| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 12/24 |
| 2013/10/24-11/8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:54743 Activity:nil |
10/02 RIP Tom Clancy:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/l5ejpy3 [nyt] |
| 2011/10/14-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Reference/Tax] UID:54197 Activity:nil |
10/14 "SimCain? Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan resembles the tax code in SimCity"
http://www.csua.org/u/uh9
\_ "The Tax Reform Act of 1986: Should We Do It Again?"
http://www.csua.org/u/uiu
"Reagan built on their efforts and put forward a very detailed plan
for tax reform in May 1985, based on several years of work by the
Treasury Department, that identified a long list of tax provisions
needing pruning from the tax code, along with supporting analysis
and documentation.
Today, Republicans like Mr. Cain put most of their efforts into
devising catchy slogans and almost none into providing details of
their tax proposals."
\_ Maybe we can dig up Reagan's corpse and have him run for
President as the Zombie candidate. |
| 2010/11/2-2011/1/13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:54001 Activity:nil |
11/2 California Uber Alles is such a great song
\_ Yes, and it was written about Jerry Brown. I was thinking this
as I cast my vote for Meg Whitman. I am independent, but I
typically vote Democrat (e.g., I voted for Boxer). However, I
can't believe we elected this retread.
\_ You voted for the billionaire that ran HP into the ground
and then tried to buy the job of CA governor? Really?
I almost voted Green or Libertarian, but never once thought
of voting for Whitman.
\_ wrong billionaire.
\_ Sorry, couldn't tell the difference.
\_ Makes a big difference. I hated Fiorina when she was
CEO at HP. I hate her even more now that I know her
backwards politics. However, Whitman is a RINO. She
endorsed Gore. She opposed Bush on global warming.
She supported Boxer's 2004 campaign. I am not
saying I love the woman, but *JERRY BROWN*? Been
there, did that, was not that great. As for her
money, I actually prefer people spend their own
fortunes instead of owing a thousand political favors
in exchange for donations. Face it, most candidates
are trying to buy the election on some level and
the ones that aren't don't get very far. You are so
informed you couldn't even separate Whitman from
Fiorina so I hope you didn't vote.
\_ Your point about having a politician who is beholden to no one
because she didnt need to accept any donations is interesting. I
never thought of that one before. I really don't think she was
qualified in anyway though. she flipflopped her way around
WHILE running for governor and hadn't even voted for decades.
On the plus side, she proved she will kick your ass, physically,
if you mess with her.
\_ After experiencing eight years of Bush I know
enough to never vote for a Republican.
\_ Sounds pretty closed-minded. I agree that Bush was
an idiot, but I am not going to shut out 50%
of candidates based solely on party affiliation.
You'll realize how silly you sound if/when
you grow up.
\_ I am old enough to learn from my mistakes.
When will you learn?
\_ Voting for a candidate based solely on
a D or R next their name means you
have a long way to go.
\_ No, the GOP has been universally venal
and/or incompetent for a long time. I
thought about it some more and decided
that if the GOP somehow actually elects
a decent leader (in spite of my vote
against them) who ends up doing a good
job tackling real problems, I would
be willing to reconsider my stance. But
after watching bad and then worse
leadership from them, I have no confidence
in their collective decision making.
Give me a Republican president at least
as good as Reagan or Clinton or a
CA governor that is halfway decent and I
give them another look. But it is hard
to see this happening anytime soon.
Btw, it is quite a bit of difference to
"vote for a candidate based solely on
[party affiliation]" and refusing to
vote for a candidate based on party
affiliation. Hopefully you can see the
difference. I expect to vote for quite
a few Green and Libertarian candidates
in the future.
\_ Wasn't Reagan a Republican President
as good as Reagan? And GH Bush
wasn't bad. GWB is the only bad
example in the last 40 years.
\_ Bush, Cheney, DeLay, Rove, the
whole crowd has been terrible for
at least a decade. And the ones I
see them bringing up as future
leaders (Palin, really?) seem
even worse. Lincoln was a good
Republican President too but he
doesn't say much about the GOP
today. Same with Reagan, he was
elected what, almost 30 years ago?
Today's Republican Party would run
a common sense pragmatist like
Reagan out of the party.
\_ What about, I dunno, Meg
Whitman?!
\_ http://preview.tinyurl.com/2gyqr8d (LA Times)
"Strikingly, almost one in five California
voters said they would never cast a ballot
for a Republican." Not that nutty an idea,
it turns out.
\_ The republican party got us into a (seemed a good idea at the time)
war in Afghanistan and with my laser like hindsight a completely
unecessary conflict in Iraq. And they accept no responsibility.
And shitheads in SF riot over a baseball game, but not an election.
\_ Dems in Congress were in favor of the wore on terra as well
\_ Some Dems. A majority voted against it. Well against the
Iraq invasion, at least. I think they all voted for the
"Patriot" Act. |
| 2010/1/20-29 [Science, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:53645 Activity:nil |
1/20 Food for thought: kids today are more responsible and less selfish
than kids from 80s... the REAGAN era.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-19518_3-10434969-238.html
\_ As a parent of a kindergartener, I don't think so. |
| 12/24 |
| 2009/10/8-21 [Reference/BayArea, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:53437 Activity:nil |
10/7 danh@soda is heavily featured in this book:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0143113801
\_ This guys articles are probably more relevant:
http://larrylivermore.com/?p=185&cpage=1 - danh
\_ Is this book worth owning? -ausman
\_ are you implying i know the guy referenced in this url:
http://www.sfweekly.com/2009-10-07/music/new-bay-area-punk-oral-history-unearths-dead-babies-stinky-roadies-and-strong-community-networks |
| 2009/9/25-10/8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:53402 Activity:nil |
9/25 Reagan's Legacy on the UC:
http://www.newfoundations.com/Clabaugh/CuttingEdge/Reagan.html |
| 2009/9/15-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:53369 Activity:nil |
9/15 WORST PRESIDENT EVER: Ronald Reagan. The president
of GREED. http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/060309.html
\_ You and Michael Moore are in agreement. |
| 2009/7/18-24 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:53161 Activity:nil |
7/18 "Exclusive: Conservative group offers support for $2M"
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25072.html
"The letter shows one reason why activists get so much junk mail, both
on paper and electronically: Some groups that send it charge
handsomely for the service." |
| 2009/4/12-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Finance/Investment] UID:52845 Activity:nil |
4/11 Look at the great things that happen when we stop overpaying
finance workers:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/weekinreview/12lohr.html |
| 2009/2/25-3/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:52635 Activity:nil |
2/25 Thank you Obama for pledging to reverse much of Reagan's economic
mess. Thank you!
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/24/analysis.obama.reagan
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-219640
\_ About time. The last 25 years have been a disaster for the middle
class. |
| 2009/2/16-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:52583 Activity:nil |
2/16 Bush not the worst President ever
http://tinyurl.com/bu2o36 (Yahoo News)
\_ According to CSPAN, so, of course, no one will watch.
\_ Agreed, Buchanan and Pierce were THE WORST. Don't you
guys remember how bad they were? |
| 2008/11/21-28 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:52063 Activity:nil |
11/21 Remaining GOP activists want to turn the Party further to The Right:
http://tinyurl.com/6m4xsv (TPM)
Note I predicted this a year ago, luckily (?) with the way information
moves, it shouldn't take them 12 years to discover that extremism is
a losing strategy, the way it did with the Dems.
\_ You do know that McCain was about as left as you can go and still be
in the GOP, right?
\_ You don't know what left means do you?
\_ I think that Guliani and Schwartzenner are both more liberal,
actually. Other than immigration policy and campaign finance
reform, McCain was pretty solidly conservative, right?
reform, McCain is pretty solidly conservative, right?
\_ I don't think McCain held many non very conservative views. That
was not his appeal. |
| 2008/11/12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:51946 Activity:nil |
11/12 http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/12/republicans_for_a_reason lulz. |
| 2008/11/11-13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:51906 Activity:low |
11/11 Ronald Reagan is my hero.
\_ Did you know about his support of California's lovely Proposition
14? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_14
\_ My hero! -landowner and landlord, love prop 13 and 14
\_ Yup. He won in two landslide elections.
\_ You are aware of the blatant racism involved in the prop. 14
campaign, and that the supremes overturned it in '67 anyway?
\_ if I'm a landlord, I could care less. Go Pete Wilson!
\_ What does Pete Wilson have to do with the '60s? Oh
I see, you are just a dumb troll.
\_ Maybe you're too young to remember this but Pete
Wilson was a racist and people loved him for
Prop 187. YES ON PROP 187 Pete.
http://members.tripod.com/~cochiseguardian/NEWS/WilsonDefImmStance020503.html
\_ ofc not, he's a troll.
\_ Yup. He won in two landslide elections, better than how Clinton
did in his two.
\_ But Obama just won a larger percentage of the vote than Reagan
in '80.
\_ "Gov't should protect people from each other but not from
themselves." Also you gotta love how he ordered the nat'l guard
to open fire on the UCB protesters.
\_ "So you wanna be treated like a communist, huh hippie?"
\_ You're an idiot, but you're not alone. That doesn't mean you're
not an idiot. |
| 2008/11/6-13 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:51864 Activity:nil |
11/6 How a photographer can change opinion, subtlely via lighting,
composition, contrast, color:
http://strobist.blogspot.com/2008/11/vote-and-consider-uplighting.html
\_ A couple years ago someone posted a link on motd which was a
headshot of Dubya taken with a wide-angle lens at close-up distance.
He looked stupid in that picture. The photog did it on purpose
according to the poster. |
| 2008/11/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:51829 Activity:nil |
11/4 Jim Moran (VA representative)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJyS1WJNisM
"We've been guided by a Republican administration who believes in the
simplistic notion that people who have wealth are entitled to keep it."
\_ Shut up, go away, election almost over, we're sick of you, etc.
\_ I just can't believe how idiotic this guy's statement is. -op
\_ So, rich people ought not to be more responsible for the societal
machinery which defends and protects that wealth?
\_ False dichotomy.
\_ Well, Obama is just putting the tax code to back what it was
under Reagan, not 100% confiscation, and if the tax level was
good enough for Reagan, why isn't it good enough for the GOP
today?
\_ Liar. That's the spin, but not reality. Here's Neil Cavuto
calling yer crap:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzUxjF1X_28
\_ Ah yes, Neil Cavuto, unbiased that he is.
\_ Oh, yah you're right. I'll ignore his facts because
I disagree with his opinions. <facepalm> |
| 2008/10/21-11/6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:51608 Activity:high |
10/21 SOCIALISM
\_ WELFARE STATE
\_ ...FOR THE RICH
\_ JEWISH-BACKED ISLAMISTS
\_ why are Republican strategists on tv always old white guys?
\_ You're forgetting psychotic but hot MILFs (c.f. Michele
Bachmann)
\_ you're right, but i'm talking about guys who describe their
jobs as 'republican strategist'. at least Bachmann has
a day job.
\_ I grew up in the 80s. Capitalism has done nothing good. The
lack of central command to direct basic things such as housing,
transportation, utility, etc makes everything suck. In addition
there is too much greed resulting in fraud everywhere. Fuck
Reaganomics, it is not working. I never prospered from Reaganomics
and neither did my family. Fuck capitalism. I welcome
New World Socialism any time.
\_ Yes, command economies like former USSR are so superior.
\_ I suppose you don't support the bail out at all.
\_ {$HUMOR}
\_ Let's talk about how much money an average American owes
vs. how much money an average Russian saved. Actually,
let's just talk about the National Deficit.
\_ No, but command economies like the US military in the 80s
was superior. I love me them base PX prices.
\_ ha i grew up on the PX too.
\_ Yeah, let's nationalize all the dot-coms. Better, let's do that
retroactively, and make all those (ex-)employees who benefited
from stock options turn in their profit to the goverment.
\_ Seems like the problem is corruption in general, and I don't
think socialism will resolve that. A more vigilent populace
may.
\_ Yes? What about it? Young people today with nothing to lose
but everything to gain from Socialism, embrace it. We're
tired of having sucky infrastructures and unfairness.
Let us all embrace socialism.
\_ Why do you think they have nothing to lose?
\_ Read Prop 13 history and ramifications
\_ I presume you are free-market type. Please do tell me you
oppose the 700 billion bail out package. Please tell me you
do support the abolishment of
- SEC
- FDIC
- FDA
- minimum wage
- child labor law
- ban on human trafficking
and let the invisible hand does everything.
\_ Excellent straw man sir!
\_ You know, I'd say 8 of the top 10 nicest countries to
live in in the world are socialist.
\_ The three TIE fighters move in on Luke. As Vader's center fighter
unleashes a volley of laserfire, one of the TIE ships at his side
is hit and explodes into flame. The two remaining ships continue
to move in.
\_ Which are the other two? Switzerland and Singapore?
\_ Wow, I think this is the most efficent troll I have ever
seen. Bravo!
\_ Seconded. It takes the Art of Troll to the next level. Kudos!
\_ Key word: socialism
\_ BUD DAY doesn't like your tone. Obviously you've never
served. |
| 2008/10/12-15 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:51481 Activity:nil |
10/12 How the GOP used "Star Wars" to rip off the taxpayer:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/washington/12missile.htm |
| 2008/10/3-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:51360 Activity:nil |
10/3 Palin blatantly misappropriates Reagan quote:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/raising-the-white-flag-of-surrender-to-medicare |
| 2008/9/20-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:51243 Activity:nil |
9/20 "There isn't one grain of anything in the world that is sold in a free
market. Not one! The only place you see a free market is in the
speeches of politicians. People who are not in the Midwest do not
understand that this is a socialist country."
--Dwayne Orville Andreas, CEO of Archer Daniels Midland
http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/1995/07/carney.html |
| 2008/9/16-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:51196 Activity:kinda low |
9/16 I'm confused on this one. Obama's campaign denies that he pressed
Iraqi's to delay security agreement by confirming it. Huh?
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hi9TDNHvuBZpFsO8ZbiFYsnbIl3A
\_ Isn't this what Nixon did?
\_ I'm not sure of the history on that one. -op
\_ Ah, I've heard this charge before. As far as I know it's just
speculation, and there is no proof. Besides, is Nixon really
the role model you want for the next president?
\_ http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/080900-01.htm
Reagan did the same thing with Iran when they were holding
American hostages. At least Obama is negotiating with aj
nominal ally.
\_ Errr... kinda? This should sink Obama's hopes for
presidency, as it would have for Nixon. I would
hope no one here would think this is OK. |
| 2008/9/14-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:51165 Activity:nil |
9/14 LEH bailout fails; to file for bankruptcy tonight.
MER bought by BAC (firewall).
Central bank liquidity fund coming online.
Guys: Multi-year global credit deleveraging. Nasty shit.
It's your money though, so do with it what you will.
\_ "But great as our tax burden is, it has not kept pace with public
spending. For decades we have piled deficit upon deficit,
mortgaging our future and our children's future for the temporary
convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to
guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic
upheavals." -Ronald Reagan
\_ "Deficits don't matter. Reagan proved that." -Dick Cheney |
| 2008/9/9-14 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:51115 Activity:nil |
9/9 Liberals keep talking about how Palin is loud, annoying, obnoxious.
Liberals hate candidates with big egos & obnoxious personality.
You know what? That's exactly what conservatives vote for. Palin is
playing the Ronald Reagan card... fuck all issues and just look
nice on TV and be bright and be seen. The Ronald Reagan card is
wins 48% of the votes, and is exactly what will get candidates
into office. Sorry liberals, you just don't get it.
\_ What sort of troll are you?
\_ Right. If the Dems "got it," they'd remind people that:
--McCain divorced his first wife, a former swim-wear model, after
she was horribly disfigured in a car accident.
\_ Dude are you serious? URL?
\_ actually this is true. while McCain was in POW camp,
his wife was in a terrible car accident that required
25+ surgeries that left her 4 inches shorter. she didn't
tell him this while he was in POW camp, figuring he was
suffering enough. when he got back to the states,
he divorced her, and soon married the rich Arizona heiress.
\_ Who was young enough to be his daughter.
\_ The Daily Mail is a horrible rag, and yet I think they
managed to capture the outrage pretty accurately on this:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6gbzhw (Daily Mail)
\_ According to the article, he got back to the US in 1973,
and divorced her in 1980. So it's a pretty big stretch
to say he divorced her because of the accident. -tom
\_ Good point. It's more accurate to say that he was
running around on her, chasing other women, and that
he divorced her to marry a rich and pretty younger
trophy wife.
--McCain called his second wife a cunt.
How dare they take the high road!
\_ The cunt story is dumb. If you've ever been in a relationship
you'll know that there are sometimes ugly fights. The divorce
stuff does, however, say something about McCain.
\_ Frankly, what the guy says in privacy (or at least in hushed
tones) doesn't particularly matter to me. Saying it in public
just makes me wince. It _is_ dumb; he ought to know better. |
| 2008/9/4-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:51064 Activity:nil |
9/4 Michael Reagan compares Palin to his Dad with, IMHO unintentional,
hilarious effect. http://csua.org/u/m9f |
| 2008/8/30-9/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:51009 Activity:nil |
8/30 The Myth of the Tragedy of the Commons
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/angus250808.html
\_ http://www.monthlyreview.org/builditnow.htm
Socialism NOW! Fuck GWB and Reagan type of capitalism. |
| 2008/8/21-29 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:50937 Activity:nil |
8/22 I'm not sure how much of his failure to recollect is McCain joking or
not. My dad is 72, and while I love him, there is no way I'd want
someone that age running the white house. I recognize that as being
"ageist" or whatever, but president is a pretty fucking demanding job.\
Remember how hands-off shit got with Reagan the second term?
\_ Saddleback debate.
\_ Lets get rid of anyone over 30. Cf. Logan's Run!
\_ While that might help with the population problem, I don't
think it would help enough, and you're not ridding the Earth
of the people who contribute more to the population problem.
(People under 30 have most of the kids.) |
| 2008/7/25-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:50688 Activity:nil |
7/25 Are these the kind of Conservatives that liberals should be paying
attention to? I think I am going to buy the book. -liberal
http://preview.tinyurl.com/64v8oy
\_ I dunno, it looks pretty wishy washy to me. |
| 2008/7/18-23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:50620 Activity:nil 54%like:50612 |
7/17 More hypocrisy from Al Gore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESxvY1tQHTo
[Promo/hit piece from Americans for Prosperity]
\_ It's pretty tough being Al Gore. On one hand, he wants to get
his message across. On the other hand, it is extremely difficult
to get his message across without violating his messages. On
one hand, I'd wish he would bike to conferences using a single
speed bicycle and wearing spandex. On the other hand, no one
really listens to hippies dressed in tie dye shirts shouting
"Global warming is here! Conserve!" Tough position man. What
would you do in his position?
\_ "This video is no longer available"
\_ works fine for me
\_ http://AmericansForProsperity.com has a picture of RONALD REAGAN
Oh yeah this is a GREAT message and a GREAT site RONNIE is
our GREAT HERO YES VOTE CONSERVATIVES NOW! Patriots unite!!!
\_ Translation: I feel really stupid for supporting this hypocrite,
ad hominem time!
\_ You're a conservative, why do you care what other people do
with their lives? As long as you are eco-conscious or can
help others become more eco-conscious, what do you care?
\_ Mainly just because it's annoying to have some hypocrite
harranging you. -!op
\_ Al Gore is trying to get policies enacted to force me to act in
a way that he himself doesn't. It's clear that he doesn't
actually believe in his global warming hoax since he doesn't even
do a thing to live like he tries to tell the rest of us to live.
\_ WWAGD. Bwahaha http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=33#comments
\_ Al Gore is 10 times the leader that Dubya is. Too bad the Supreme
Court selected Bush. |
| 2008/7/16-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:50588 Activity:moderate |
7/15 Provisions to tighten regulation over Fannie and Freddy. Whatever
happened to GWB and Reagan's FREE MARKET economy and the
new OWNERSHIP SOCIETY???
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25686589/page/2
\_ The macs are gov't partnerships with business--what has that to do
with free market?
\_ Plenty! Previous sarcastic poster, the free market/ownership
society doesn't work very well if we are in a global
depression. I think everyone recognizes this.
\_ "Everyone?" Really, even the motd.libertarians? If so,
this would be a mighty sea change. Is this true, libertarians?
\_ official libertarian nutjob position: the free market would
work perfectly in a global depression, if only the
government would stop meddling. -tom
\_ No, I think a global depression is a natural
phenomenon and a healthy thing. Why would you want to
stop it?
\_ You obviously haven't studied the 1930s where
people were starving on the streets while the
capitalists lived off of nice steaks everyday.
I wish you'd get laid off by JPL one day. Your
f***ing IT job is worthless at JPL, FYI.
fucking IT job is worthless at JPL, FYI.
\_ And how the government's random lumbering economic
policies made that very depression longer?
\_ I think monetary policy is a good thing for social
reasons but can result in a suboptimal economic
result. BTW, you have no idea what I do at JPL.
Hint: I don't work under the CIO.
I'm glad I've upset you, though. I always
wanted my own following bitch. --dim
\_ And you haven't studied the Soviet Union. This
kind of comparison is pointless and stupid.
\_ and of course it's healthy because it proves the
strength of the free market! -tom
\_ One nice thing about the free market is that
it will course correct itself. Certainly it
is preferred to a planned economy. The free
market would have never given us Iraq. It
took an inept government you trust completely
to do that kind of economic damage.
\_ "that's not starvation and famine, it's the
free market course correcting itself!" -tom
\_ Imagine if every dollar spent in Iraq
had been spent by the free market
rather than Big Government.
\_ Iraq was and is a major clusterfuck,
but that's irrelevant to the question
of whether global depression is
"healthy." Stop trying to change the
subject. -tom
\_ Actually, it's not irrelevant.
Do you trust the free market to
allocate resources or do you
trust Big Government to do so?
In the former case you sometimes
have market corrections. In the
latter case you have Iraq. Which
one results in a healthier economy
long-term? Which one is morally
superior?
\_ I believe in a mixed economy, as
do all non-whackjobs. Some things
are better allocated centrally
and some by a market system.
Morality is a pretty personal
thing, but I believe in a mixed
economy morally as well, since
both extremes cause huge amounts
of human sufferring, when tried.
\_ Your dichotomy is false. War is
not a function of "Big Government";
it's largely a function of
resources. Let's say that
current trends continue, and oil
and food prices continue to go
through the roof. Poorer countries
like those in Latin America will
be more heavily impacted than
the U.S. The real free market
solution to the problem would
be for the Latinos to move to
the wealthy U.S. The libertarian
nutjob solution is to build a
bigger wall, because "a primary
function of government is to
protect property rights."
Obviously the situation is
untenable; the "free" market
will cause a war due to resource
scarcity. Rwanda, Somalia are
not the result of Big Government.
-tom
\_ Actually, I would say their
governments are most to blame.
\_ of course you would. -tom
\_ So you blame the
citizenry? Way to go!
\_ you really enjoy
putting words in
other people's mouths,
but you're not very
good at it. -tom
\_ Look, Tom. What
other option is
there? Either
it's the fault
of the gov't or
the citizenry.
Care to name
your mysterious
3rd party? Zuul?
\_ Maybe you should put
more words into your
own mouth instead
of being so evasive.
If not the gov't or
the citizens then
who? Zuul?
I think it is primarily _/
the afteraffects of
colonialism, which for
this discussion was
perpetrated by both
government and market
actors. -!tom
\_ I would have to say colonialism is almost
exclusively perpetuated by governments.
Even the East India Company was basically a
front for government interests. However,
\- this is mostly not a meaningful
statement but is mostly wrong
before the East India Act.
\_ Well it is 100% correct
after the Act and "mostly
wrong" means "partly
right". I think it's
debatable. Certainly EIC
wasn't your basic corporation.
\- "ObLandWarAsia"
I think what you want to look
into is "mercantilism".
somewhat interesting note in re:
your somewhat humorous first
sentence: at one point coca cola
was more or less going to buy
the country formerly known as
British Honduras [slight exag-
geration ... it was pretty much
going to be privatized].
In re: below ... you may want to
read about how belgian colonialism
int the congo changed when it went
from being a personal possession
of the king to a state colony.
I think there's more blame to direct at the
current corrupt and petty governments.
I think Africa, as a whole, would
benefit more from being run by corporate
interests than corrupt governments. In
fact, corporate investment in Africa is
probably the the easiest path to salvation
probably the easiest path to salvation
just like it is in Afghanistan, Iraq,
and other troubled regions. To really
mess things up you need to get
governments involved.
governments involved. Governments are
irrational.
\_ I love this line of argument:
1) Assert that free markets produce
optimal results.
2) Conclude that anywhere sub-optimal
conditions exist, it is the fault
of the government, by point 1. QED.
Soon followed by:
3) To explain the existence of the
sub-optimal condition, reverse-
engineer an untestable hypothesis,
usually based on government's
response to the sub-optimal
condition (i.e., "we wouldn't have
gun crime if it weren't for gun
control" or "the banking crisis is
caused by FDIC insurance encouraging
banks to take more risks.")
-tom
\_ I notice you still haven't
defined your position. Why am I
not surprised.
\_ What position? I certainly
feel that someone who uses
a machete to kill a person
whose family he knows, must
be significantly culpable for
that act. -tom
\_ Governments are irrational? Only somone who
has never worked in the private sector could
say such a thing. Do you think businesses
are rational?
has never worked in the private sector
could say such a thing. Do you think
businesses are rational?
\_ Ones that manage to compete are, yes.
\_ Do you think that the military
is irrational and poorly run?
\_ It's one of the best examples
of an irrational and poorly run
government entity. |
| 2008/7/15-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50579 Activity:nil |
7/15 How the government cooks economic statistics (great article by
Kevin Phillips)
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/05/0082023
\- YMWTGF(cambridge forum kevin philips) |
| 2008/7/8-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:50498 Activity:nil |
7/8 Economic data fudging by the government:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/5ol574 [madconomist.com]
\_ I liked this: Soviet Collapse Lessons
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6gw4ax
\_ I liked this one as well.
\_ Where does this site come from? |
| 2008/7/8-10 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:50496 Activity:nil |
7/7 The Failures of Neoliberalism:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6xwgsg
\_ That link goes to the Reiser-body article.
\_ http://dailystaregypt.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=14905
Someone must have "edited" it. |
| 2008/7/8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Finance/Investment] UID:50492 Activity:nil |
7/7 The Failures of Neoliberalism:
http://dailystaregypt.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=14905 (Stiglitz) |
| 2008/6/17-20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:50284 Activity:high |
6/17 Obama the Marxist
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3qxoqt [wsj.com]
"Globalization and technology and automation all weaken the position of
workers," he said, and a strong government hand is needed to assure
that wealth is distributed more equitably.
\_ Highly unequal wealth is generally considered bad. In the past
the government of the united states WAS concerned when regular wages
stayed stagnant or dropped while the upper 1% gained a higher
percentage of the pie. That's not Marxism, no matter what your
Libritarian echo chamber says.
\_ Grive me Librity or grive me Dreath!
\_ Thank god, I can't wait to see tax rates go to pre-Reagan
era. Fuck globalization and trickle down to China economy,
it was a dumb idea in the beginning, and a complete
disaster in practice.
\_ Sorry but you're either incredibly stupid or ignorant if you
want to go back to the Carter era economy. Compared to then,
this is a golden time for the economy for rich, middle class,
and poor. Or wait, there's a third option I forgot: you're
a troll which is why you keep mentioning Reagan; you're looking
to draw someone out on how great Reagan was or something.
\_ Real average hourly wages peaked in the early 70s.
\_ Real average hourly wages peaked in the late 70s.
\_ You gonna support the shit you just made up from
your ass, liberal?
\_ What shit? That in the Carter era we had double digit
inflation, we voted in prop 13 to save people from
outrageous property taxes and that the country was
headed downhill in a huge way as stated by Carter
himself in a major speech? If you don't know those
things then as I said you're either ignorant, a troll,
or just plain dumb. I'm pretty sure you're a troll.
\_ Facts are such bitter things when you are a Conservative:
\_ Facts are such bitter things when you are a
Conservative:
link:preview.tinyurl.com/3w79k5
From article at:
http://www.demos.org/inequality/numbers.cfm
\_ "Public programs that enrich..." Looks like a
socialist advocacy group. Try the Cato Institute
web site if you want to convince me. -pp
\_ Yes, the BLS is such a biased org. So you only
accept facts authorized by the Authorized
accept facts approved by the Authorized
Conservative Statistical Institute? How Stalinist
of you. An overwhelming body of evidence points to
three decades of stagnate wages for the middle
three decades of stagnant wages for the middle
class. Amazing that you have somehow missed it.
\_ Cato Institute > Heritage Foundation, but not by
much.
\_ So, what, you are against technology and automation?
Let's all go back to stone age tech. Let's redistribute all
resources equally to everyone! Actually no, fuck that.
Poor people should have fewer kids.
\_ You're entitled to your extreme thought processes and
belief as do I. -fuck Reagan
\_ You're entitled to your extremely bad grammar.
\_ I'm entitled to have 100 kids because I'm winning
the genetic pool race. PS my kids have US
citizenship, nah nah nah nah nah -fuck Reagan
\_ Believe it or not the world isn't binary. Marxism is one
extreme, yes. However that doesn't mean, say, Pell
grants are Marxist. But Pell grants do have a good track
record of increasing social mobility and in doing so
decreasing the inqequality of wealth. A large, desperately
poor, increasingly hopeless segment of the population is
something any government wants to avoid if it wants to
prosper.
\_ I don't want the government to prosper. I want the
people and the country as a whole to prosper. Providing
some education assistance (or a more reasonably priced
educational price at each institution would really be
more helpful) is helpful. Raising taxes on everyone
and flushing more money down the drain is not helpful
to anyone unless you're one of those government employees
sucking the life out of the rest of us who earn our living
the traditional way: working.
\_ duhhh what? hmmm your dumb
\_ thank you for adding zero content.
\_ Raising taxes on everyone is not good. Raising taxes
on the wealthiest as the income gap continues to
grow makes a lot of sense. Hint: no one earns $1bn
strictly through "working."
\_ No. The folks making tens and hundreds of millions
are mostly hedge fund manger and other NYC financial
types who are taxed at the cap gains rate instead of
the income rate where they belong. That is the only
place you need to change the tax code if you want a
fairer tax on the truly rich. But slamming people
who make $100k in this area with a higher tax rate
because they are 'rich' is just stupid and harmful
to the economy. Raising taxes across the board is
not going to cause economic prosperity.
\_ Agreed. Making income>$1m level pay their fair
share, though, might. $100k is not filthy rich
anymore. --pp
\_ Obama wants to raise taxes on people who make
over $250k, not $100k. If he means family
income, I am screwed, but if he means personal
income, I am still under that.
\_ Screwed? Just how exactly are you "screwed"
if you pay more tax on your $250k?
\_ The dead hand of The State will force me to
quit being productive, drink cheap wine and
die of alcoholism.
\_ I agree, my grandfather worked hard so his descendants
could have the best of everything. Why should I let the
mean old government, at the point of a gun, take away
everything he sacrificed for, just so some truck
driver's son can get some education he will just throw
away anyway.
away anyway. -truck driver's son
\_ Hey, Obama wants to eliminate capital gains taxes on start-ups!
Now that's a Marxism I can get behind.
\_ What is his definition of "start-ups"? |
| 2008/5/16-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:49979 Activity:nil |
5/1 Huckabee's lame Obama joke
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/huckabee-jokes.html
\_ He might have been referring to this:
http://www.banhandgunsnow.org/everyhandgun/index.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5582268
http://preview.tinyurl.com/4fvb83 [democratic underground] |
| 2008/5/13-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:49936 Activity:nil |
5/13 Ronald Reagan is GOD. -Conservative
\_ Blasphemy. Ronald Reagan was a Prophet. |
| 2008/5/1-5 [Finance/Banking, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:49863 Activity:nil |
4/30 Youtube video on $600 stimulus check costing you -$900/year for a
$200K mortgage (assuming you're getting a stimulus check)
http://www.tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=42476
\_ Don't worry, oil will be tax-free for a while!!! Americans
rejoice!
\_ This video is over 30 seconds, or 100x times over the threshold
of an average American's attention span, and therefore, is a
very ineffective message. Secondly, he's using 4th grade
math, which is beyond the comprehension of 90% of the Americans,
and therefore, this is a very ineffective message. Thirdly,
he's trying to persuade people using logic instead of good
looks and charm (Ronald Reagan), and therefore, this is a very
\_ JFK
ineffective message.
\- i watched about 2min of that video. it is stupid. he spends
all his time on arithmetic rather than economics. the question
is "what will be the macroeconomic effects of the 'stimulus'
plan". why dont you look for something about this by brad delong,
paul krugman, even that semi-evil, smug greg mankiw, CBO etc.
paul krugman, even that semi-evil, smug greg mankiw etc
[i am assuming in the latter 2min of the video he doesnt talk
about velocity of money, balance of payments etc]. of more
relevance to mortgages is the part of the bill relating to
conforming loans ... but again, the actual effect of changing
the conforming loan cap is complicated].if we take "well known
borderline communist" lawrence lindsay's estimate for cost of the
iraq war in 2008 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lindsey]
it will add more to the deficit than the stimulus, if you use
the CBO's estimate. And of course the 2009 cost of the one time
stimulus drops dramatically ... you think the 2009 cost of the
iraq war will be <$20bn? the interest on the debt is already
more than twice the cost of the stimulus etc.
about velocity of money, balance of payments etc.] |
| 2008/4/22-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49798 Activity:nil |
4/21 President Bush now has highest disapproval rating in the history of
Gallup poll. Previous record holder was Harry Truman in the depths
of the Korean War. Numbers are 28% approval, 69% disapproval.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-04-21-bushrating_N.htm
\_ Still 66% approval rating amongst Republicans baby!
If Democrats and Independents had the same loyalty as Republicans,
they'd rule by now.
\_ BDS
\_ eh?
\_ Mission Accomplished!
\_ Why are we still talking about Bush? He is irrelevant now.
He can't lower taxes further. He can't start another war.
\_ actually i think he could!
He can't save the housing market. He can't lower fuel prices.
His credibility is low and no one's really listening to him.
He can still veto but wrt new actions/initiatives, he's pretty
useless.
\_ The crapitude of W Bush is still relevant because he is the
winner of the last two elections and now we have another
election. It's worth thinking about how and why he got
elected. Twice. He also happens to still be the president.
\_ He is a great stick to beat the GOP with, especially since
a majority of Republicans still think he is doing a great job.
\_ Causality. Is he still getting 66% approval from R
because he's doing a great job? Or is he getting 66%
approval from R because the R party is great and loyal?
It's more of the latter. As Ronald Reagan the
God of the R said one, thou shall never speak ill of
thy friend, family, and affiliates.
\_ He can also start a war with Iran, which he seems hellbent on
doing. |
| 2008/3/25-28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:49565 Activity:nil |
3/25 Nancy Reagan endorses McCain!
\_ I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell you.
\_ More and more I wonder which McCain we're going to get. |
| 2008/3/24-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49548 Activity:nil |
3/24 An honest dialogue about race
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=9955
\_ I see very little honesty there. |
| 2008/3/18-21 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:49486 Activity:high |
3/18 Full text of Obama's "pastor" speech. Whatever else you might think,
this is moving stuff. I guess you can either choose to believe it
or not.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/full_text_of_obamas_big_race_s.php#more
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU
\_ Not only do I not think it's moving, I think it's a cynical
side-step.
\_ That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. However, I think
the bulk of people who would consider voting for Obama at all
will consider it brave, principled, and devout. He may be doomed
by the Idiocracy that only thinks in 5 second sound bites,
but he probably would never win with these folks anyway. Whether
they may make up 50% + 1 of the electorate remains to be seen.
\_ My original response to you was nuked. On the assumption that
it wasn't you that nuked it, let me ask, in what way did you find
it cynical, exactly?
\_ He will make a great President. My father still talks about JFK
and how much me moved a generation, we are going to finally see
and how much he moved a generation, we are going to finally see
something similar: a man of great charima, passion and intergrity
something similar: a man of great charima, passion and integrity
who is going to move America in a new and better direction.
\_ But... but... he's black! You know that those people are
all lazy shifty criminals who hate the white people and want
payback! My god, HE HATES AMERICA! AND SO DO YOU!
\_ I just got back from a two-week vacation in Australia. Every
conversation longer than five minutes that I had with Aussies
turned to the US Dem Primaries. There's a lot of hope/interest
in Obama, even abroad. --erikred
\_ Fortunately the rest of the world does not vote for our
leaders.
\_ Your statement is difficult to unpack. Are you suggesting
that it is fortunate that the rest of the world does not
vote for our leaders, that it is fortunate that the rest
of the world has no say in the choosing of our leaders, or
that despite his popularity abroad, Americans are unlikely
to elect Obama?
\_ All three. I don't see a difference between A&B which
is what I meant when I posted, but C is also true, but
not because he is or is not popular with the rest of
the world. Americans as a whole don't vote on that
basis. The reason it is fortunate that non-citizens
do not vote is they would obviously vote for someone
best for their own country, not ours. I think it goes
without saying (although I'm saying it :)) that an
elected official in any office should represent the
interests of the voters/citizens, not random people
from some other country who have their own government
and election system.
\_ *shrug* I don't see how my initial statement that
there's a lot of hope/interest in Obama, even
abroad, led to your statement. Perhaps I'm just
still jetlagged. --erikred
\_ We'll try again later.
\_ After six years of Freedom Fries and calling our
allies names, our reputation abroad could use
some improvement.
\_ You're confused.
\_ What do you imagine that I might be confused
about? Do you think that our reputation abroad
has gone up under The Decider? Do you think
that our declining reputation is a good
thing?
\_ Historically JFK seems to have been a pretty poor president.
See "A Legacy of Ashes."
\_ I agree. Ronald Reagan is our hero.
\_ Not sure I agree entirely, since he only had 3 years in which
to work before he was shot. He did inspire a generation to
service and to get to the Moon. He did well in the Cuban
Missile Crisis, the closest we ever came to full on nuclear
war with Russia (imagine if LBJ had been prez for that).
Then again, he did get us further into Vietnam. Hard to
say.
s
\_ And he made it ok to go outside without a hat. That alone
is worth being a hero.
\_ It would be nice if people wore more hats. It's
also good for us guys with thinning hair.
\_ So you think that last year would've been pivotal? Or are
you saying it takes 2 full terms to matter?
\_ I'm just not sure. I don't think there is a hard and
fast rule. As an enduring postive symbol of America, I
think there's no question that he's had impact, just as
Reagan did and continues to do so - though Reagan's
second term wasn't exactly littered with great
accomplishments. I think to put him in the same
category as say, Garfield or Harding, is a mistake.
I don't think we can say for sure what he would have
gone on to accomplish, but I think it's fair to say
that the '60s would have been quite different without
the trauma of his assassination. Talk to boomers about
it - for a lot of them, it defined their lives.
\_ re: boomers. Absolutely. I 100% agree. OTOH, I
don't care that all those people remember where they
were and what color their socks were when they heard
he got shot. As a realist I only care what he (or
anyone else) did or did not accomplish. I'm not sure
I agree the 60s would have been any different though
if he had lived. The US would still have been hip
deep in Vietnam. The hippies would have hipped.
Free love would have been just as not-quite free.
Am I missing something?
\_ The Civil Rights Act.
\_ Uhm no. That was grass roots. Without the
marches, the water cannons, dogs, shootings,
lynchings and millions of Americans saying
"No!" the CRA would never have happened.
\_ Uhm no. You can perhaps argue that it would
have been signed sooner or later, but the
Montgomery bus boycott started 10 years
earlier. It took great political courage to
push through the CRA.
\_ People dying on the streets made it
happen, not some paper pushers in DC.
It took no courage to pass something
most of the country was in favor of
given what was going on in the south.
Politicians are by their very nature
not courageous creatures.
\_ What makes you think that a majority
of the country was in favor of it?
As LBJ said, it gave the South to
the GOP for at least a generation.
\_ Replace all references to Reverend Wright in that speech with
David Duke and you might get a feel for why I'm not that impressed.
\_ So you think the two are the same? Really? Are you insane?
\_ One's a white guy who hates black people, and the other is
a black guy who hates white people. What's the difference?
Enlighten me.
\_ The United Church of Christ doesn't burn crosses on
people's lawns.
\_ Uh, please show me where he hates white people. Seriously.
I've seen the videos. I don't see him shouting how
WHITEY MUST DIE.
\_ Which videos? I have yet to see a url that points me
to these videos.
\_ In other words, you're comparing David Duke, former
Grand Dragon of the KKK, an organization publically
and vocally dedicated to racism, to Rev. Wright, a
man whose views you only know through reports in
Right Wing Media? Dude, more research, please, before
opening mouth.
\_ Different person, moron.
\_ Wow, if only you'd signed your post, AC.
\_ It's pretty obviously a different person.
Sheesh. I signed as well as you did.
\_ 1) This obvious you speak of is not so
obvious.
2) I'm not the one who complained about
being mistaken for someone else. If
you really want to be differentiated,
sign your posts.
\_ I suppose it's only obvious if you
have an IQ over 12. I'll spell it
out for you. If you're discussing an
article/video, and post comes along
from someone who doesn't even know
there IS a video, it's probably not
from the same guy.
\_ And David Duke claims to not be racist, but that he is
"a racial realist defending human rights." So what?
I admit, I don't have a 'smoking gun' statement, I'm
just infering from his attitude and general distain for
'Amerikkka' and 'middleclassness.' (acting like whitey)
At the very least we know he is a conspiracy nut.
\_ Please document. Seriously. Because I have a
feeling your ass is getting very empty right now.
\_ You said you saw the videos. Perhaps they weren't
the same videos? You could also read the
church website, but it's been purged recently.
link:csua.org/u/l2c (church pdf) Or you could
read Obama's first book, "Dreams From My Father."
Perhaps you should not be insulting other's
research. I've obviously done more than you.
\_ Yup, it's totally empty.
\_ Keep deleting this if you want, but it
is still obvious your ass well is running dry.
\_ Are you kidding? I love it when people ask
for evidence, and when you give it to them,
they say "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU! LALALA!"
I admit, you win, I laughed first.
\_ There is no way any of the things you
are talking about come anyway close to
David Duke. In any way shape or form.
I'm sorry but this whole thing should
be a total non-story.
\_ I've heard some of his sermons on the
radio. There is no way that a) any
reasonable person can consider what he
said anything but racist and hateful
or b) that someone who knew the guy
for 20 years, called him mentor,
attended his church for 20 years and
had him as a campaign advisor has no
clue what the guy has been saying and
doesn't agree with at least some of
it. --someone else
\_ So I am supposed to take the word
of some anonymous motd hozer, in
the abscence of any evidence what-
soever? I am curious, are you one
of the guys who thought invading
Iraq was a good idea, too? If these
sermons are so racist, find the
text of one on the Net and share
it and let me decide for myself.
Your judgement is suspect to me.
\_ It took me 10 seconds to find
a pile of links. It took 10
more to find links from a
sufficiently left wing source
that you might accept them:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4443788&page=1
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4443230
I can't play the video but it
should be the live speech. If
not, you can easily find the
video or audio elsewhere. Have
a good evening.
\_ I looked at both of those
and watched the video. Which
quote exactly is the problem?
You had no idea what you were
talking about before and now
you can't find shit.
\_ Ok, now you're just
trolling. No reasonaable
human being can call that
anything but hateful.
\_ Were P Robertson and J
Falwell's musings on
"God removing his
protection on 9/11"
more or less "hateful"
in your beady little
mind?
\_ Which?
\_ It is about as "hateful"
as your average Rush
Limbaugh show or rant
from Ann Coulter, which
is to say, yes. Not
racist though, at least
it doesn't seem so to me.
is to say, yes somewhat.
Not racist though, at
least it doesn't seem
seem to me, a white guy.
so to me, a white guy.
\_ If Ann and Rush were
Obama's advisors and
friends of 20 years
they wouldn't get a
pass like Wright.
\_ Which is why
Ann can talk at
the RNC and call
Edwards a fagot
and the media
barely pays any
attention to
the story? Why
McCain can suck
up to a preacher
who calls the
Catholic church
Satanists and he
gets a pass? Why
Pat Roberston can
blame 9/11 on gays
and feminists and
still be sucked up
to by the
republican
machine? This is
whole thing is
bullshit. Obama
didn't say these
things but he
takes the hit.
Meanwhile major
rep. powers spew
tons more hate
regularly and
noone blinks.
How is being the subject of intense media _/
scrutiny and being the number one story in
newspapers all over the country qualify
as "getting a pass"? |
| 2008/2/27-3/4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49276 Activity:low |
2/26 Goodbye, Bill Buckley, you magnificent bastard.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080227/ap_on_re_us/obit_buckley
\_ Some of Buckley's vaginal orgasms:
Buckley vs. Gore Vidal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYymnxoQnf8
Buckley vs. Chomsky
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt-GUAxmxdk
\- good riddance.
\_ some low life here always wishes ill upon the dead. he's
gone. get over him. move on.
\- i am not sure what your point is, but let me elaborate
on mine:
Wm Buckley "mastered" the art of defending a self-serving
set of ideas in a forum he controlled. He looks smart
and shiney next to talk show hacks, and perhaps is
somebody you look up to when you mature from a
High School Randroid into a freshly card carrying
college republican. But a deep and original thinker
like say Robert Nozick? Hardly. Although Cheney makes
him look good. [and yes i know Conservatism != Randoidism]
\_ He's dead. Attacking dead people doesn't hurt them.
I'm concerned for your emotional and mental well being,
not WFB's reputation or feelings. It's unhealthy.
\_ You're joking, right? It's WFB. Some of his best friends
are still going to spit on his grave.
\_ Like who? URL?
\_ wow. i really want a "...Mr. Anderson" on that 2nd video
\_ http://www.csua.org/u/kxl (NY Times)
David Brooks on Buckley. |
| 2008/2/22-26 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:49217 Activity:nil |
2/22 So when will we know who'll be on the ballot for sure?
\_ After both conventions are over.
\_ Where the front runners don't have enough delegates in either
party and they appoint Reagan vs. Gore.
\_ Stocked up on crack again I see?
\_ Just because both men are dead is no reason they can't be
their party's candidate. Dead people vote. Why can't
they run for office? |
| 2008/2/22-25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49213 Activity:high |
2/21 Isn't it weird that assassinated or attempted assassinated
presidents are usually portrayed as good presidents in
media, books, etc? Do we EVER say bad things to people in their
obituaries? I mean, if president Nixon was assassinated, would
we say nicer things today?
\_ Well thank god no one tried anything funny on George W Bush,
otherwise he'd be known as a great President. -Democrat
\_ Counterexample: Gerald Ford. -tom
\_ listen up tom holub, the key word is usually
\_ I'm not sure Ford is a good example, his obits seem
positive:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/863634.stm
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2e9n3k (washingtonpost.com)
http://preview.tinyurl.com/y5yxvu (telegraph.co.uk)
And the only real "bad thing" I've ever heard
about Ford that I've heard (from non-kooks) is that
he was klutzy.
And the only really "bad thing" I've ever heard re
Ford (from non-kooks) is that he was klutzy.
\_ Ford was ineffectual. Obits are never negative; even
Nixon got transformed into a respected elder statesman. -tom
\- Notes on the Passing of an American Monster:
http://home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/Articles/Politics/NixonObit-HST.txt
There were plenty of negative comments upon the death
of the Indonesian Crook Suharto.
There were plenty of negative comments about
Benazir Bhutto. By Shashi Tharoor, William Darymple etc.
Not a pol but see: http://www.slate.com/id/2111506
YMWTFG(samuel johnson lapidary)
YMWTGF(samuel johnson lapidary)
You guys dont know what you are talking about.
\_ Nixon just looks better relative to the current disaster
in chief. They are both crooks but I don't remember Nixon
accused of being incompetent and/or intellectually stunted.
\- i have kind of a soft spot for nixon [and musharaf]
but it is kinda hard to compare W and RMN because
the time have changed. for example W would never make
the times have changed. for example W would never make
the kinds comments to Condi about being black as Nixon
did to SuperK about being jewish. but of course SAGENEW
never shot an old man in the face and then got him to
apologize to the country.
\_ I hear "A Legacy of Ashes" isn't kind to JFK, but I haven't read
it yet.
\_ key word: usually
\_ This may be the best motd meme since "obviously you've
never served."
\_ "Richard Nixon, hero of his age, began the long painful draw down
of troops which later led to the end of the Vietnam conflict, also
responsible for opening China to the West, ending the long cold war
with our former foe, he shall always be remembered as the greatest
American President of his era before he was assassinated by unknown
Democrats".
agents".
\_ Pinochet had some pretty mixed obituaries, but no I have never
seen a bad one for an assassinated US President. You might be
able to find one written by a foreign newspaper.
\_ I was in Santiago the day Pinochet died:
http://flickr.com/photos/tholub/365629145 -tom
\_ Reagan was attempted assassination, and supposedly he was a bad
president.
\_ He defeated an EVIL communist regime and his STAR WARS
legacy helped us advance our space programs. He is an
all American HERO and a nice looking actor.
\_ Thanks to Star Wars we got to shoot down a sattelite.
And the fact that the weather cooperated.
\_ ... and the fact that the satellite is in a lower
altitude than normal orbiting ones.
\_ But not lower than an ICBM. |
| 2008/2/14-18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:49148 Activity:kinda low |
2/14 Seriously, does a black man really have a chance against a more
experienced (though controversial) white Caucasian candidate?
Is America really ready for a black President?
\_ What is this "experience" that she and everyone keep talking
about?
\_ Is America ready for a 72 year old President?
\_ Reagan was 70-78 years old during his presidency.
\_ What is this "experience" that she keeps talking about?
\_ Someone had to mind the store while Bill was busy with
the staff.
\_ Given how people are talking when interviewed, this really
appears to have become a non-issue.
\_ Americans vote for charming winners that appeal to their hearts
while right wing people vote for smarties (or at least those
who seem annoyingly smug about their superier intelligence)
\_ Please tell me this
was edited after the fact.
http://csua.com/2008/02/04/#49061_
(stop deleting this asshat)
It's not about the policies, damnit.
\_ Oh look, it's Mr. MAINSTREAM AMERICA posting again.
\_ Really? I thought right wing was anti-smarty. It's the
liberals that always say they're the smart people.
Big city elites and all that.
\_ Rush always says that Democrats are a bunch of crack
smoking welfare moms. Does he mean welfare moms with
PhDs? Don't forget the illegals and lazy Union thugs.
Are these all supposed to be intellectuals?
\_ Think Presidents David and Wayne Palmer. But one hopes that
Michelle Obama is nothing like Sherry Palmer.
\_ I love conservatives. When it comes to policy, 'racism doesn't
exist anymore.' When it comes to candidates, 'OH NOES BLACK GUY
RUN FOR THE HILLS!'
\_ Why do you listen to Rush?
\_ After seeing Presidents David and Wayne Palmer in action,
America is totally ready for a black president. A black
first lady, however, is a different story. Hopefully Mrs.
Obama is nothing like Sherry Palmer.
\_ This country is not ready for a black president. This contry
isn't ready for a female president either. However, it is ready
for a moron president (http://www.presidentmoron.com |
| 2008/2/4-7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:49061 Activity:moderate |
2/4 Romney is very good looking. My inlaws are voting for him because
he reminds them of Ronald Reagan. They've always voted for winners
in the past and have been 100% accurate.
\_ Yeah? What do you think of them now, with Romney out of the
race? "Even a broken clock is right twice a day". Also,
if you have 1000 mutual funds playing the market, some of them
are going to have extraordinary winning streaks that are more
owed to randomness than to wisdom on the part of those running
the mutual fund.
\_ So now that Romney's out of it what's their accuracy rating? 50%?
\_ Good looking? They like how he looks? Or they like his policies?
\_ They like the way he carries himself. Ya know, charm,
confidence, modesty. Things that Americans care about.
\_ Sounds like your inlaws are going to be <100% accurate come Nov.
\_ Damn, so does this mean that a few years from now alcohol, coffee,
cigarettes, and diet coke will be outlawed, and everyone will
be allowed to have more than one wife?
\_ I'm not a Mormon but I'm against alcohol, cigarettes, and
gambling since they've had crippling effects on my family.
I don't care about diet coke or caffeine as they haven't
affected me personally. The multiple wife thing is a serious
issue since it'll create more desperate single restless
young men w/o a wife to whip them (e.g. hateful, restless
Middle East young men effect). I don't care about gay
marriage, religion, etc. In all I don't have anything
against Romney, and I may just end up voting for him.
-Undecided Independent
\_ I have no problem with people eschewing alcohol, cigarettes,
gambling, etc. on their own; I have a huge problem with them
telling me I shouldn't indulge those vices.
\_ No, but I hear he is planning on declaring a "War on Trolls."
Watch out!
\_ Wow, two time Bush voters? Your inlaws are smart folk!
\_ They're NOT smart, that's the whole thing. Americans vote
for charming winners that appeal to their hearts while
left wing people vote for smarties (or at least those
who seem annoyingly smug about their superier intelligence)
It's not about the policies, damnit.
\_ Oh I see, you're just trolling. Left-wing people are not
American?
\_ San Franciscan style left wing is not MAINSTREAM America |
| 2008/2/1-6 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:49049 Activity:kinda low |
2/1 Who should McCain add as VP?
\_ Ann Coulter, for full comedic value
\_ The mummified corpse of Ronald Reagan.
\_ Dick Cheney
\_ Lieberman
\_ Joe "Can I suck your Republican dick" Lieberman
\_ This is actually a good idea.
\_ Obama |
| 2008/1/23-31 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48991 Activity:low |
1/22 Sweet, Bush's stimulus package is nearly *twice as large* as the
one Clinton proposed in 1993, but couldn't get passed. Go
Bushonomics!
\_ So who are you blasting? Is it a good idea that was unfairly spiked
in 1993, so....Bush is bad?
\_ Dunno about op, but I find it to be more evidence of how BushCo
is lacking in principles, even ones I don't support. Morally
bankrupt doesn't do it justice.
\_ Wait, wasn't congress a majority D in 1993? What does this
have to do with BushCo? Okay, now checking:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/103rd_United_States_Congress
The D's had a majority in both houses and the presidency. How
does what they failed to pass mean anything wrt Bush?
\_ Clinton proposed a stimulus package that would have raised
the Deficit; har, har, snicker conservatives, typical Dem.
Bush proposes _twice as large_ stim package, yet pretends
to be fiscally conservative Rep in the tradition of Reagan.
The irony is enough to cure world-wide anemia.
\_ Reagan was never fiscally conservative.
Reagan == trickle down economics. High deficit spending
is not being fiscally conservative. Ron Paul is the
only current candidate promoting fiscal conservativism.
\_ Bush hasn't pretended to be fiscally conservative for a
long time. It's why he's lost a lot of his base. See
the thread from 1/18 on that very topic. -emarkp
\_ Now you're memorizing threads+date? Dang you're
a major motd-snob.
\_ more like a major motd-geek than a motd-snob.
\_ No, I'm not memorizing it, I just remember
mentioning it a few days ago. Checking the history
was easy. -emarkp
\_ Yes, you know that, I know that, lots of people
know that. He still keeps pretending.
\_ So the real story is that Clinton proposed an R idea, and a D
congress shot it down?
\_ The real story is that there are no conspiracies. It's all out
in the open.
\_ These economic stimulus packages are bogus and don't address the
fact that the economy is being hollowed out and the financial
system is out of control due to lack of any kind of regulation.
Out of control lending and speculation, twin deficits over a
trillion a year is setting up the system for collapse, all this
shit Bush and the Fed are doing is just delaying the inevitable.
\_ The important thing is delaying shit hitting the fan until
someone else takes over, then it's their problem.
\_ Yup -- the shit will hit the fan around 2010/2012 when
peak oil arrives so whatever party wins the election
will get one term and then get dumped (see Carter)
\_ You're totally nuts if you think Carter got kicked out
because of oil prices or economic events his
administration wasn't mostly responsible for. Maybe
you also heard of this little thing called The Iran
Hostage Crisis? Are you old enough to remember the
daily count-up on the news reminding us yet another
day had gone by while our people were held by a
foreign power while Carter stood around with two thumbs
up his ass telling us how America should get used to
being a third rate power? Sheesh. I could go on but
there's no point.
\_ I had forgotthen how Reagan solved the Iran hostage
crisis in the first 5 minutes of his Presidency ...
\_ I'm sure you forgot because it has nothing at all
to do with anything I said about Carter. Nice
try.
\_ PEEK OIL!!!!11!!
\_ Yeah, we got to this point for a reason. Cutting the rate
more and spending more is just digging the hole deeper. Maybe
it will prop up housing again for a while with more cheap credit.
\_ Isn't the economy more than twice as large today?
\_ Not even close. It's like ~9:13. 1:1.7 in real dollars.
(According to US budget tables.)
\_ Is Bush's budget stimulus twice as large in real dollars
or nominal dollars? In nominal dollars the economy is
almost exactly twice as big:
http://www.forecasts.org/data/data/GDP.htm
\_ For some reason I was comparing against 2000. You're
right about nominal dollars vs. 1993. But in real dollars
it's still only like 33% bigger. Hooray for inflation.
And that also assumes the government CPI shit is accurate.
(I'll let the op figure out whatever he was referring to.) |
| 2007/11/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:48584 Activity:kinda low |
11/8 Character counts. Kerry has no character. Neither do any of the Ds.
\_ Ah, astoundingly useless statement. Hey, how bout "All R's are
corrupt!" You sound like the twat you are.
\_ again this is why liberals don't win. they think intelligence
and reasoning win votes. Nooooooo. It's all in the CHARACTER.
Case in point, Ronald Reagan. It didn't matter what policy
he had. The smile, the tone, the confidence... CHARACTER COUNTS.
\_ Seesh, you fell for that lame-o strawman troll? Idiot. -!op
\_ It's a slow night. |
| 2007/9/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:47901 Activity:nil |
9/5 'A moment I've been dreading. George brought his ne're-do-well son
around this morning and asked me to find the kid a job. Not the
political one who lives in Florida. The one who hangs around here
all the time looking shiftless. This so-called kid is already almost
40 and has never had a real job. Maybe I'll call Kinsley over at The
New Republic and see if they'll hire him as a contributing editor or
something. That looks like easy work.' The REAGAN DIARIES -May 17, 1986 |
| 2007/8/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:47770 Activity:high |
8/27 Surprising facts: ppl with children are no happier than those who
don't, retirees no happier than workers, pet owners no happier than
those without pets, etc etc. Also, R happier than D, the young are
less happy than the middle-aged and old, suburbanites are happier
than city folks.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/301/are-we-happy-yet
\_ Why is any of this surprising? Every choice has plusses and
minuses.
\_ You do end up happier if you're married, though, on average.
How about that, BDG? |
| 2007/8/2-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:47519 Activity:nil |
8/2 U.S. highway system badly in need of repair. No funding!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20095291/from/RS.4
\_ Ronald Reagan is proud of his tax cuts.
\_ Reagan is dead. He is not proud of anything. 2007.
\_ Obviously, the hgihway system is one of the many government fat
that needs to be cut and privatized. There is no need to raise
tax. Free market will solve the problem. -Conservative
\_ Don't worry, President Guiliani will protect us from the
Terra-rists....
\_ Now that the majority of the budget is just wealth transfer, how do
you expect to pay for roads?
\_ You aint seen nothin yet! Wait til you start getting charged a
carbon use tax on everything you buy. |
| 2007/7/8-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:47223 Activity:nil |
7/8 Its all Mr. Roger's Fault:
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118358476840657463.html
\_ Mr. Roger is like Ronald Reagan. Nice guy & well mannered.
However, as good as their intentions were, the long term
positive impact of their actions are in question. |
| 2007/7/6-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:47205 Activity:low |
7/6 Forget about the first female future president or the first minority
future president. Here's the first white male future president in
110 years.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070627/ap_on_re_us/mr_pta
\_ 'Susan Bailey of Wellesley Centers for Women at Wellesley College
said the election of a man to the PTA's top post is "exactly the
kind of thing we would hope would happen more often."'
Wouldn't it be great if the average American voter could say the
same thing about a female or minority POTUS?
\_ Forget the 'First' anything. The first minority was already elected
when Kennedy got in, btw. I don't give a fig about 'First XYZ'
based on color or gender. I want honest, competent people in
office who give a shit, not power mad selfish people who just might
also happen to be a 'First' or not and I don't care what their
'party' is. Currently not seeing anyone running who fits the
description though, sadly. That would be my 'First': honest,
competent, not there for their ego or the personal power, looking
out for Americans first, not the rest of the world before the
people who elected them.
\_ But ask the average joe whether he thinks Kennedy is a minority.
Look at the Irish community in SF. Their need as a minority
group has been largely ignored.
\_ Ask anyone at the time if Kennedy was a minority. It was a
*huge* big deal at the time and everyone said there was no
way a Catholic could get elected and the country just wasn't
ready for a Catholic POTUS. I'm not sure what your point is
about SF Irish.
\_ Like you said, "at the time". The average joe nowadays
knows more about Paris Hilton's sex life than about US
history.
\_ It doesn't matter if it was 'at the time' and no longer
true. The fact that Kennedy was the 'First' Catholic
puts to rest all further claims of 'a Catholic can
never be elected POTUS' because obviously that is not
true *after* Kennedy was elected. This isn't a history
quiz and has nothing to do with what the average joe
knows about Kennedy. I don't understand why you bring
that up. I still want an honest, competent person in
office of any race/gender/whatever/bullshit and I'm not
getting it. Being a female, a minority, a Catholic, a
white, a black, a purple, or anything else does not
make for a better -or- worse POTUS. The content of
their character is what matters, not the color of their
skin.
\_ Romney. Extremely competent, detail oriented, and honest.
http://economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9441455 |
| 2007/7/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:47158 Activity:nil |
7/3 http://www.conservapedia.com/Ronald_Wilson_Reagan "Ronald Wilson Reagan (February 6, 1911- June 5, 2004), considered by many (us conservatives) to be one of the greatest American Presidents." \_ Your point? |
| 2007/5/21-24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:46713 Activity:low |
5/19 I think Carter was a wimp. I read the blackhawk down guy book and
I think he tried to form a reasonable response to the Iran hostage
crisis, but he just couldn't get it together. Whether it was
the incoming Reagan administration's fault, remains a conspiracy
buff's dream. That being said, the Iraq War fuckup is like
8 million times worse. Goddamn Bush.
\_ I'm sorry to see what I figured for a weak troll get any responses,
although I think you're probably half of them.
\_ Hey, don't worry, Carter is already backpedaling
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18759682
Carter said, "They were maybe careless or misinterpreted." He said
he "certainly was not talking personally about any president.
\_ Which of course means he's just senile.
\_ Weird, I dont think he was harsh enough. The Bush
administration should be run out off office with flaming
pitchforks and driven into the sea.
\_ just try him for treason after he get out of office.
\_ Before or after he's moved to his new ranch in
Argentina? Oops.. Sorry, it's in Paraguay.
\_ You mean "In The Company Of Heroes"? |
| 2007/5/20-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:46703 Activity:kinda low |
5/19 http://bp3.blogger.com/_8m7jYiLM_DI/RknOjt4yLuI/AAAAAAAAAFs/P7wSDXcmge0/s1600-h/personal-savings-rate.png Personal savings rate plummeted after 1983. What happened? I thourght Ronald Reagan preached conservatism. He's a conservative afterall, no? \_ Reaganomics = spend to increase the cash flow, to kick start economy. Behind the nice looks and strong voice is a man whos principles are not based on economic, historical, scientific, or even academic studies, but basically-- faith. For all of these reasons many academics today refer to Reaganomics as Voodoonomics. \_ No. The term voodoo was applied at the time by other politicians for political reasons. Go ahead and look at what actually happened in the real economy and compare to 4 years earlier. Reaganomics was infinitely better than double digit inflation and Malaise Speeches. \_ Conservative != preaching personal financial conservatism. Reagan economics was based on perception economics: if everyone claps their hands and puts a buck in the pot, the market will grow. It's not entirely wrong, but it's shaky and hard to maintain. Cf. economic bubbles. \_ Maybe the fact that during the Reagan administration, unions were busted and the average income for the wage earner dropped? \_ Typical liberal reasoning. Fact: The Unions were busted long before Reagan came along. Fact: The dollar grew stronger during the Reagan administration and corporate profits soared like never before. Fact: Liberals rarely look at the good sides. \_ Hrm.. I wonder which affects personal savings more... Higher corporate profits? Higher wages? I just don't know. See.. As those good sides are "good" only for a small portion of people, their goodness isn't all that great. \_ You're right. It is much better for employee income if corporations are having a hard time economically. \_ Typical right-wing wacko reasoning: ignore the possibility that two things can be true, i.e., corp. earnings were up, but avg. income still dropped. \_ If you look carefully, the big drop happened from 92 to 2000. It was Clinton's example of moral degeneracy that caused the drop. \_ Wait, you're blaming a drop in the personal savings rate on people paying for blowjobs? \_ I don't think Monica got paid. She closed her eyes and thought of the United States of America. \- she didnt think of the USA. you should watch the Barbara Wawa interview with her ... "so then you went to washtington. were you interested in politics?" "no". \_ Hey, don't bash Barb! Everyone loves her hard hitting interviews. \_ the plummet doesn't look like it occurs until 1987 to me. |
| 2007/5/19-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46697 Activity:moderate |
5/19 Bush "The Worst in History" according to Carter:
http://www.csua.org/u/iq7
\_ Not surprisingly, he's a liberal. !emarkp
\_ "I mean heck, he may even be worse than me now!" Carter added.
\_ Just about everyone I know, assholes, pious people, liberals,
conservatives, libertarians, apolitical people, political
people, think Bush is The Worst In History. Iraq is really
a gigantic fuckup of difficult to fully comprehend
proportions.
\_ You obviously don't know emarkp and his fellows.
\_ I'd be hesitant to call *any* president the worst in history.
Given Carter's ineptitude (not because he's liberal, just
because he's incompetent) he should be a little careful
throwing stones. -emarkp
\_ i don't think anyone can deal with oil embargo
like that gracefully. Further, may I ask, do you think
GW Bush incompetent?
\_ Oil embargo? The one in 73 when Carter wasn't in
office?
\_ *shrug* He followed Ford, whose defining moments were
pardoning Nixon and falling down stairs, and was followed
by Reagan, who proved that popularity has nothing to do
with being a good, let alone honest and effective, leader.
I'd say his glass house has fine foundations.
\_ Ford was actually quite athletic. Don't watch too
much SNL for your history lessons.
\_ As noted here: http://preview.tinyurl.com/yun246
I didn't say he was Chevy Chase, I said it was one
of his defining moments. Read or perish.
\_ Not really. Carter's mis-handling of Iran changed the world in
ways Bush's mis-handling of Iraq can't compare to. Had Carter
shown strength instead of weakness it is possible and even quite
likely the concept of terrorism as we know it today wouldn't
even exist. If you're going to make historical claims you must
look at things from a historical perspective.
\_ Wow! Carter did NOT:
- Use torture
- Allow torture of POW's
- Imprison people without trial
- Render people to other countries for torture
- Lie to get the US into a war
- Erode our rights in the name of patriotism
- Allow rampant incompetence and corruption in his
Administration (except possibly HIMSELF if you
argue that his handling of IRAN was incompetent)
- Mishandle a war so badly that the US is failing
its objectives despite massive waste of national
treasure
- Alienate virtually the entire planet
- Allow a massive terrorist attack to occur on US
territory during his administration
- Allow the illegal outing of a CIA agent for
petty political retaliation
UM, WHY AREN'T WE IMPEACHING BUSH AGAIN? HE IS THE
WORST PRESIDENT EVER!!!!
\_ Who are you, Charles Krauthammer? I don't think Iran was
involved in the whole Russia invades Afghanistan->We dump
billions of dollars and weapons on Afghanistan to ensnare
Russia in a War Of Pain->Russia leaves->Russia collapses->
\_ You really think Afghanistan was the root cause of the
collapse of the Soviet Union? After saying this it makes
the rest of what you say hard to take seriously.
\_ I think it helped. Wasnt main cause. Sure didnt hurt!
We forget about Afghanistan-> IT ALL COMES BACK
TD BITES US IN THE ASS-> chain of events. of maybe
Iran helped us channel a few guns to Afghanistan. How
ANY of this would have been changed if we had 'shown strength
\_ Who are you, Charles Krauthammer? I don't think Iran was involved
in the whole Russia invades Afghanistan->We dump billions of
dollars and weapons on Afghanistan to ensnare Russia in a War Of
Pain->Russia leaves->Russia collapses->We forget about Afghanistan->
IT ALL COMES BACK AND BITES US IN THE ASS-> chain of events.
ok maybe Iran helped us channel a few guns to Afghanistan.
How ANY of this would have been changed if we had 'shown strength
in Iran', I do not know. Russia would not have cared. A bunch
of dudes living in caves in Afghanistan would not have cared.
Please explain your Carter fantasy?
of dudes living in caves in Afghanistan would not have cared. Please
explain your Carter fantasy?
\_ Your historical perspective is the one that needs fixing.
\_ Thanks for adding nothing. Maybe next time you'll do
better than "you're wrong, nyah!" but I doubt it.
\_ Look further back: if the CIA hadn't instigated the overthrow
of the democratically elected President of Iran and the
reinstatement of the Shah, extremists like Khomeni would never
have gained widespread support in '79. No Khomeni, no
hostage situation, and no Islamic Revolution running a nuclear
Iran today. Sure, Carter can be blamed for funding Mujahadeen
in Afghanistan, but then you'd have to paint your Saint Ronnie
with the same brush; worse, people might remember that whole
Iran-Contra scandal, and then the hagiography really falls
apart.
\_ The CIA didn't take action in a vacuum. Leaving a pro-
Soviet/anit-US government in Iran may have been worse
than what we got. It is hard to say but I'll grant that
yes Khomeni didn't come out of no where. OTOH, his group
was just as likely to overthrow any non-Islamic government
so it may not have mattered. Reagan is not my saint
anymore than Carter is my satan. They are men. They were
Presidents. They did what they did. I examine their
actions in a historical context. I don't care beyond that.
I don't even see why you'd try to bring anyone else into
it. To defend Carter? Who cares? Boost Reagan? Who
cares? That is completely unimportant trivial political
agenda crap.
\_ The charges of Bolshevism in Iran were frankly baseless.
The UK was upset about Mossadegh nationalizing the AIOC
and convinced Eisenhower to sic the CIA on him. We fell
victim to the whole enemy-of-my-enemy mindset and worked
to reinstate the Shah. (Cf. eerie parallels with Iraq
and Chalabi). While Khomeni's group was anti-non-
Islamic govt., it's unlikely they'd have had the support
they had from ordinary Iranians if it hadn't been for
the brutal repression inflicted by the Shah, and thus
it's unlikely they could have actually overthrown a
democratically elected Iranian govt. descended from
Mossadegh and co.
\_ Terrorism existed long before Carter and will exist long
after we are all dead. It is naive and foolish to believe
after we are all dead. It is niave and foolish to believe
otherwise. Unless you are trying to say something else with
your statement "the concept of terrorism as we know it
today." Do you mean that Carter changed our conception
of terrorism?
\_ "As we know it today". Meaning that I really don't care
if some folks in whatever country get pissed off enough
to take some violent but overall minor action which has
always been going on, as opposed to becoming the new way
of lesser powers to wage war by heavily funding, arming,
training, and supporting people who have nothing better
to do full time than try to do as much damage as possible.
The key difference being that the minor separatist group
is unlikely to ever do much or go anywhere while a group
supported by a state has options and capabilites sufficient
to kill thousands and make real changes.
\_ Um, Al Qaida, 9/11, hijackers, airplanes. WTC.
\_ This is not really a new phenomenea. Just off the
\_ Yeah, exactly. Did you read the thread at all before
posting?
\_ This is not really a new phenomena. Just off the
top of my head I can think of the French supporting
the American Colonial seperatists and the English
\_ and Americans blew up a lot of british in the UK?
then supporting the Southern Confederates. Also,
\_ The SC blew up the French at home?
remember that WWI was started by a terrorist, when
\_ assassin, lone gunman, not part of a multinational
movement with national level support.
he shot Duke Ferdinand. Nations have always waged
proxy war by supporting seperatist groups inside
their rivals. You could argue that the widespread
availability of WMD has changed the equation of
assymetrical warfare, but it is pretty hard to lay
that at the feet of Carter.
\_ One of my favorite historical proxy conflicts was
Rome and Constantinople duking it out in ancient
Romania and Bulgaria. Romanians and Bulgarians are
*still* mad at each other, nearly 1200 years later.
\_ It is not hard to lay the concept of modern terrorism
at Carter's feet. Prior to Carter there were many
nationalist movements but no organised multinational
terrorists funded and supported by various nations
who had vague but large scale goals of "kill all the
people in the west" or some such like we see today.
\_ To "lay it at Carter's feet", you need to show
some underlying cause. "Because it happened
around the same time" is not enough. If
coincidence was evidence, you could say the
Beatles' breakup could be lain at Nixon's feet.
\_ "Those Liverpool cocksuckers...." -RMN
\_ The Jews and the Catholics are still mad at each
other after nearly 2000 years. |
| 2007/5/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46612 Activity:nil 92%like:46611 |
5/13 A twist on the usual nonsense. Are you really a Republican or a
Democrat?
http://urltea.com/jnc (realclearpolitics.com)
\_ Given the plurality of our nation it makes very little sense to
associate one self as a "pure" Democrat or Republican. A smart
person is happy to give up faith and blind party loyalty to
adaptability and logic. A smart person does not associate oneself
to purely one party. A smart person is one who is independent. |
| 2007/5/13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:46611 Activity:insanely high 92%like:46612 |
5/13 A twist on the usual nonsense. Are you really a Republican or a
Democrat?
http://realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/05/revive_the_republican_way_of_w.html
\_ Given the plurality of our nation it makes very little sense to
associate one self as a "pure" Democrat or Republican. A smart
person is happy to give up faith and blind party loyalty to
adaptability and logic. A smart person does not associate oneself
to purely one party. A smart person is one who is independent. |
| 2007/4/12-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46278 Activity:nil |
4/12 Free advice to the Bush Administration: Turn whatever machine you have
for passing on talking points toward getting your people to stop f-ing
up, at least for a while; there are too many fish in the shooting
bucket already:
http://news.google.com/?ncl=1115102767&hl=en (Wolfowitz, girlfriend)
\- FT call on Wolfowitz to resign. Let's hope others chime in.
\- meanwhile, back at the DoJ:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1610738,00.html
(although these guys were never the biggest fans of ALBERTO.
although i cant imagine they are going to get somebody hugely
more appealing now, unless it is a senator) |
| 2007/4/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:46210 Activity:kinda low |
4/5 Ye who be so offended by Pelosi's trip, did this bother you too?
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/04/05/gingrich_china
\_ What about Nixon's secret negotiations with North Vietnam? Or
Reagan's secret negotiations with Iran?
\_ You could argue that Nixon visiting China doesn't count.
He is the Executive Branch and is in charge of foreign
policy.
\_ No, I mean Nixon encouraging South Vietnam's President
to stay away from peace talks with North Vietnam in 68,
while he was still a candidate. He was afraid that a
peace treaty would be signed and that the Democrats
would win the election. Sorry about confusing North
and South in my earlier post, I had my history confused.
\_ Or Franklin's secret negotiations and backdoor deals with
France?
\_ Wasn't that guy some kind of terrorist? Should we take
him off the $50? |
| 2007/3/22-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46062 Activity:nil |
3/22 Pew Research: Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007
POLITICAL LANDSCAPE MORE FAVORABLE TO DEMOCRATS
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-pew23mar23,1,7389496.story?coll=la-headlines-politics&ctrack=1&cset=true
http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/312.pdf |
| 2007/2/24-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:45814 Activity:low |
2/24 http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/Enc/Reaganomics.html Truth liburals can't take-- Reaganomics (cutting tax, deregulation, and cutting government waste) really works. \_ I'm going to call that a slanted opinion piece. Yes the author used to be an econ prof at Berkeley, but he wrote the above originally for the National Review, and he is now the HEAD of the Cato Institute. I don't think everyone at the Cato Institute is a bat shit crazy person, but anything written about Reagan tax policies by that guy is going to have one slant and only one slant only. There was an interesting article a few years ago in the Atlantic Monthly about Reagan, and the above author (A close advisor of Reagon) and his tax policies that I might pull up. \_ So which part is slanted? -emarkp \_ Wow, one economist wrote something on the internet, it must be true! Let's conveniently ignore all the other things equally respected economists have written in peer reviewed journals! If it's on the internet, it must be true! Liberals are stupid! -dans \_ Which articles were you refering to? \_ So far as I know, no one, not even your straw man "liburals" are in favor of government waste. -ausman \_ I am in favor of government waste. --straw man "libural". Seriously, though, your statement is a strawman. Of course no one is in favor of waste. The issue is the definition of waste. One man's valuable and useful program is another's waste. |
| 2007/2/18-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45767 Activity:nil |
2/17 In the spirit of President's Day:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0717-19.htm
http://consortiumnews.com/2002/112902a.html
\- The House and the Senate were both about 56% Dem in '72. --psb |
| 2007/2/13 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:45732 Activity:nil |
2/13 Romney(R) has the charisma of Ronald Reagan. Romney is going to
kick everyone's ass, including the libural devisive woman candidate
and the negro who is one letter away from having Osama's name.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/13/romney.announce/index.html
\_ Barack Obama == Black Osama? Anyway, I want a black president but
I want Colen Powell. |
| 2007/1/25-28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45584 Activity:nil |
1/24 Gonzales thinks you have no RIGHT to habeas relief:
http://tinyurl.com/39moz4 (sfgate.com)
And why does Arlen Specter hate America? |
| 2007/1/7-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:45534 Activity:nil |
1/12 http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/12/ford.presidents.ap/index.html "When it came to implementation, his record (Reagan) never matched his words. Reagan was probably the least well-informed on the details of running the government of any president I knew. He was just a poor manager, and you can't be president and do a good job unless you manage." |
| 2006/12/5-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:45412 Activity:nil |
12/4 Ronald Reagan is an American hero. -conservative
\_ Generic left-wing criticism of Reagan. And Bush. -liberal |
| 2006/11/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:45300 Activity:kinda low 80%like:45298 66%like:45296 |
11/9 Allen to concede this afternoon:
http://tinyurl.com/y25erv (washingtonpost.com)
\_ No recount?
\_ What for? 7k is too big a margin to bother. Although if it was
120k and in Ohio then a number of people would be screaming
fraud and recount and disenfranchisement. At least Kerry had
the balls to do the right thing and let it go. So does Allen.
\_ Allen let it go because previous recounts have in VA have not
yielded enough of a difference to allow for a conceivable
victory. Also, there's every indication that he'll run again,
and if he does, he won't want to be remembered as the loser of
a recount.
\_ If it was a smaller number I'm sure he would've fought it
but 7k is just silly in such a small state. Even in CA
that would be a tough number to overcome. |
| 2006/11/9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:45298 Activity:nil 80%like:45300 |
11/9 Allen to concede this afternoon:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/y25erv (washingtonpost.com)
\_ No recount? |
| 2006/11/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/President, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:45077 Activity:low |
11/01 Just saw this on CNN:
Would Alex P. Keaton back Fox on stem cells?
\_ You could just put the URL:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/01/alexpkeaton/index.html
\_ Do you remember when CNN was 'the news network that didn't
suck'? What happened?
\_ CNN cable and CNN web are different animals |
| 2006/10/26-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:44998 Activity:nil |
10/26 Ollie North, Ortega-Contra reunion tuor, 2006!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061024/ts_nm/nicaragua_usa_dc_2 |
| 2006/10/26-29 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:44996 Activity:low |
10/26 wow, check out http://drudgereport.com's headline. that's some quality mudslinging, probably the GOP candidate's only hope. the books are fiction, btw. \_ That's pretty awesome. Reagan (and plenty of other people) thought Allen's book "Fields Of Fire" was the best book written on the Vietnam War, ever. \_ California Inferno? \_ refresh! mebbe your proxy is messed up \_ OK, what the fuck is it w/ politicans and perverted fictional sex? \_ D'oh! Webb's in some deep macaca. \_ Why do you think being fictional saves his ass? That makes it even worse. He's not reporting something he witnessed, it came from his own twisted brain. \_ did i say/imply being fictional makes it better? yes, i agree it makes it worse. -op \_ yes. \_ reading comprehension++ \_ You obviously have not served... |
| 2006/10/16-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:44830 Activity:nil |
10/16 As you listen to Nancy Pelosi promise to clean up what she calls a
"swamp" of congressional problems, remember the following facts from
her record:
1. Pelosi voted three times to make a convicted page sexual predator,
former Congressman Gerry Studds (D-Mass.), chair of a congressional
committee.
2. In 1990, Pelosi voted against censuring Barney Frank for having his
live-in boyfriend run a prostitution ring from Frank's apartment.
3. Pelosi raised no objections when Clinton pardoned Democrat
Congressman Mel Reynolds (Ill.) who had been convicted of felonies
for having had sex with a 16-year-old campaign worker.
The historic Nancy Pelosi is an authentic representative of San
Francisco liberal values and hardly has the record to lecture anyone on
cleaning up the Congress.
http://www.humanevents.com/winningthefuture.php?id=17453
\_ dont care. mess in Iraq is enough for me to not vote
Republican. They really fucked up and must pay the
consequences.
\_ No, I don't think a one-party government is good for America.
\_ The two-party government is decreasingly good at fixing the one-
party problems though. It's like the cloned Jacks from Futurama.
\_ "decreasingly good at"?
\_ fine "increasingly bad at" happy?
\_ I think I'll still settle for a two-party government.
\_ Yes, so stop voting for Dems and Reps and start voting for third
party candidates who actually believe in something. Yes, yes,
they'll never get elected. *Because* people get what they vote
for instead of voting for what they want.
\_ http://csua.org/u/h7s
90% of the country is religious, but 100% of the Senate. Hooray.
And not a one who can vote his or her conscience. Fuckers.
\_ As you read your silly partisan websites, consider this silly
partisan website:
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/gopscorecard.php
\_ Of what crime are you claiming Studds was convicted?
\_ You mean Reynolds?
\_ "It's not about the sex, it's about the lying" |
| 2006/9/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:44587 Activity:nil 61%like:44578 |
9/27 Why Reagan had alzeimers and why Schwarzegger is leftist:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/09/27/testosterone.kills.reut/index.html
\_ Reagan occasionally played a tough guy on the screen, but in real
life the man was a bit effeminate, like most actors.
\_ "John Wayne was a fag."
"The hell he was!" |
| 2006/9/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:44578 Activity:nil 61%like:44587 |
9/27 Why Reagan had alzeimers and why Schwarzegger is brain-dead:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/09/27/testosterone.kills.reut/index.html
\_ Reagan occasionally played a tough guy on the screen, but in real
life the man was a bit effeminate, like most actors. |
| 12/24 |