deniability,' and almost got a one-way ticket to San Clemente for his crackerjack style of governing. Johnson was an inbred, power-mad war criminal whose major contribution to American society was Agent Orange. And John Kennedy, who was a little naughty himself, didn't hang around long enough for America to spot that curious atavistic tic for "beaver-wrestling" shared by at least a dozen former residents of the White House. Which brings me back to my point. Since I have been strumming the banjo here at the White House, government is doing more for less. The budget is balanced for the first time since JFK did a one gun salute to Marilyn, a fact the press didn't seem to care about, evidently. Unemployment is so low today a blind felon can get a job as a night-watchman. And the stock market is higher than a D-student on a full gram of dumb-dust, and anyone with a degree from a junior college who can spell 'internet' has enough money to ponder the annual maintenance cost of his boat, instead of where his or her next meal is coming from. Bottom line: I'm running a country here and I'm doing it with my pecker showing. What I'm asking for is your support, not a date with your daughter, unless, of course, she's a hotty with thin ankles, and then I'd like to discuss it. In the meantime, think about where you are today and what kind of life you're living before you get too interested in where I'm parking the Presidential limousine. Thank you, good night and God bless America. |
1996/12/18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:32017 Activity:nil |
12/17 Jimmy Carter - ex-president, ambassador, statesman, all around nice guy will be appearing in Cody's Bookstore tommorrow (12/18) at 7:30pm. I think it will be for some kind of book signing, but I didn't catch all of it on Classical KDFC 100.7 FM. Don't miss this \_ isn't KDFC around 102FM? "Your radio concert hall" once-in-a-lifetime chance to see THE MAN! \_ What a crappy president that guy was. Im sure he's a better author. \_ He was a helluva lot better than Reagan, who took office through fraud and conspiracy. Goodbye solar.. \_ Reagan may have been bad, but Carter was simply horrible. For different reasons, of course. I do admire how a complete loser (Carter) was able to parlay his utter incompetance into some sort of noble elder statseman later in life. Neat-o!! \_ Hey, Reagan was the best President we've had since Ike, you weenie knee-jerk. Go get pierced or something. Friggin' long-hairs. -John \_ So what if he was better than Reagan or not? On his own, Carter was an all-around bad President. As far as Reagan goes, at least he *seemed* like a good President at the time and given a choice in 1980 between the two, thank God, the country chose Reagan. As far as elder statemen and all that crap goes, Nixon managed to do the same thing. So what? \_ Dick never quite pulled off elder statesman. \_ I don't see how Reagan got elected. People say he's charismatic, but he's a real ugly butt. And hella retarded too, what with that swiss cheese brain disease. Man, all of you who supported him got whammied. You must feel real stupid now. Even before Alzheimer's, you could tell he didn't quite have all his marbles. When looks matter most in politics. I bet you guys voted for Clinton or Dole too cuz you thought one was cuter than the other. Where are the issues man? --pcjr \_ Does anyone know where this recent rash of convservative whacko-ism comes from where thinking that Reagan *looking* like a good president was somehow enough? Carter started some truly visionary energy research programs which Ronnie gutted to pay from the idiot SDI program --- just before the energy stuff started to pay off and put the squeeze on the oil companies...how oddly convenient for a "conservative" \_ Don't forget: many of you twinks owe your jobs/dreams of becoming thousandares via stock options, to military spending (if only indirectly) :) :) \_ everyone always says Carter was awful as a president, but they can rarely back it up with evidence; Carter actually accomplished many positives (CIA cleanup, miscellaneous foreign affairs..) I believe most people hate him because he didn't appear imperial (my god: he carried his own bags!) \_ Those weren't his own bags. They were props from his campaign people. Usually, they were filled with carved-up baby parts as a twisted little joke, but sometimes there was a dwarf Secret Service member hiding in each. \_ I know... *sob* I was one of them.. the humanity!! \_ This thread reformatted and cleaned up by me, because I actually have that much time to waste!!! (yippee) -dbushong |
12/25 |