Politics Domestic President Reagan - Berkeley CSUA MOTD
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Domestic:President:Reagan:
Results 1 - 150 of 227   < 1 2 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2017/11/18 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
11/18   

2006/9/23-26 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll/Jblack, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:44511 Activity:kinda low Cat_by:auto
9/23    Ronald Reagan: An American Hero
        http://www.rightwingnews.com/reader/gipper.php
        \_ This message brought to you by Justin P Black
        \_ Fuck Reagan, and fuck you.
        \_ a hero who dodged the draft in WW2?
           \_ someone with balls had to stay behind and live..
              otherwise we'd become france
           \_ George W Bush, Dick Cheney?
           \_ I thought everyone who avoided military service in the name of
              regime change and American hegemony was a hero?
              \_ The Marshall Plan is why we now call it the United States of
                 Europe.
2006/9/7-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:44300 Activity:nil
9/6     The Reagans - one factually questionable scene - YANKED FROM THE AIR
        The ABC 9/11 documentary - Republican propaganda - GOING ON THE AIR
        REPUBLICANS RULE, LIBERALS DROOOOOL!1!11!!1!!!!one
        \_ Wasn't this in 2003?
2006/8/25-28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:44152 Activity:nil
8/25    Is this a sarcastic blog entry?
        http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015081.php
        \_ It's powerline... so no.
        \_ I guess they're giving out rose-colored Koolaid now at these
           functions
           \_ John Hinderaker brews his own Koolaid. Call him and ask:
              (612) 220-1060.
2006/8/11-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:43977 Activity:nil
8/11    "Never has so much military and economic and diplomatic power been
        used so ineffectively, and if after all of this time, and all of this
        sacrifice, and all of this support, there is still no end in sight,
        then I say the time has come for the American people to turn to new
        leadership not tied to the mistakes and policies of the past."
                --Richard M. Nixon
        \_ He was referring to ...?
           \_ EAST TIMOR!
           \_ College graduates these days...
           \_ Negotiating with the dirty hippies in Berkeley. -Ronald Reagan
2006/8/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:43857 Activity:nil 66%like:43880
8/1     Is Mel Gibson a NeoCon?
        \_ That depends on wheather you like him or not.
        \_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocon
           But don't forget, Neocon also == Jew according to some. So Mel
           probably isn't a Neocon. I doubt he thinks about politics much.
           \_ The only people who claim neocon == jew are people who are
              trying too hard to paint anti-neoconers as anti-semites.
              \_ I think there are also some members of the extreme right
                 who associate both the neocon project and Jews with the
                 New World Order, and so probably equate them.  That particular
                 breed of right wing nut does not appear on the motd, though.
        \_ Mel Gibson is an Aussie.  Foreigners out!  -proud American
2006/7/18-20 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:43721 Activity:nil
7/17    http://www.lcurve.org
        The L Curve.
        \_ That's a lot more alarmist than a simple Gini curve, and I'm not
           sure it's as educational.
           \- i think they illustrate different things. for example the
              gini curve [sic ... you mean gini coef and lorenz curve]
              may say something about the fallout from a tax law change
              or maybe even something like school vouchers or other cases
              where you may think in terms of income bands, but if you
              want to talk about say money and politics [free speech and
              elections per Buckley v Vallejo, political contributions,
              campaign spending per huffington, corzine, bloomberg etc] then
              maybe it makes sense to talk about super-rich individuals.
              i assume you also realize the gini coef with wide bands
              will be lower than the GC for the same distribution chopped
              into narrower bands. there are a lot of problems with the
              "educational" gini coef. i think this example is just something
              to keep in mind when we talk about the "american metritrocracy"
              or "death taxes" [aka "the billionare tax"] and obviously not
              intended for econometrics calculations or macroeconomic
              comparasions of economies at different points in time or
              in different countries. --psb
2006/6/15-19 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:43406 Activity:nil
6/15    Is Bernanke a Democrat or a Republican? How about his predecessors?
        \- He used to drive a Sienna minivan. Maybe you can do some kind of
           Bayes Rule thing based on the car->party statistics to come up
           with a guess. [for the record, he is a Republican, but not a
           party hack ... he was an academic most of his life. Considering his
           portfolio, his views on more technical questions are probably more
           meaningful than broad party affiliation. I am pretty sure the only
           guy who voted against his confirmation was a Republican senator
           who or why.]. GREENSPAN was a Randroid. Paul Volker [appointed
           who or why.]. GREENSPAN was a Randroid. Paul VOLKER [appointed
           by Carter, reconfirmed by Raygun] is an interesting question.
           The Fed, unlike some other administrative agencies, does seem
           to officially discourage its officers from partisan activities.
           See e.g.
     http://stlouisfed.org/publications/re/2000/c/pages/presidents-message.html
           --psb
2006/6/14-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:43383 Activity:nil
6/14    http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/13/webb.primary.ap
        Republican disgised as a Democrat wins. Watch out November.
        \_ talking about disgise.  You should really go to Taiwan and
           take a look.  Candidates of DPP are removing the DPP party logos,
           many of them are getting rid of the party-color of green in
           their campaign banners, posters, and ads.  Very interesting.
           \- Yeah, it's pretty clever how the RNC sent him "deep undercover"
              by having him publicly denounce the Iraq war and mock W's
              Vietnam War "service". This was clearly written by KROVE
              and just signed by JWEBB ...
                  Recent statements defending Bush claim that the
                  National Guard was not a haven for those who wished
                  to avoid Vietnam; but it clearly was ... Bush used
                  his father's political influence to move past many
                  on the Texas Guard's waiting list ... Bush arguably
                  has committed the greatest strategic blunder in
                  modern memory ... The reckless course that Bush and
                  his advisers have set will affect the economic and
                  military energy of our nation for decades. It is
                  only the tactical competence of our military that,
                  to this point, has protected him from the harsh
                  judgment that he deserves ... At the same time,
                  those around Bush, many of whom came of age during
                  Vietnam and almost none of whom served, have
                  attempted to assassinate the character and insult
                  the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with
                  them. Some have impugned the culture, history and
                  integrity of entire nations, particularly in Europe,
                  that have been our country's great friends for
                  generations and, in some cases, for centuries. Bush
                  has yet to fire a single person responsible for this
                  strategy. Nor has he reined in those who have made
                  irresponsible comments while claiming to represent
                  his administration. One only can conclude that he
                  agrees with both their methods and their message.
                                   --James Webb, Feb. 2004.
2006/6/5-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:43282 Activity:nil
6/5     http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060606/ap_on_re_us/reagan_anniversary
        Wake up people. Reaganomics in theory was a really good idea but
        a huge debacle in reality. Let's all celebrate Reagan's death!
        \_ Let's hope Reaganomics and the rest of the conservative movements
           die as well!
2006/5/17-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:43080 Activity:nil
5/16    Some interesting numbers at the end
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_051606.htm
        See:  what's your religion, are you liberal/conservative/moderate
        \_ Wait, if the early 80s was strongly Dem, why the fuck did Reagan
           win? Reagan is a charming guy but his policies totally suck.
           And look at Q909, "what was the last grade of school you completed"
           21% attended some college and 21% attended grad school, and 10%
           attended post-graduate. How can you have as many grad school as
           college when the % of people going to grad school is much less
           than college? And 21+21+10 or 52% of the people who did the poll
           have college degrees or higher. This is totally not representative
           of our redneck Jesus loving Americans that mostly voted for
           rednecks like themselves. The survey methodology is flawed.
2006/5/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:42895 Activity:low
5/2     How come home owner association costs are so high for new
        developments? And what is the point of providing private
        parks/BBQ area... why don't people use government funded
        public parks?
        \_ Public park is great when surrounding neighborhoods are
           more or less social-economically homogeneous. However there has
           been an increasing wealth gap in the past 3-4 decades creating
           more wealth and more crime at the same time. Wealthy conservatives
           sure don't like to BBQ at parks where poor and smelly
           socialists hang out, so they prefer to spend a bit more HOA to
           create their private little world to hang out. Just look
           at Orange County as the poster child example. People there are
           wealthy, ultra Republican, and live in nice gated communities
           with nice private parks, heated pools, gym, and other amenities.
        \_ Public parks are so 70s, not to mention that it is socialistic
           and evil. After the Reagan era, conservatism became popular.
           Ronald Reagan preached "self reliance", which translated to
           less tax and less public services. In another word, you are
           responsible for your own well beings and no one else. Any form
           of public service like welfare, social security, and even public
           parks are considered fat that need to be cut. So blame not your
           HOA that need to make up for a lack of public services your
           government stopped providing 20 years ago, but the people who
           love themselves too much -- the conservatives
                \- are public grazing lands and public water sold at
                   submkt costs to business interests also socialistic?
                   \_ Your brain has been classified as: you think you're
                      witty but in reality, microscopic.
                      \_ This would make a great sentence correction
                         correction on any standardized test.  Restate in
                         a non-nonsensical manner please.  -John
           \_ You are making me cry.
              \_ Why? Is it 1) You are a conservative and you think everyone
                 is dillusional except you or 2) You are a liberal and you
                 think the truth hurts?
        \_ so that the local government officials can give themselves
        bigger bonuses from saving the cost of developing public parks.
        \_ so that you can feel rich,exclusive,elitist,happy ... from
           a city planning perspective i think it is disgusting ... its
           a de facto privatization of public space ... further
           increasing disparaties in our society
                \_ Wha? If the HMA owns the space, how is it "privatizing
                   public space" in any way shape or form?
                   \_ ignore rory's rant. he's yet another left wing
                      socialist. evil.
                      \_ wow, I've been id'ed by your lame motd-tracking
                         script. i'm honored. i'm not a socialist i just
                         hate libertarians. so what is confusing about my
                         stmt? the more property you put behind a gate
                         the less public property exists, the gov't "saves
                         money" by spending less on public works, but now
                         people have to be able to afford to live in gated
                         communities to enjoy what once was avail to all.
                         \_ What part of "Welfare is a waste of my money"
                            don't you understand?
                            \_ what part of "human rights" does your Howard
                               Roarke-worshipping ass not understand
                               \_ What part of "If you don't like America,
                                  go back to Europe" don't you understand?
                   \_ read reagan post above.
        \_ because a developer can't just go in and build next to a public
           park.  "Parks spaces" = higher property values = more profits for
           developers.  Cities take forever to make new parks -- it takes money
           they dont often have. So what's the developer to do?   Make their
           own park, and make the HOA pay for it!  Few people pay attention
           to the HOA costs when making home buying decisions -- its all
           about the cost of the home.  Pure developer genius,  pure capitalist
           evil.    -ERic  (and yes I own a home in a HOA with 'park' spaces',
           however my community is also surrounded by park, go figure)
           \_ Ummm "Open Space Laws?"  In general I'm fairly sure that 5
              more houses would generate more money than a park of the
              same size.  I could be wrong though. -jrleek
2017/11/18 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
11/18   

2006/4/11-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/SIG] UID:42733 Activity:nil
4/11    David Brin is a smart cookie:
        http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2006/03/choices-we-face.html
2006/3/16-18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42266 Activity:moderate
3/16    honest question:
        People say Bush and his gangs are "Neo-Conservative."   Exactly
        what do they mean by that?  Another question.  Fiscal Disipline is
        usually one of supposely "conservative" value.  But by looking at
        records of Reagan, HW Bush, and GW Bush, it is not the case at all!
        How does that work?
        \_ It's a transparent attempt to make people think of "neo-nazi"
           \_ Bullshit.
        \_ Politicians are hypocrites and liars.  They give the voters what
           they want and lie about the consequences.
           \_ So astute - teach us more o' wise one.
        \_ http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html
           \_ thanks.  good link.  I guess my perception about neo-cons are
              also fiscal conservative is completely false.  On the other
              hand, it still doesn't explain why we support radical,
              dictatorship such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia :p
              \_ that's an easy one.  SA supplies a big chunk of our
                 oil.  A military quasi-dictatorship in Pakistan is
                 magnitudes better than the pro Western jihad
                 Islamic fundamentalist groups taking power.
                 \_ There are pro-West jihad Islamic fundamentalists?
        \_ http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html
                    \_ I actually met a guy like that.  He was pretty weird.
                 \_ What happened to install democracy world wide?
        \_ basically neocons believe in the preemptive strike
           \_ so are democrats who believe in preemptive strike also neocons?
           \_ Why can't they take this preemptive attitude and clean
              up city like Oakland? Arrest and execute those known
              fuckers and the city will be a much safer place.
              \_ weak weak weak troll.  your troll score: F!
              \_ gimme a modern dem who favors preemptive and i'll tell you
                 how neocon they are
                 \_ lieberman is a strong supporter of GWB's Iraq policy and
                    the principles behind it.
                    \_ ob he's a closet republican
                       \_ so anyone in favor of any GWB policy is really a
                          republican despite having been in the D party since
                          probably before you were born....  he's either with
                          us or against us!
                          \_ Do you know people are talking about a McCain-
                             Lieberman ticket?
                             \_ Do any of these people include John McCain or
                                Joe Lieberman?  I don't think I've seen either
                                one ever indicate that he was ready to
                                switch parties.  I find that scenario to be
                                implausible.
                          \_ and dubya's lips continue to look for lieberman
                             for smooching
           \_ I am still waiting for a preemptive strike against N.Korea...
              or we actually get scared for their preemptive strike doctrine?
              http://tinyurl.com/gj957
              \_ I'd start with Berkeley.
              \_ NK has 10,000 artillery pieces within range of SK's capitol.
                 Even if we could fly in and destroy all the nuke facilities
                 100% the retaliation strike is going to suck big time.  What
                 I find interesting is polls in SK that show young people from
                 the post Korean War era think the US should piss off and that
                 NK is a victim while the older folks are dreadfully afraid of
                 NK and want the US to stick around and even increase our
                 strength in SK.
                 \_ I see those crazy 'NK is misunderstood paradise
                    bullied by evil US' fuckers at protests in the bay area.
                 \_ I remember when I was still at Berkeley in the early 90s,
                    when 5 korean pastors came to the Bay Area to attend a
                    conference, and I took them on a trip to Yosemite.
                    The pastors mentioned to me they were very surprised
                    that Americans they met here were such nice people.
                    They say the Americans in SK were really arrogant.
                    \_ Most Americans in SK are either military or english
                       teachers.  The english teachers are often people
                       with no valuable skills except their ability to
                       speak their native language.  Not only that, but
                       Korea, for one reason or another, generally pulls
                       in the dregs of english teachers.  So, yeah, most
                       of the Americans I met in SK were jerks. -jrleek
                       \_ jrleek, you are just JEALOUS because those
                          "no valuable skills people who speaks their
                           native language" get laid easily.
                          \_ I know this is supposed to be a joke, but it
                             made me curious.  Do you think I'm Korean?
                             -jrleek
                       \_ I'm going to Korea to teach conversational English
                          and I have no special training.  What's the
                          fastest way to learn Korean?   Can you recommend
                          books, audio training kits, etc.?
                          \_ Korean is really freakin' hard, but if you
                             send me an email, I'll help however I can.  I
                             do have some suggestions for books, I didn't
                             really use audio kits, but I'm not even sure
                             how you'd get my favorite. -jrleek
              \_ we only go after ez ones, like Iraq ... we thought it was ez
2006/3/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:42203 Activity:high
3/13    Why do Reagan admirers say that the Soviet Union collapsed because
        of Reagan's policies?  I know he called SU the "evil empire" and
        also started a Star Wars weapons program.  What else did he do, and
        how did these contribute to the SU's collapse?
        \_ Those Reagan supporter think that by escalating the
           arms race, we effectively bankrupted the Soviet much sooner than
           we would of otherwise.  Also, these guys were proud the fact that
           we fought "Communism" on every 3rd world countries we can think of
           by supporting dictatorships / islamic extremist all over, which also
           bankrupted the Soviet (Congo, Afganistan, etc).
           In their simple logic, "Communism" is "absolute evil" and everything
           else is "lesser of the two evils."  Notice the similar mentality
           is in "war on terror" today (Saddam Hussin is evil and every one
           else is a lesser of the two... now, it's Iran's turn :p)
        \_ Everyone likes to take credit for SU's collapse but what really
           brought SU down were Gorbachev's inept policies. He realized what he
           had done after 1990 and tried to change his course of action but it
           was too late by then. All other factors were just catalysts.
        \_ Those Reagan supporter think that by escalating the arms race, we
           effectively bankrupted the Soviet much sooner than we would of
           \_ "would have"
           otherwise.  Also, these guys were proud the fact that we fought
           "Communism" on every 3rd world countries we can think of by
           supporting dictatorships / islamic extremist all over, which also
           bankrupted the Soviet (Congo, Afganistan, etc). In their simple
           logic, "Communism" is "absolute evil" and everything else is
           "lesser of the two evils."  Notice the similar mentality is in
           "war on terror" today (Saddam Hussin is evil and every one else
           is a lesser of the two... now, it's Iran's turn :p)
           \_ Interestingly, a common fallacy of people seeking to debunk the
              "Reagan bankrupted the Soviets" argument is assuming that all
              governments/countries/armies/whatever against which the US
              supported organizations that were thuggish, fascist and evil to
              varying degrees, were actually any less worse than our own
              stooges.  -John
              \_ it is true in Europe.  But in Asia, Communism has much less
                 to do with Maxist Idealogy than Idealogy of self-determination
                 champaigoned by W.Wilsons, and FDR.  Most of these "Communist"
                 were fighting European Imperial Power before WW2 ended.
                 If you are a Vietnamese and being brutally ruled by French
                 for past 100 years and suddently French says they really care
                 about human right and democracy.  Would you believe it?
                 \_ And very often, the communists piggybacked conveniently on
                    the back of a nationalist movement--Viet Minh/CPVN is
                    a fantastic example of this.  Note, I'm not saying the end
                    justifies the means or that any particular one of the
                    scumbags or dubious regimes the US supported during the
                    Cold War was excusable, just that you need to see this in
                    a bit of context; sometimes the alternative really was less
                    worse.  -John
              \_ I think if I lived in a repressive regime and got two choices
                 1) Live life like it is now, where there are large chunks
                    of things I can't say/do without a risk of dissapearing.
                 2) Live through a bloody civil/proxy civil war which
                    devistates the economy and civilian population (which
                    those kinds of wars have a real bad habit of doing) just
                    to live in another version of #1 one above.
                 I'd really prefer that the global super powers butted the
                 fuck out and let me live in relative peace.
                 \_ You said it, "powers".  -John
                  \_ Huhwha?
                    \_ As in "powers" as opposed to "power".  Plural.  -John
                     \_ Ahh, yeah.  That was intentional.  It's just that
                        I care more when it is my country behaving badly.
           \_ Hasn't the US been fighting proxy wars with the SU and its
              stooges since the end of WW2?  Korean War, Vietnam War, etc.?
        \_ He basically forced them into an arms race which bankrupted
           their country (and ours kind of...)
           \_ But I thought the Soviet Union has been in an arms race with
              the US since the end of WWII ?
              \_ This is true. Reagan admirers say that Reagan upped the ante
                 and thereby sped up the economic collapse; detractors say
                 that he was merely the sitting pres. when the fruits of years
                 of arms race ripened. Cf. Bush I and fall of SU; Clinton and
                 economic prosperity in the late 90s; and Bush II and the
                 current economic crisis. The real story, of course, is a lot
                 more complex than who was sitting in the Oval Office. --e_red
              \_ The scale of the arms race w/o a real war was significant
                 For example, Carter canned just about every program, gutted
                 the military - results were operation eagle claw.
        \_ Reagan's support of Poland and his Zero Option undermined Soviet
           power in Europe, which contributed significantly to the collapse
           of the USSR. His personal relationship w/ Gorby is also another
           factor that is also often overlooked. I agree w/ e_red that
           Reagan cannot be given all the credit for the collapse of the
           USSR, but he does deserve some credit.
           WRT the current terrorist situation - I personally think that
           Reagan would have used far better judgment than Bush2 in dealing
           w/ this situation. I also doubt that he would have involved us
           in Iraq, &c.
           \_ Because he did so well at the marine barracks?
              \_ Because he understood that you don't invade countries bigger
                 than a small island, and even then you only do it if you
                 have an exit strategy. -!pp, !reagan-admirer
                 \_ Like how we bailed after putting 500+ marines in a barracks
                    in a war zone and the gate guards didn't even have bullets.
              \_ Because Reagan wasn't a reactionary. He had good advisers
                 who understood the value of a strong US-Europe relations
                 and were willing to negotiate and compromise on many things
                 in order to achieve their long term goals.
        \_ Without getting deeply involved: there is a genral sense after
           the Soviet invasion of Afganistan, US policy shifted from
           Kennan's "containment" to "rollback". You can google/wiki
           for those terms. --psb
           \_ and it worked well has no ill consequences afterwards, no?
              \_ it was a conflict, genius.  if there was a perfect one shot
                 we-win! answer, it would've been done on day 1.
                 \_ you don't get it, don't you? Afganistan was much better
                    off under Communist rule.  Women enjoys equal rights,
                    opium export was under control.  After all these years,
                    don't you get it that "Communism" is not an absolute
                    evil?
                    \_ When exactly was this fantasy era for Afghanistan
                       when women had equal rights to men, there was an
                       economy based on something other than weapons and drugs
                       and the children played in rivers of chocolate?
                       \_ Afganistan is no paradise by any mean.  But at least
                          during the Communist rule, women get education, they
                          can put lipsticks and high-heel on if they can
                          afford it.  almost anyone who has slightest
                          knowledge about that part of the world would tell
                          you women was much much better off during the rules
                          of US-backed Mujahedeems.
                          \_ Still waiting to hear when this fantasy era of
                             goodness and chocolate rivers was.  Are you
                             related to ChiCom troll?  I think you are.
                             \_ from the perspective of economy, human rights,
                                etc.  Communist Afganistan was much better off
                                than the Taliban US supported, not to mentioned
                                that Afgan became a heaven for terrorist after
                                the fall of the Socialist regime.  Just admit
                                the policy and you are myopic and stupid.
                       \_ About 4000 years ago, during the height of
                          the Indus valley civilization.
                          \_ I don't think AfghanComTroll is talking about
                             4000 years ago.
                    \_ What do you call the fallacy of logic where one ignores
                       the faults of a system they prefer and justifies this
                       by pointing out problems with the current system? It
                       happens a lot on the motd
2006/3/9-13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:42169 Activity:moderate
3/9     http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/forbes_billionaires
        Number of Billionaires to a record 793. Who says Bushconomy sucks?
        \_ I think that includes foreigners, who sure benefitted from
           our spending and more spending.
        \_ I say it sucks and I'll explain to you.  Bush uses my tax dollars
           to go fund his illegitimate war and go and take all the spoils
           for himself.  Plus I will almost certainly be paying higher
           taxes to offset his record deficit that he's created.  So
           tell me how I benefit from this again????  Bush better be planning
           to pay back the "loan" that he's taken out from the American
           people, cuz I sure as hell don't want to be paying extra taxes
           cuz of the stupid debt he's racked up at our expense.
           \_ Just like when we had Reagan as a President, we owe him a debt
              we can never repay ...
              \_ You must be on crack if you believe Reagen was responsible
                 for the economic boom of the 90's.  If you can explain how
                 Reagen administration was more responsible than, say, the
                 rise of the Internet for the 90's boom, I'll give you a
                 Nobel prize.
                 \_ Who commercialized the Internet?
                 \_ In a way the defeat of Soviet Communism and the resulting
                    demilitarization supported the boom of the 90s. Reagan
                    embraced and executed an active policy to defeat, instead
                    of contain, the USSR. This policy, combined w/ economic
                    conditions in the USSR, largely worked.
                    Specifically WRT supply side economics, I agree that it
                    is not clear that this economic policy resulted in the
                    boom of the 90s.
                    \_ complete BS.  Soviet would of fell apart on its own
                       weight regardless.
                       \_ It is very hard to say that the USSR was in such
                          bad shape in the 80s that it would have died w/o
                          Zero Option, &c. I am not saying Reagan single
                          handedly killed TEH COMMIE, just that his policies
                          were a contributing factor.
                       \_ It isn't so important that they collapsed, per se,
                          but what they became after.  Had they been crushed
                          by anything other than the US their odds of becoming
                          a more democratic nation would have been zero, simply
                          replacing one dictatorship with another.  There were
                          a few attempted non-democratic coups that went no
                          where.  Some historical what-if for you: Had the
                          Nazi's survived WWII and into the 90's, would the
                          Soviets have still collapsed?  Likely so.  Would it
                          have turned into a more western nation?  You decide.
        \_ 1) Is that inflation injusted and yes 2) "Bushconomy" is VERY good
           for rich people, I don't think anyone will disagree with that.
           The disagreement is over whether good for billionaires == good
           for everyone else.
           \_ You're not getting it. If you argue with a wealthy conservative,
              he/she will say that if everyone else's income didn't increase
              it is because they didn't work as hard [as the wealthy folks].
              In the conservative world, YOU are self-reliant and you, and
              no one else, can make yourself wealthy. The rich conservatives'
              argument is that if you tax the rich more, then you'll fall
              under socialism (which Ronald Reagan declares as EVIL!!!) and
                    \_ Socialism *is* evil.
              no one will have incentives to work hard anymore. So, fuck
                    \_ See "Collapse of Soviet Union under own weight" above.
              social programs, cut taxes, and faggots need to go to hell.
              That is the platform of the American conservatives.
              \_ You've clearly never talked to a conservative, rich or
                 otherwise.  Would you like to hear what the "extremist
                 ultra liberal" platform is?  You know it wouldn't be difficult
                 to paint your beliefs into a tidy little strawman and then
                 knock it down, so why do you do that to other people?
              \_ There is something to be said that a grim socialist
                 completely state controlled economy is the bane to
                 economic growth, witness eastern bloc countries before
                 the fall of the soviet union.  current conservatives
                 in power though appear to want to take everything to the
                    \_ There are no conservatives in power at the moment.
                       There are pro-business Republicans.  If the Dems had
                       put up something better than that mindless
                       Republican-lite playboy they would have won in 2004.
                       Stop running stupid candidates so we can have better
                       candidates from both parties running.  If you run
                       Hillary in 2008 she'll lose and we'll get another 4-8
                       years of pro-Business Republicans again.
                 complete logical extreme with no oversight on business
                 by government in even the most egregious examples.
                 \_ http://www.nowartax.org can help you out with your tax
                    problems
2006/2/25-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42006 Activity:high
2/24    Only their bumper stickers remain, like cockroaches after a
        nuclear holocaust.
        http://csua.org/u/f3a (BBC)
        \_ Hi! I'm a lazy English journalist who doesn't know shit about America
           but wants to keep getting paid to tell whacky stories about whacky
           Americans!  There are a lot of important things that could be said
           by a real journalist about how fucked the Democratic party is right
           now, but this ain't it.  Thanks for wasting my time.
           \_ Anytime, humorless motd guy!
        \_ Hey, jblack, I found a great new site for white people like you
           and me: http://www.natall.com
           \_ Hey, idiot, the above was not posted by jblack.
              \_ That's right, it's posted by our other conservative
                 friend, jrleek the good Mormon.
2006/2/24-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41987 Activity:nil
2/24    Released today -- "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and
        Betrayed the Reagan Legacy"
        http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385518277
        \_ Sigh.
           \_ Why sigh?  Anything that gets fiscal conservatives to not vote
              for another imposter like GWB is a good thing for the whole
              country, AFAIC.
           \_ All the guy seems to be saying according to the editorial
              reviewers is that GWB isn't a real conservative and doesn't
              act like one.  We all knew that Republican != conservative for
              a while now.  No real news here.
2006/2/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41885 Activity:high
2/16    Conservatives argue for impeachment:
        QUESTION: Is spying on the American people as impeachable an
        offense as lying about having sex with an intern?

        BRUCE FEIN, constitutional scholar and former deputy atty general
        in the Reagan Admin: I think the answer requires at least in part
        considering what the occupant of the presidency says in the aftermath
        of wrongdoing or rectification. On its face, if President Bush is
        totally unapologetic and says I continue to maintain that as a
        war-time President I can do anything I want . I don't need to consult
        any other branches . that is an impeachable offense. It's more
        dangerous than Clinton.s lying under oath because it jeopardizes our
        democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages. It would
        set a precedent that . would lie around like a loaded gun, able to be
        used indefinitely for any future occupant.

        NORM ORNSTEIN, AEI scholar: I think if we.re going to be intellectually
        honest here, this really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton
        was referring to when impeachment was discussed.
        \_ Congress seems to be agreeing with the necessity of the wiretaps.
           What's your point?
           \_ Both Congress and the American public are overrun by cowards
              who do not believe in freedom.  What's your point?
              \_ Welcome to a Democratic Republic.  It isn't perfect but it
                 is the best thing the planet has seen so far in governments.
                 If enough voters cared about this they'd speak with their
                 votes.  Since most people don't vote at all much less based
                 on issues like this, you would seem to have the minority
                 opinion on how important this really is.
                 \_ Fuck you, you patronizing fuckhead asshole.
                    \_ *laugh*  If you weren't such an idiot, then you
                       wouldn't find everyone so patronizing.  Pull the log
                       from your own eye before pointing to the splinter in
                       someone else's.  ;-)
                       \_ Fuck you.  I can keep this up all day.
                          \_ Exactly.  Now you have identified your problem.
                             \_ Stick it in your ass.
                                \_ You're such a cutie!  Muwah!
                                   \_  Come a little closer and say that, punk.
                                       Just see what happens.
           \_ Just about everyone agrees with the necessity of the wiretaps.
              It's the part about doing this without oversight that violates
              FISA and has people in an uproar.
              \_ The thing is, it's Congress' opinion that counts, not any
                 professor.
                 \_ Although I think it's unlikely that a GOP Congress will
                    impeach a sitting GOP President, there are still plenty
                    of conservative congress-people who agree with the
                    speakers above.
                    \_ And there are Democrats who agree that the process
                       should continue with congressional oversight.
                       \_ I really mean no offense, but I think you're
                          missing why this is an issue to begin with. The
                          wiretapping has never been the issue; the issue's
                          been that the wiretapping was going on without
                          oversight (specifically, Judicial, according to
                          FISA). If I misunderstand your confusion, I look
                          forward to your elaboration.
           \_ I do not understand the uproar about FISA. Let's say the
              Pres. does an illegal wire tap, but never uses the evid.
              against you in ct. How are you hurt (esp. if you never
              find out that your were wire tapped)? What exactly are
              you afraid of?
              \_ Well, let's say you're in the opposition party and the Pres.
                 uses wiretapping to spy on you and set his party's political
                 strategy. Ridiculous, you say. But if there's no oversight,
                 there's nothing to prevent people from doing this sort of
                 thing. Really, court is the least of your concerns.
                 \_ Or they could end up with 500+ of your FBI files... but
                    no one would ever do that.
                    \_ So what? The Pres. could easily get access to these
                       files if he really wanted it. I don't see how FISA
                       makes this any easier/harder for the Pres.
                       \_ FISA prevents the executive branch from violating
                          the constitutional right against illegal search and
                          seizure. The international calls go to domestic
                          lines, and potentially citizens, so FISA allows taps
                          for cases that have probable cause. What the
                          executive branch is doing ignores probable cause and
                          may be using tainted evidence to gain domestic
                          wiretaps. So if someone in the 300k list of people
                          listed as terrorists calls say Clinton's Senate
                          office and hangs up, that's a link. No oversight so
                          now the NSA tells the FBI says we have credible link,
                          tap all lines in that office, we'll review the
                          transcripts. There would be no probable cause to tap
                          the lines without the tainted no-FISA evidence.
                          \_ I'm specifically talking about the FBI files.
                             The wiretap provisions of FISA do not restrict
                             the Pres. access to FBI files.
                             I don't follow your argument. At some point the
                             gov needs to get a valid warrant, that means
                             the warrant needs to be based on independent
                             evid not on the tainted wiretap info.
                             Say the NSA fingers a suspect and tells the
                             FBI about it. The FBI can't get a warrant to
                             FBI about it based on a so-called illegal
                             wiretap. The FBI can't get a warrant to
                             wiretap the guy w/o a showing of probable
                             cause. This can't be based on tainted evid.
                             The FBI will have to est. independent evid
                             to support a showing of probable cause. This
                             is what their warrant will be based on. The
                             fact that they got a tip from the NSA is the
                             same as if they got an anon tip and invest-
                             cause. This warrant can't be based on tainted
                             evid. The FBI will have to est. independent
                             evid to support a showing of probable cause.
                             The fact that they got a tip from the NSA is
                             the same as if they got an anon tip and invest-
                             igated. There is no taint.
                             [ I say so-called illegal wiretap b/c I think
                               FISA is an unconstitutional limitation on
                               the Pres. constitutional duty to defend this
                               nation from her enemies. ]
                 \_ So why would you be discussing your important political
                    policies in cleartext? Why wouldn't you be using encry-
                    ption? I still don't understand. When I value my info
                    enough that I don't want a 3d party intercepting it, I
                    use encryption. If the opposition party doesn't value
                    the information enough to take measures to prevent it
                    disclosure, then it is their own fault if the info is
                    disclosed.
                    \_ We're talking about phone conversations, not email.
                       Also, why should the resources of the US be used for
                       political gain of one political party?
                       \_ There are secure phone sol'n for sensitve info.
                          Use that if you really care. If not, don't be
                          surprised if someone overhears your conversation
                          and uses it against you.
                          I'm not exactly sure why you are bothered that
                          one party might be abusing government resources
                          for political gain. Both parties do it. Its not
                          something that can be prevented.
        \_ Congress can decide to impeach on whatever they want. The
           Constitution is itself vauge about the terms of what constitutes
           a "high crime", so practically speaking as long as you have the
           political clout you can just trump up charges and start the
           impeachment process. You don't need peanut gallery commentators
           to argue for or against impeachment. Is GW going to be impeached
           during his term? Not likely unless the Dems can pull off some sort
           of electoral revolution during the midterm elections. Chances
           of GW getting impeached are probably one in a thousand if not
           less.
        \_ Just an aside, but Bubba would say, (a) under oath, he didn't lie
           about Monica, (b) in the public sphere, "sexual relations" didn't
           include oral sex, and (c) in his private life with Hillary and
           Chelsea, he lied like hell.
           Similarly, Dubya would say there's a loophole on spying on the
           American people (a) if one end of a call comes from outside the
           country, and (b) one of those individuals is suspected of al Qaeda
           activity (c) during a war on al Qaeda (Dubya interprets the
           Congressional resolution authorizing "all necessary and appropriate
           force" in fighting al Qaeda as enabling his war powers against al
           Qaeda).
2006/2/8-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:41762 Activity:kinda low
2/8     Coretta King's funeral was attended by four presidents.  Was there
        anyone else, beside incumbent or ex- presidents, who ever had such
        honor in his/her funeral?
        \_ did you watch the CNN commentary?  did you hear the broadcaster
           making snide comments about hillary clinton running
           for president?  couldn't they have waited till after
           the funeral?  bleah.
           \_ I read the Yahoo news article and most speakers were trying to
              make their political points in the funeral.
              \_ "most"?  Do you know who Coretta King is?  What she did?  What
                 her friends who spoke there do?  Do you even know why you're
                 upset that any of them brought up politics?  You're extrapo-
                 lating a few seconds in a multi-hour service into a molehill
                 lating a few seconds in a multi-hour service into a scandal
                 because you've been told that's what happened.
                 \_ Of course I know.  Coretta is Rodney King's wife.  (Geez.)
              \_ Oh my god, the funeral of someone who spent their life
                 fighting political battles had eulogies that we about
                 those exact same battles.  How DARE they!
                 \_ And yet they won't let me piss on Reagan's grave...
        \_ Four Presidents and a Funeral.
        \_ Four Presidents and a Funeral.  Where's Monica?
        \_ I'm not 100% but I think several world leaders and presidents
           attended MacArthur's and Patton's funerals.
2006/2/7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:41735 Activity:nil
2/6     http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060207/ap_on_re_us/reagan_birthday
        The most charming and worst president in the US honored today.
2005/12/22-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41119 Activity:high
12/22   Okay, we know Bush isn't going to be impeached. It's Reagan and the
        Contra arms deal all over again, but with Bush saying he did it instead
        of "I don't know/recall." But is the unauthorized wiretapping of
        American citizens in these times an impeachable offense? Discuss.
        \_ Absolutely.  And I think he _will_ be impeached, but not removed.
           \_ you think a (R) controlled congress is going to impeach him?
              you're totally off your rocker.
              \_ Elections coming up here in 2006, and Repubs just unplugged
                 Grandma. It wouldn't even take a strong wind to swing this.
                 \_ While I share the general sentiment to a degree, I think
                    this is overly optimistic.  Honestly, I doubt 06 will be
                    much affected by the budget cuts.
                    \_ The last time congressional approval rates were this
                       low was 1994.  Granted, D now is _not_ R then, but
                       R's are rightly scared.
                       \_ Well, the GOP is certainly vulnerable right now --
                          a succession of scandals coupled with a general
                          decay of gung-ho support for our involvement in
                          Iraq has opened the door for change (not to mention
                          the bumbling efforts of FEMA during Katrina).  Sadly,
                          as long as the economy is reasonably sound and
                          unemployment doesn't change significantly, there's
                          very little likelihood of any big shift from R to D.
                          It's a pleasant fantasy to imagine the Budget cuts
                          having a massive unintended impact, but I think the
                          reality is that it's not going to have any impact
                          *at all* when all considerations are taken into
                          account.
                          \_ Yep.  If we had a recession, everything would be
                             perfect.
                             \_ Your reading comprehension is lacking.  I said
                                "Sadly, as long as the economy is sound, change
                                will not happen".  It is sad because one with
                                a reasonable ethical viewpoint would hope that
                                the succession of scandals would be sufficient
                                to bring about change without any other
                                external forces.  Alas, this is not the case.
        \_ neither.  complete waste of time.
        \_ Warrantless wiretapping is likely not an impeachable offense b/c
           the Pres. has inherent emergency powers to authorize any means he
           feels are necessary to protect the nation from its enemies in a
           crisis. Consider that Lincoln suspended habeas on his own authority
           despite a strong implication that only Congress had the right to
           do this. If the suspension of habeas in direct violation of separ-
           ation of powers is not impeachable, by no measure can one consider
           warrantless wiretapping impeachable. Unlike your ave. motd poster,
           most Dem. Congressmen and Senators understand that warrantless wire-
           tapping is a common practice in intelligence gathering and they will
           be reluctant to take this tool away.
           Even if BUSHCO's assertion that an emergency is present is deemed
           incorrect, there is a plausible argument that they were mistaken
           and simply overreacted. In light of 9/11, Spain, London, &c. better
           to overreact than underreact is a winning argument.
           \_ It's sad that you believe that.  Unchecked secret power grabs
              are a terrible road to go down.  Not in my country...
              \_ Regardless of whether it is a terrible road to go down, it
                 is not an impeachable offense under Art 2 Sec 4. Given the
                 pressure to act in a crisis, it is not unforeseeable that
                 a Pres. might authorize these means. Given that these means
                 have been SOP for decades, BUSHCO is at most guilty of
                 expanding their use.  Should they have resisted the tempt-
                 ation? Probably, but that doesn't mean it is impeachable.
                 It is our fault as voters that we did not select someone
                 better suited to resist the temptation. Fortunately, this
                 mistake can be corrected in a few years. Consider that the
                 A&S acts were repealed by Jefferson. There is nothing to
                 indicate that the next Pres. will be unwilling to restrict
                 the power that this Pres. has "acquired."
                 \_ "Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil
                     officers of the United States, shall be removed from
                     office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason,
                     bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
                    High crimes and misdemeanors would certainly cover
                        \_ certainly?  what web site told you that it is
                           "certainly" a "high crime and misdemeanor" to
                           order wiretaps like this?
                           \
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36.html
                           \_ http://tinyurl.com/bzaz4 (findlaw.com,
                              50 USC Ch 36) [ Same as the cornell url,
                              but you don't have to click through ]
                    warrantless wiretaps, especially if the use thereof
                    violates the current federal procedures. Although it is
                    SOP to begin wiretapping before asking for (and, in all
                    but 4 cases, receiving) a warrant to do so, it is
                    illegal to wiretap and NOT ask for a warrant within 72
                    hours; the latter has NOT been SOP for any administration
                    since the procedures were put in place except for this
                    administration. The legal requirement for impeachment
                    has been met; it now depends on the will of the Congress.
                    \_ In your studied constitutional expert legal opinion the
                       requirements for impeachment have been met?  I'm glad
                       we don't need to discuss it further.
                       \_ We could say something equally as fatuous about
                          your comments.  In fact, I will.  Grow a set.
                       \_ It is certainly more serious than lying about a
                          blowjob, which is what brought the last President
                          down. As I said before, impeachment is primarily
                          a political process, not a legal one. If enough
                          Americans think he should be impeached, he will be.
                       \_ You want to discuss this further, bring something
                          more than "No, he won't be impeached!" to the
                          discussion.
                          \_ I was replying to someone who did nothing but
                             rant and make grand sweeping statements and
                             put forth partisan agenda driven opinion as
                             fact.  Excuse me for daring to question the
                             brilliant legal minds on the motd.
                    \_ You misunderstand the argument completely. I agree
                       that there are procedures re wiretapping and that
                       these procedures have been violated.  I even agree
                       that authorizing these wiretaps in violations of
                       the USC is a crime UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES.
                       These are not normal circumstances. In an emergency
                       the Pres. has inherent powers to take any action
                       that he deems necessary to protect the republic and
                       its citizens.  His inherent power trumps the requi-
                       rements of the USC, thus no crime has been committed.
                       [ I also disagree that this is the first admin. that
                         has explicitly or implicitly authorized wiretaps
                         in violation of the USC; I think that this type of
                         thing has been going on since the start of the Cold
                         War. It has only become more extensive under BUSHCO ]
                       \_ Yes, we know, the John Yoo argument.  It doesn't
                          hold water.  Even under non-normal circumstances
                          checks and balances must have a place.  Otherwise
                          we are not the nation we claim we are.  Are you
                          going to hold your tongue if nationwide elections
                          in 2008 are suspended because "we're in an emergency
                          situation"?
                          \_ If normal checks and balances must have a place
                             during emergencies then why was Lincoln able to
                             suspend Habeas? The constitution strongly implies
                             that only Congress has this power. If violating
                             horizontal separation of powers is not sufficient
                             for impeachment, what make you so sure that some
                             wiretaps in violation of a federal statute (not
                             the constitution) is sufficient?
                             wiretaps in violation of a federal statute is
                             enough?
                             If nat'l elections were to be suspended wouldn't
                             it have made more sense to do so last year when
                             there was the very real possibility that BUSHCO
                             would be sent home?
                             \_ Show me a declaration of war.
                                \_ The Pres. emergency powers are not depen-
                                   dent on a declaration of war. If we use
                                   the habeas clause as a reference, it is
                                   possible to interpret "invasion" as any
                                   attack on American soil, thus confering
                                   authority to act. Note that the habeas
                                   clause does not require a declaration of
                                   war under Art I Sec 8.
                                   \_ ITYM Sec. 9.  Btw, Lincoln's suspension
                                      of habeas was ruled unconstitutional.
                                      \_ That is why the Star Chamber had him
                                         assassinated. No man is above the law!
                                      \_ No I mean Sec 8 (yes habeas clause is
                                         in Art 1 Sec 9, but it does not requ-
                                         ire Congress to declare war pursuant
                                         to its power to do so under Sec 8).
                                         While I agree that in Ex Parte Merry-
                                         man the USSC found Lincoln's actions
                                         to be unconstitutional, Lincoln was
                                         able to ignore that decision and no
                                         habeas relief was granted until after
                                         the war (iirc USSC restored habeas
                                         in Ex Parte Milligan). This suggests
                                         that the President's emergency power
                                         is so extensive that even the USSC
                                         lacks significant power to limit it.
                                         to me that the President's emergency
                                         power is so extensive that even the
                                         USSC lacks the ability to limit it.
                                         If the defiance of the USSC was not
                                         enough to impeach, please explain
                                         to me why ignoring a wire tapping
                                         provision is? [ Note: I do not think
                                         that "perjury" was enough ]
                                         Re Elections: I'm not sure what I
                                         would do. My family lived through
                                         a similar situation in the 70s and
                                         everything worked out fine in the
                                         end (elections/civil rights rest-
                                         ored, &c.) so I might just go
                                         along w/ it.
                                         \_ With "enough to impeach", you
                                            seem to be ignoring the political
                                            dimension.  Impeachment, as you
                                            well know, isn't triggered by
                                            the act of the impeached.  It's
                                            triggered by the political machine
                                            of the Congress.  "Enough to
                                            impeach" is determined by the house
                                            when it votes on articles.  "Enough
                                            to remove" is determined by the
                                            senate when it votes to convict.
                                            Lincoln's actions, whether or not
                                            a sufficient violation, did not
                                            trigger impeachment because his
                                            case was strong enough for Congress
                                            not to bring it.  In fact, Congress
                                            passed the Habeas Corpus Act in 1863
                                            which voiced their approval of his
                                            act.  Here and now, Bush is sitting
                                            at a point comparable to some time
                                            before ex parte milligan.  To claim
                                            before ex parte merryman.  To claim
                                            Bush has an inherent right because
                                            of Lincoln is claiming stare decisis
                                            in congressional acts.  i.e. that
                                            today's congress will do what
                                            lincoln's did.  It's optimistic at
                                            best to hope that congress will
                                            be so tied to precedent, especially
                                            when the situations are so
                                            drastically different.
                       \_ Right, and since we're fighting perpetual war
                          with Eurasia, Big Brother can do whatever he
                          feels is best for us.
                          \_ While there are some parallels between 1984
                             and the present situtation, I personally
                             find that the Alien and Sedition acts and
                             their repeal is a far better parallel.
           \_ Isn't warrantless wiretapping what brought Nixon down?
              \_ Only indirectly. It was Nixon using his office to stop the
                 wiretapping investigation that led to his resignation. In
                 this case, there is no cover-up, just the wiretapping.
                 \_ Bush is already trying to obstruct the investigation in
                    this case, but admittedly nothing has come out to the
                    degree as did in the Haldeman case. But it is probably
                    only a matter of time.
                    \- maybe there will be another SATURDAY NIGHT MASSACRE
                       when ALBERTO is ordered to fire FITZGERALD and resigns
                       the HARRIET is ordered to fire him and resigns and then
                       JOHNYOO fires him and becomes AG/SG/CF in one!
2005/12/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Computer/SW/Languages/Misc] UID:40884 Activity:kinda low
12/6    emarkp's little fit below is a good illustration of the "true random
        doesn't seem random" problem that afflicts shuffle-play implementations
        in MP3 and CD players.
        \_ Sigh.  When one value gets 50% of the hits in 200 trials, that's not
           uniform distribution, now matter how many names you want to call me.
           -emarkp
           \_ If this were true, you would be correct.  However, 200 trials
              from a script doesn't mean anything.  What counts is when
              kchang's code re-generates random numbers.  Looking at your
              sample below, it looks like reagan is about 6x more frequent
              than the next closest.  It's improbable, but a uniform
              distribution could have oversampled one item by 6 in the code,
              which comes up as 6/12 item generations.  That's assuming your
              script is distributed evenly across time, and so is his
              random generation code.  Assuming he varies the interval
              between regeneration, then this could be fairly probably.
              between regeneration, your results are fairly probable.
              eg. After nicknames get assigned, wait 1-100 seconds, then
              assign again.  Reagan just got assigned a long wait time, then
              your script oversampled one data point.  Or any variation off
              this procedure.  Done properly, it could give the illusion of
              semi-consistency while remaining truly random.
              -magneto (not "luck of draw" magneto, but "I am Magneto" one)
              \_ Except that several instances of "reagan" occur, then one of
                 (say) hitler or sauron, etc.  After I listed the results,
                 suddenly "reagan" went way down in frequency. -emarkp
                 \_ It's a conspiracy to call you "reagan" and not hitler!
                 \_ Ok, fine. Let's say he hardcoded something so that he
                    called you reagan. What an insult that is! What other
                    nicer villain names listed on his web site would you
                    preferred to be called?
                    \_ I'd like to be Captain Hook.  -!emarkp
                 \_ This is the CSUA. There are numerous algorithms that can
                    do this, biasing results for certain members of the
                    population for given periods of time.  -magneto
2005/11/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:40766 Activity:nil 88%like:40758 57%like:40761
11/28   David Brin is worried
        http://tinyurl.com/as59y (davidbrin.blogspot.com)
2005/11/28-29 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:40761 Activity:nil 61%like:40758 57%like:40766
11/28   David Brin is worried
 http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2005/11/ideas-for-rescuing-modernity-part-1.html
        [+80col URL deleted. Please use URL shortener]
          \_ wtf?!? comment if you want, don't delete the url.
        \_ you are an ass. why do you care?
2005/11/28-29 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:40758 Activity:nil 61%like:40761 88%like:40766
11/28   David Brin is worried
        http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2005/11/ideas-for-rescuing-modernity-part-1.html
2005/10/3-5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39959 Activity:nil
10/3    Freepers HATE on Miers.  I think she may have my full support!
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1495585/posts
        \_  So the man hated by the left, and slowly abandonned by the center
            finally loses the support of the far right.  It almost makes you
            fell sorry for the stupid little fuck.
                \_ I'd feel sorry for him if I wasn't living in the country
                   he's running.
                   he's running^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hfucking up.
2005/9/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39761 Activity:low
`9/20   Dubya is incompetent not racist
        http://csua.org/u/dfp (Wash Post columnist)
        \_ Maybe he is not, but that doesn't change the fact that his
           party leads racists. "...There was more than a little truth to
            this at one time. The GOP, after all, became a safe haven for
            Southern bigots who fled the Democratic Party in the civil rights
            era."
           \_ I'd also go with:  "Dubya's incompetence fucked poor blacks.
              He let them down." (my own words)
           \_ when push comes to shove, there's probably a lot more racists
              in america then people are willing to admit
              \_ "than", not "then", you stupid immigrant!
              \_ Fun story on NPR where they went with Astrodome refugees
                 offered 6 months free housing in Houston. Most rejected
                 one spot because there were too many Mexicans. They wanted
                 someplace where they felt "more comfortable."
                 http://thislife.org
                 \_ Are the ones rejecting the spot white?
                    \_ Nope.
           \_ The president who freed the slaves was a Republican.  The first
              African American Secretary of State is a Republican.  The second
              African American Secretary of State is a Republican.
              \_ And more Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than
                 Democrats.
                 \_ These two comments are so abysmally stupid it makes me want
                    to cry.
                    \_ Care to elaborate?
        \_ When did you stop beating your wife?
        \_ I agree with that.  Bush/Republicans don't really care about your
           skin color as long as you're rich and/or powerful, preferably
           both.  If it happens to be that the poor people aren't white, then
           it just looks like racism when he screws them over.
           \_ That's just plain stupid.  Bush/Republicans /do/ care about you
              irrespective of color/income.  From the article: "in his first
              presidential campaign, I traveled with him and tried, as he might
              say, to look into his heart. Conveniently enough, he sometimes
              wears it on his sleeve -- never more so, as I discovered, than
              when he talks about poor kids and racial and ethnic minorities.
              His feelings for them -- especially for poor kids -- are
              genuine."  Of course, I'm no longer a Republican so I guess
              you're not talking about me, right? -emarkp
              \_ When did you shift and why?
              \_ When did you shit and why?
                \_ Bush/Republicans believe the best way to help the poor is
                   by making the rich richer.  This will grow the economy and
                   give everyone a job and then everyone will be happy.  They
                   screw the poor over not because they don't like the poor
                   but because this doesn't work.
                   \_ Sure it worked. It worked from the glorious days of
                      Reaganomics when the super tax cut for the super rich
                      shifted our economy into 6th gear and saw the housing
                      and economic boom we have never seen since the 50s and
                      ultimately caused the demise of the evil Soviet
                      Union. Why do you hate Reagan?
                      \_ "Yoda, why you gotta be a playa hatuh?"
                      \_ We'll see how an economy built on suburban sprawl
                         and financed by equity cash-out loans deals with the
                         end of the era of cheap energy.
                         \_ Reagan didn't cause the suburban sprawl and the
                            rising cost of energy. Why do you hate the man?
                \_ Recently I reregistered as "no party affiliation" because
                   the party system is as broken as unions.  Basically the R's
                   as a group are selling out the country instead of solving
                   problems.  Then again, so are the D's. -emarkp
                   \_ Join the Green Party. We recycle, buy hybrids, and
                      try to bike as often as we can. I just got a scooter
                      last year. It's really cool.
                      \_ you know scooter pollutes more than a car, right?
                      \_ The main problem I have with Greens is that they tend
                         to be very myopic and almost obsessively focused on
                         a dangerously narrow set of issues.  While I count
                         myself as an environmentalist, I think there's a much
                         bigger picture to be considered that doesn't jibe
                         very well with the narrow Green body politic.  -mice
                      \_ I agree with some of the goals of the Greens, but I
                         think too many are just nuts. -emarkp
                   \_ I used to be a Democrat and now I feel exactly the same
                      way you do. I hate both R and D. But there is nothing
                      else left.
                      \_ If all the decent rational people leave the two major
                         parties, only winguts are left to vote in both
                         major party primaries.  It's self-perpetuating.
                         It's important to pick a party and vote in its
                         primary *especially* if you hate where the parties
                         are going and want to see them go in different
                         directions.
                      \_ My goal of leaving the party was to remove a bias
                         based on a letter.  I want to work harder on focusing
                         on what people say and do rather than a letter next to
                         their names. -emarkp
2005/9/14 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll/Jblack, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:39677 Activity:very high Cat_by:auto
9/14    Justin Black (jblack) is a rapist^H^H^H^H^H^Hracist RACIST RACIST
        \_ This is fucking bullshit, and you are a fucking tool.  Asshole?
           Crazy? Anti-immigrant?  A liar? Brainwashed by the right? Sure.
           But none of that adds up to bona fide racist.
           \_ http://csua.com/?entry=27349
              http://csua.com/?entry=27430
              \_ Boy, I'm convinced now.
                 \_ I assumed the links were supposed to be pointing out
                    that calling jblack a racist is a common idiotic
                    troll.
        \_ And water is wet and the sun is bright. Your point?
        \_ that's not illegal
           \_ I know, I just want everyone in the Bay Area to know. There's
              no place better than the tolerant Bay Area to be a KKK, racist,
              immigrant hater, SUV driver, gay & lesbian basher, Bush
              and Reagan worshippoer, a Republican.
           \_ Actually, it might be.  Isn't that libel?
        \_ Hey anonymous jblack hating guy!  Hows it ging in your sty?
              \_ Only if it's provably not true.
              \_ Maybe not. The problem is that the term "racist" doesn't
                 really carry much weight these days, everyone is a "racist".
                 Mix up Korean and Chinese - racist. Think rap isn't music,
                 racist.
                 The other problem may be that jblack rep is so low (not
                 really sure why, but everyone seems to hate him) that an
                 accusation of being a racist might not hurt him.
                 [ Note the other elements of libel are probably met ]
        \_ Hey anonymous jblack hating guy!  Hows it going in your sty?
           \_ My current working theory is that this is jblack himself,
              engaging in self-bashing to try and generate sympathy.
        \_ can you blame a guy for hating his surname?
           \_ Sure.
2005/9/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39668 Activity:nil
9/14    "The Katrina disaster, whose total damage estimate has risen from
        $100 to $125 billion, marks the culmination of Reagan's privatization
        of despair."
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/20050914/cm_ucru/charitiesareforsuckers
2005/9/13-16 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:39661 Activity:nil
9/13    To conservatives and small-government supporters, what is your opinion
        on regulating mercury emissions?
        http://tinyurl.com/chhea
        Another fact:  FDA/EPA & number of states have issued fish consumption
        advisories: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/admehg.html
        Don't you think these two things somehow related?
        \_ If the mercury is completely w/in the state it OUGHT to be
           beyond the reach of the fed gov. Re fish - so what? don't
           eat fish, I've never eaten fish (or any other animal) in
           my entire life and I'm doing okay.
           \_ Your mind has been classified as: small and conservative.
           \_ Brilliant!!! Maybe Colorado can charge an exorbitant amount
              of money for water going into California since they have an
              abundance. And you're thinking of privatization right? That's
              great! Go America, go Ronald Reagan, go Conservatism!!!
           \_ Re air, I've never breathed air my entire life and I'm...oh
              wait.
           \_ so your general position is a lack of respect for animal life,
              AND disrespect for people's culinary tastes?
              \_ Are the fish affected by the Hg? If so, let them evolve.
                 If not, what is the big damn problem - why don't you get
                 some culture and stop living off the flesh of dead animals.
           \_ most mercury emitted to the air in the coal-firing powerplants.
              coal contains a very very small amount of mercury, but because
              we burn a lot of it, this become a problem.  Since mercury
              vapor do travel across state lines, what is your opinion on
              Feds impose regulation on state-own power plants?
              \_ Legitimate ways for congress to get pwr over state coal
                 plants would be:
                 1. the plant provided pwr to other states not just
                    the state it was located in
                 2. the plant got coal from another state
                 3. Congress paid for the plant (all or part)
                 4. Congress took over all regulation of all coal plants
                    in the entire US
                 If the state is paying for the plant and it gets all of
                 the coal locally and provides all of the coal locally,
                 it OUGHT to be beyond the pwr of Congress. The argument
                 that the effect of the coal production on other states
                 justifies fed regulation if taken to its logical
                 conclusion justifies congressional regulation of
                 everything. Crime in one state affects another - why
                 shouldn't congress regulate that?
                 The pwr of the fed gov in necessarily limited and should
                 remain so.
           \_ I'm going to shoot you. I've never gotten anything good from
              you in my entire life and I'm doing ok.
              \_ Bring it on!
2005/7/11-13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:38525 Activity:low
7/11    "The Truth About Hillary" has made the New York Times best-seller
        list for the second week in a row - a development that has the Times
        book review spitting mad.
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1440701/posts
        \_ Micheal Moore's books were also best sellers, and were also retarded.
           I think spending money on stupid books with some political axe to
           grind that we agree with has become a major way Americans express
           our political beliefs.  It's stupid, but true.  Now if only I
           could find the right axe, I'd never have to work again.
           \_ 1. write axe-grind book
              2. buy up enough of your own book to make it a bestseller
              3. since it's a bestseller, people will buy it to see what the
                 deal is
              4. profit!
        \_ have you read the book?  even most conservatives think
           ed klein is a piece of shit.
           \_ Conservatives also said the same thing about Kitty Kelley's
              laughable "The Family" book.  Yet the NYTimes gave that one a
              favorable review. link:csua.org/u/cof
        \_ no but seriously, the book sucks, i read most of it but
           i couldn't take it anymore.  here is what your dark overlord
           John Podhoretz has to say about it:
           http://www.rightnation.us/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t80745.html
           here is my dark overlord Al Franken interviewing Ed Klein
           http://mediamatters.org/items/200506240007
           Just bringing up this book makes you look silly. - danh
                \_ you don't look like such an ass in person, what happened?
                   http://www-bsac.eecs.berkeley.edu/~jblack/eau.jpg
        \_ maybe you need a cruise to unwind.
           http://www.weeklystandard.com/banman/ads/Cruise2006a.300x250.jpg
              \_ I think 2 and 3 can be simplified to: 2. enrage those who
                 disagree with you enough that they start to emit bile and
                 spittle in their favorite media.  3. Just to stick it to
                 those who disagree with you, those who agree will buy the
                 book.  And of course no one will argue with 4.  It's sure made
                 Michael Moore rich.
              \_ Skip step one, and you've described the $cientology strategy
                 to a tee.
2005/6/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38015 Activity:kinda low
6/7     Poll on your perception of Mark Felt. Put "d" if you're a Democrat,
        "r" if you're a Republican, and "i" if you're Independent, "." if
        you're not sure:
        Hero: .ddid
        Traitor: .r
        \_ Why is he a traitor? They say Veritas vos liberabit, the truth
           will set you free. Mark Felt was honest and told the truth,
           freeing America from lies and deceptions.
           \_ The poll is a false dichotomy anyway.  !Hero != Traitor.  It
              looks like what he did was motivated not by doing the right thing
              but by being passed over for promotion. -emarkp
              \_ Damn you and your sensible observations.  They have no place
                 here in my senseless invective!!
                 \_ I love the old crank conservatives coming out of the
                    woodwork with their long essays about how Nixon
                    wasn't so bad.
                    \_ Compared to Bush, Nixon was a choirboy.
           \_ He divulged information that was protected and broke the
              law and his oath as an FBI agent in doing so. This to me
              is treason.
              \_ to me this falls under the same heading as civil disobedience.
                 sometimes in order to make change for the better, one has to
                 question the letter of the law.  If the intention of the law
                 is to make the world safer for individuals of our nation,
                 what do you do when living by that law allows others in power
                 to threaten the rights of individuals in our nation?
              \_ ah, yes, one shall not tell a lie, ANY lie, even if it does
                 greater good.
                 \_ What greater good? Personally I don't think that
                    what Nixon did was wrong. He was trying to run
                    cover for some stupid idiots. While the right
                    cover for some stupid flunkies. While the right
                    thing to do would have been to not get involved,
                    its not like his actions were all that bad.
                    \_ B&E, plans for arson, blackmail, use of Federal
                       Agencies for political vengeance-- these do not
                       constitute wrong? Physician, heal thyself.
              \_ And when are we having Robert Novak's public execution by
                 firing squad? You can't eat your cake and have it too.
              \_ You need a dictionary.
        \_ It's clear to me that the Republican party of today hasn't
           changed much from the Republican party of The Crook 3 decades
           ago. They still keep dirt on all of their enemies. The real only
           difference is that the Republican party of today conceals
           activities a lot better.
           \_ It shits me to tears to hear the so-called liberal press fall
              over themselves to tell us what great presidents Nixon and
              Reagan were. Mao never had it this good. Kim Il Sung is turning
              over in his grave with envy.
2005/6/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37989 Activity:nil
6/6     Hilarious shit.  Ten most harmful books of the 19th and 20th centuries.
        The entry under Das Kapital is particularly funny.
        http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=7591
        \_ Hmm, now I know how the left feels when they start to imagine a
           vast right wing consipiracy.  These guys must be being manipulated
           by some liberal power.  Why else would they do something so
           obviously contrary to their agenda. -not in earnest.
        \_ I find it highly amusing that the ads are for "The Ultimate Fitness
           Program" and "electron machines" (some sort of water purifier, I'm
           guessing). More push-ups, and prevent the defiling of those
           precious bodily fluids, young conservative!
        \_ Hahahaha!
           "FDR adopted the idea as U.S. policy, and the U.S. government now
            has a $2.6-trillion annual budget and an $8-trillion dollar debt."
           That's right, ignore those huge fans of Keynes, Reagan and Bush Jr.
2005/5/18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:37726 Activity:kinda low
5/17    Presidential directive expected within weeks announcing intention
        to weaponize space (offensive and defensive)
        http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/18/business/18space.html
        \_ Oh great, another arms race for blowing our national
           resources on.  Right in the middle of a fucking war.
        \_ w00t! I've been waiting for the Ronald Reagan Memorial
           Space Based Weapons Platform to go online for years.
           \_ I love Reagan! I don't know any of his politicies but he is
              so loving and charming on TV.
        \_ This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a
           large arms industry is new in the American experience. The
           total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual --
           is felt in every city, every State house, every office of
           the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need
           for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend
           its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood
           are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
           In the councils of government, we must guard against the
           acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or
           unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential
           for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will
           persist.
           --General Dwight D. Eisenhower.
2005/4/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:37324 Activity:very high
4/22    Quote going around the blogs today:
        "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is
        absolute -- where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should
        he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his
        parishioners for whom to vote -- where no church or church school is
        granted any public funds or political preference ... I believe in an
        America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish --
        where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on
        public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any
        other ecclesiastical source -- where no religious body seeks to impose
        its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the
        public acts of its officials." - president John F. Kennedy
        \_ Why did JFK hate America?
            \_ JFK was the first Catholic President, he had no choice but to
                come out strong against religion, since he was a religious
                Minority.  And there were wingnuts in the red states who
                actually thought the vatican might have sway over US policy
                It is similar to why Clinton had to be so hard on drugs during
                his presidency as a known pot-smoker. -phuqm
                his presidency as a known pot-head. -phuqm
                \_ phuqm, it's hard to take anything you say seriously after
                   reading the last sentence in this paragraph.  There is a
                   kernel of truth in what you say, in that Clinton indeed
                   expanded the war on drugs more than any other president
                   before him in part to appear as a Democrat that was
                   "tough on crime."  However, calling him a "known pot-head"
                   just makes you sound like a Freeper.  That's okay, one more
                   motd crank we don't have to pay attention to.
                   \_and one more humor impaired whiner.  Here, I'll give you
                      the bland version:  "Because Clinton took so much heat
                      over his (admitted) marijuana use, he could not afford
                      to appear soft on drugs."  (Does that make it easier
                      for you to parse oh humorless one?).  Also, you or
                      someone editing at the same time as you stepped on
                      two of my posts, punk.
        \_ So?
        \_ and he is wrong.  The 'separation' metaphor is a 20th century
           contrivance by Justice Black in Everson that completely distorts the
           original intent.  Time to put this absurd notion in the trash
           bin of history.
           \_ the wall of seperation metaphore was taken from a letter by
              Jefferson in 1802.  However,  you are right that Kennedy is
              wrong above.  And right in general that it is a bad metaphore
              which does not capture the actual intent of the 1st amendment.
                                        -phuqm
              \_ Jefferson was in France during the time the Bill of Rights
                 was ratified.  He later collaborated with Madison to
                 write the Religious Freedom act in Virginia, which was
                 explicit about a separation.  At the writing of the
                 Bill of Rights almost every colony had a State church.
                 Jefferson himself as President funded Christian missionaries.
                 This type of Federal support for Christian institutions
                 continued until the beginning of the 20th century.
                 In another letter, to Rev. Samuel Miller on
                 Jan. 23, 1808 Jefferson stated, "I consider the
                 government of the U S. as interdicted by the
                 Constitution from intermeddling with religious
                 institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or
                 exercises. This results not only from the provision
                 that no law shall be made respecting the establishment,
                 or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which
                 reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the
                 U.S. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious
                 exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline,
                 has been delegated to the general government. It must
                 then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any
                 human authority."
                 Lastly, it is someone ironic that Pres. Kennedy uses
                 invokes this decision since Justice Black was
                 radically anti-Catholic and even a former member of
                 the KKK.
                  \_ umm, thanks for the history lesson and all, but i'm
                     not sure why this is a response to me.  Do you think
                     you are adding or subtracting from what I said?
                     Who cares where Jefferson was when the Bill of Rights
                     was ratified?  Why is that relavent to this
                     conversation? -phuqm
                  \_ Umm, thanks for the history lesson and all, but i'm
                     unclear on why this is a response to me.  Do you
                     think you are adding or subtracting from what I said?
                     Who cares where Jefferson was when the BofR was
                     ratified?  How does that impact anything that has
                     been said? -phuqm
              \_ JFK's statement cannot be wrong. The statement 'I believe
                 in an America where []' is very different from 'I believe
                 that in America []'. JFK's statement is an expression of
                 what America OUGHT to be rather than what it is (or is
                 required to be under the establishment clause). There is
                 nothing wrong with his belief that America should have
                 more religious separation than the constitution requires.
                 \_ There is more than one way to be wrong.  One can be
                    wrong headed.  Obviouly I am not suggesting that he
                    is wrong about what he believes (though, I don't know
                    that he did believe that).  I am saying that what he
                    believes in (allegedly) is wrong.  -phuqm
                 \_ There is more than one way to be wrong.  One can, for
                    example, be wrong headed.  I obviously did not mean to
                    suggest that he incorrectly stated his beliefs (though
                    he may well have).  -phuqm
                    \_ Perhaps I was not clear. JFK statement indicates
                       that he knew what the 1st amd required and was
                       arguing that this was not enough: the policy
                       of America ought to be complete separation
                       despite the fact that the framers didn't require
                       that. One can disagree w/ his assessment, but the
                       assessment cannot itself be wrong.
                 \_ Side note: wouldn't it be nice to again have a president
                    that could speak in complete sentences?
                    \_ Wouldn't it be nice to have a well spoken liberal
                       candidate that could actually win the election?
                       \_ Hell, liberal or conservative, it's fine with me.
                          Anything would be better than the leader of the
                          free world giving us all the sneaking suspicion
                          that he can't even tie his shoes.
                    \_ You mean like Reagan? Yes.
                        \_ reagan was very charming, regardless of whether
                           or not you agreed with what he said.
2005/4/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37278 Activity:nil
4/20    Today in History: Jimmy Carter Attacked by Killer Rabbit (Apr 20, 1979)
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1387141/posts
        \- well in a weird version of Godwin's Law, also Hitler bday. --psb
           \_ EOT
2005/4/15 [Uncategorized/Profanity, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:37215 Activity:high 50%like:36345
4/15    Fuck Reagan. Fuck his followers as well.
        \_ Necrophiliac.
           \_ That no longer legal thanks to the Governator!
2005/3/10 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:36609 Activity:high
3/9     http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/03/10/film.passionrecut.ap
        Re-release of The Passion. In another news, religious conservative
        membership increases and Republicans are expected to rule for the
        next decade or two. Also, Mel Gibson is running for president:
                http://www.writeinmelgibsonforpresident.org
                \_ No, he's not.  Read the site.
        Hooray for the rise of conservative media and conservative actors.
        \_ All in favor, say "die".
           \_ Die. But it's not gonna happen, conservatives are reproducing
              faster than liberals.
              \_ Must watch episode AABF23.
              \_ You got whooshed by a Simpsons reference.
           \_ Gibson, the next Reagan for Republicans?
            \_ "I am Mel Gibson, and I see before me an army of my countrymen
               here in defiance of tyranny. You have come to fight as free men,
               and free men you are. What would you do without freedom? Will
               you fight? FREEDOM!!! VOTE FOR ME!!!"
               \_ Haha, good memory!
                  \_ You do realize that quotes and scripts are available
                     online?  It's this handy little technology thingy called
                     a 'search engine'.
        \_ IIRC the re-release is a slightly different cut to get it under an R
           rating.
           \_ ...which effort failed miserably. -John
        \_ I am a Christian and have always voted for the Democrats, but this
           anti-Christian rhetoric on the motd is annoying.  I think
           I am going to switch to Republican.  I mean, what did Mel Gibson
           do that people here hate him so much.
           \_ Produced a movie that plays on Christians' sense of religious
              persecution to ensure a steady profit base while inflicting
              gratuitous scenes of torture on said audience. It's exploitation
              of the worst kind.
              \_ I don't particularly like the movie, but if Mel Gibson
                 wants to make money, I am sure there are plenty of much
                 easier ways for him to do so.  I disagree that his
                 intention is purely, or even mainly for monetary gain.
                 And I think there have been way too few mainstream
                 movies about Christ, or other Christian related theme
                 for quite some time.  I applaud Mel Gibson for his
                 courage in making the movie.  And boy, did he get
                      crucified
                 attacked ^ for it, but I think he saw it coming, and did
                          sort of like jesus
                 it nevertheless ^.  The movie didn't do it for me
                 because it focused on the physical suffering of
                 Jesus, but that's certainly one aspect of Christ's
                 road to the cross, and if Gibson wants to focus on
                 that, I don't have a problem with it.
2005/2/22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36362 Activity:high
2/22    See if you can spot the loaded questions and false dichotomies on this
        "moral politics" test.
        http://www.moral-politics.com/xpolitics.aspx?menu=Home
        \_ Apparently I'm a socialist!  I never knew. -jrleek
           \_ That's "terrorist" to you, young man.  Get with the new
              terminology.
        \_ Looks like a ripoff of http://www.politicalcompass.org
           including the bad questions.  -emarkp
           \_ "These so-called ill-treatments and torturing in
              concentration camps, stories of which were spread
              everywhere amongst the people, and particularly by
              detainees who were liberated by the occupying armies,
              were not, as assumed, inflicted methodically, but by
              individual leaders, sub-leaders , and men who laid violent
              hands on them." -- Rudolf Höss, Commandant of Auschwitz
              hands on them." -- Rudolf HM-vss, Commandant of Auschwitz
              until 1943, in his post-war testimony
              http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/iconochasms.php
              \_ "The problem is, this kind of thing occurs in
                 prisons across the country and across the world. And
                 you have to know it's going to be a possibility. And
                 therefore the training and the discipline and the
                 doctrine has to be such that you anticipate that
                 risk. And clearly, that wasn't done to the extent it
                 should." -Don Rumsfeld, Feb 3 2005
           \_ I consider myself liberal and I got:Economic Left/Right: -6.38
              Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.59
        \_ I am a moderate social democrat. No American party represents
           me. But I already knew that!
2005/2/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Finance/Investment] UID:36204 Activity:kinda low
2/16    Is Alan Greenspan a Democrat or a Republican? Who/When appoints such
        a man and how long does he get to say when to raise/lower interest
        rate?
        \_ Alan Greenspan used to be best buddies with Ayn Rand in a previous
           life.  I am unclear on his current political status.  Possibly
           'sold out.' -- ilyas
           'too old and sold out to care.' -- ilyas
           \_ isn't Bill Gates a big fan of Ayn? What is it about rich people
              and their idol Ayn?
              \_ Ayn's philosophy is that rich people are rich because they
                 earned it (even if they inherited it), and they deserve to
                 keep it.  Of course rich people like her.
                 \_ No, the philosophy, as I recall, was that if you earn
                    money, you deserve it (note "earn" in the the meritocratic
                    sense.)  And are not wealthy, and don't work for money,
                    you do not deserve it.  -John
                 \_ what does Ayn think about Monarchy? Does she like it when
                    the rich aristocrats keep what they have and work to keep
                    it that way?
                    \_ who knows?  she died. - danh
                    \_ ARISTOCRACY, n.  Government by the best men. (In this
                       sense the word is obsolete; so is that kind of
                       government.) Fellows that wear downy hats and clean
                       shirts -- guilty of education and suspected of bank
                       accounts.  (From the Devil's Dictionary) -- ilyas
        \_ Greenspan was appointed to the board of the Federal Reserve
           by Reagan in '87. The President designates which member of
           the board is the Chairman and all presidents since and
           including Reagan have designated Greenspan as the Chairman.
           An appointment to the board last 14 yrs, I believe that the
           Chairman holds the position for 4 yrs, but I'm not sure.
           Greenspan was (and probably still is) a Republican.
           For more info see:
           http://www.federalreserve.gov/bios/greenspan.htm
           BTW, you could have figured out all this for yourself by
           typing 'Alan Greenspan' into Google.
2005/1/25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35886 Activity:very high
1/25    Budget deficit of $368b predicted for this year, plus whatever Bush
        gets for Iraq. How does that compare to Reagan?
        \_ Here's a graph from 1960-2002.  Sadly can't find one including
           the last two years.   Not sure if the projected '03 and '04
           numbers include projected Iraq expenses.  [thanks for stomping
           my change, asshat]
           http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm
           \_ Great resource, thanks! More specifically, how do these deficits
              compare in terms of real dollar value at the time (i.e., Reagan's
              deficits in 1980 dollars vs. Bush's deficits in same)?
              \_ http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0
                 The tables are not in constant dollar, but they also give
                 the amounts in percentage of GDP, which is really what you
                 should be looking at anyway.  The Reagan and the early
                 Clinton years were both worse for the deficit.
                 \_ Uh.  When do you think the "Clinton years" started?
                    Starting in 93 (The start of the clinton years), the
                    deficit headed DOWN.  It's Reagan and Bush I that were
                    "worse for the deficit".
                    \_ Clinton had the good fortune to enjoy the benefits
                       of the heavy lifting Bush I did on raising taxes.
                       Bush II won't repeat the same mistake of doing the
                       hard work so a Democrat can take the credit.
                       \_ Or you could say that Bush I took the brunt of
                          trying to keep the country solvent because of the
                          excesses of the 80's, and people realized that
                          cutting taxes while increasing spending ... doesn't
                          work.
                          \_ The 2 views are not contradictory.
                       \_ Have you heard of "The Pledge?"  No Republican will
                          ever raise taxes again, ever.
                          \_ Why do Republicans hate America?
                          \_ "Read my lips" notwithstanding, Bush I might well
                             have won the re-election if he had another year
                             in his first term and the country started
                             enjoying the fruits of his tax increases.
                             \_ Maybe, but the lesson the Republicans learned
                                from Bush I was "Raise taxes and die."
                   \_ Much credit goes to Newt Gingrich, for keeping down
                      spending from 96 onwards. -liberal
                      \_ And for championing "family values" while in the
                         midst of a 7 year affair with one of his employees!
        \_ $368 + $100B for war + ??? for SS "reform"
           It could easily be over $600B.
        \_ How the hell did Clinton get +523 while all the rest get negatives?
           He didn't do anything that was so radical from the other
           presidents. Talking about radical, Bush=radical conservative.
           \_ Between 91 and 95, they fixed a number of structural budget
              problems.  From that, the discussion was able to move from
              "how to balance the budget" to "how much do we use to pay
              down the debt and how much to cut taxes".
2005/1/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:35863 Activity:kinda low
1/23    Johnny Carson, RIP.
        \_ was he blue, red, or purple?
           \_ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1326799/posts#23
        \_ Johnny Cash, Johnny Carson, who will be next?
           \_ *shrug*  You, if we're lucky.
           \_ Johnny Ramone beat Carson to it. That's three. Leave it alone.
2004/11/27 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:35086 Activity:high
11/27   There will be no discussion of the dollar's collapse, casualties
        in Iraq, the soon to be cancelled election, or anything else that
        might reflect unfavourably on Our Glorious Leader.
        \_ Ah, the liberal commentators have reared their ugly heads.
           How does it feel to be continuously losing, out of power,
           and basically wrong? And what hath happened to thine cries
           for emigration my faithful liberal? Useful idiots indeed!
        \_ hey motd economists: I've been puzzling over the difference
           between "tax and spend liberals" and "deficit spending
           republicans" since I realized the dollar did this during
           Reagan's tenure as well.  What differences are there between
           taxing citizens and siphoning value out of the US economy
           to fund government activity (besides the marketing appeal
           of claiming to not tax)?  This is a serious question because
           I don't claim to understand the global market dynamics.
2004/11/12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34856 Activity:insanely high
11/11   What will the Euro/Dollar ratio be in four years?
        1/1: ..
        1.3/1:
        1.5/1:
        1.8/1: .
        2/1:
        higher:
        \_ if there is a general perception that the dollar is falling,
           would that cause a mass movement of the dollar (many people
           moving their money), which would cause the actual change?
           \_ In general, that is how a market works. People pay for
              what they percieve the value of something is.
              \- while this may be trivially true [like buy low sell high]
                 it's not a theoretically meaningful statement. the "theory"
                 of FX appaches the question either by modeling supply and
                 demand ... like say "portfolio balance theory"or my looking
                 at boundary condition/equillibria [see say uncovered interest
                 parity, purchasing power parity etc]. --psb
           \_ If I wantto invest in Eruos what would be the best way?
              \_ http://www.everbank.com
        \_ Dollar will strengthen
           \_ Can I have some of that crack you're smoking?
              \_ Interest rates will rise and bring the dollar up with
                 them.
                 \_ Interest rate is cyclical.  This dollar correction
                    is a structural correction.
                    is a structural correction.  Lately, the focus has
                    been on the structural need for the dollar to
                    depreciate.  Your quarter point interest rate
                    increases would likely not be enough to convince
                    people not to dump the dollar if they are
                    convinced the dollar is going to drop by another 20 or
                    30 percent.
                    \_ This is rather circular. It's going to drop because
                       people think it will drop. Yes, it plays to how the
                       market works but WHY would people think it is going
                       to drop? It will rise when it again becomes a
                       good investment, which will be when interest rates
                       rise.
                       \_ No it isn't circular.  I was just pointing
                          out that interest rate as a cause of fluctuation of
                          the dollar is cyclical.  And that there are
                          other structural reasons that would likely cause
                          the dollar to fall.  The most important of these
                          is the continuing trade deficit.  Another reason
                          is that China's economy is overheating and
                          they are raising interest rate for the RMB,
                          and thinking hard about letting the RMB
                          appreciate, which would likely lead to other
                          asian currencies appreciating.
                          \_ The structural reasons *have* caused the
                             dollar to fall. The question is: Where will
                             it be in 4 years? I predict up.
                          \_ The structural reasons *have* caused the
                             dollar to fall. The question is: Where will
                             it be in 4 years? I predict up.
                       \_ We are running massive budget and trade deficits.
                          \_ Was the dollar low or high in the 1980s
                             when Reagan was doing the same thing?
                          Bush says "deficits don't matter" and intends
                          to pile up even deeper deficits. This is all
                          hard on the dollar.
                          \_ Was the dollar low or high in the 1980s
                             when Reagan was doing the same thing?
2004/11/4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34666 Activity:kinda low
11/4    Should Democrats Get Religion? CBS special:
        http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/04/politics/main653667.shtml
        \_ CBS is great. While all the other news corps are starting
           to align to Fox News because that's where the money is
           (majority has spoken), CBS seems to be tilting more to the
           left. It is great.
        \_ To take this seriously, I think no.  At least, I think the
           Democrats should stop treating religion so contemptously, but I
           don't think they need to become bible thumpers.  Bush came
           accross well because he actually believes his religion and acts
           accordingly.  Kerry looks silly on religion because he makes a
           big deal about his relgion, but obviously doesn't belive it
           personally.  Regan, Clinton, and Bush Sr. were all fairly
           non-religious, but they didn't try to pretend to be religious
           either.
           \_ Hmm. You and I have different memories of Ronald Reagan.
                -- ulysses
              \_ I admit, Regan is probably the biggest stretch in that
                 group.  He certainly ditched pleantly of church though.
                 \_ Reagan used religious rhetoric, but I am fairly certain
                    he was not a religious man. -- ilyas
           \_ Al Gore was a fairly religious man. Not only was Tipper
              absurdly conservative, but I know for a fact that Al
              attended church often, because my gf went to the same
              church. It didn't really help him win.
              \_ I'm pretty sure it hurt him.   I would have voted
                 for Gore had it not been for the tipper/lieberman
                 religious asshole axis.
2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:34627 Activity:moderate
11/3    Historically, what is the longest duration which we had a
        republican president? what about democratic?
        \_ see
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_president#List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States
        \_ see : http://tinyurl.com/5hna3
2004/10/31-11/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:34478 Activity:kinda low
10/31   Polls predicted a solid victory for Thomas Dewey over Harry
        Truman in 1948. Truman won.  In 1980, polls showed Reagan and
        Carter in a close race, but Reagan won by a landslide. What
        really happened in 1948 and 1980?
        \_ "Dewey Defeats Truman" was based on early returns, and the Chicago
           Tribune needing to go to press before enough returns were in.
           Carter/Reagan was an example of undecideds breaking to the
           challenger.  -tom
2004/10/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:34437 Activity:high
10/29   Do we have any motd archives going back to the 80s?
        \_ I *used* to have some, but moved them to
           /csua/tmp/mehlhaff/motd_archive, and then some idiot went and
           cleaned out all 'old' files from /csua/tmp.  I might have offsite
           backups, but dont want to pullthem backup if they're just going to
           get deleted again.  -EricM
           \_ Given that quite a few people seem to be running motd archivers,
              I think it's a safe bet that they'd stay around somewhere, and
              it'd be a really cool thing to have.  -John
           \_ would have been interesting to compare the political battle:
                Reagan vs. Carter, Reagan vs. Mondale (?)
                \_ I just looked up election week from 1996, and it was all
                   about random technical shit.  The motd, like the country
                   in general, has never been this divided, politicized,
                   on angry.
                        \_ where is this located?
                           \_ Past ennui, make a left at disgruntled,
                              frustrated despair will be on your right.
                              If you hit blind rage, you've gone too far.
                              \_ You mean like aaron?
                        \_ Most of the alumni who post on the motd
                           and wall about political junk were still
                           in school in 1996 and were too busy studying
                           and worrying about graduating to waste
                           time w/ political non-sense.
                \_ Reagan vs. Carter: There wouldn't be much discussion.
                   Carter was an utter disaster for this country.  If you were
                   old enough to remember you wouldn't even consider that a
                   debate.  Carter is now running around certifying stolen
                   elections for his socialist pals in South America.  The man
                   Carter was an utter disaster for this country.  If
                   you were old enough to remember you wouldn't even
                   consider that a debate.  Carter is now running
                   around certifying stolen elections for his
                   socialist pals in South America.  The man
                   is a disgrace.
        \_ The world-writeable-motd didn't exist in the 80's.
2004/10/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34150 Activity:nil
10/15   http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/naes/index.htm
        Strong support for Dubya and dislike of Kerry on this survey of
        servicemen and women and their families.  Note the strength of support
        when the breakdown is given for the soldiers only (not including
        family members).
        \_ I applaud the strenght and resolve our armed forces have in
           implementing free market reforms in Iraq.  Do they realize
           Paul Bremer thinks implementing a flat tax and reduction of
           tariffs are his main accomplishments in Iraq?  - danh
        \_ Military personnel in a non-draft military tend to be Republican.
           They also tend to favor strong military action over diplomatic
           solutions and sanctions.  Cf. military personnel support for
           Reagan over Carter.  On the other hand, would someone please explain
           to me how a survey of 655 service personnel accurately reflects
           trends in a military that now has over 200 times that number on
           duty in Iraq?
           \_ If your complaint is that they also need a survey for boots
              on the ground folks in Iraq, then it's warranted.  ... but, I
              don't see military higher-ups authorizing pansy election surveys
              while they're trying to fix Iraq.
              \_ I'm sorry, I just don't get the methodology that says that
                 the opinions of 655 people translates into an accurate picture
                 of all military personnel.  How does this work?
                 \_ Like any other poll, it's basic statistics.  You may wish
                    to consult the concepts of "sampling" and "margin of
                    error."  This is how any poll works.  That said, selecting
                    a representative sample is very difficult, and lots of
                    polling organizations get it wrong - even good ones.
                    c.f. Gallup's accuracy issues of late.
                    \_ Right, so I read up on Annenberg's methodology and the
                       basic stats page below.  My question then is how
                       accurately this reflects the views of the boots on the
                       ground, whether the same results hold true for
                       reservists currently on duty, and what questions were
                       asked, since the specific wording of the questions
                       could influence the results.  Kudos to the motd for
                       helping me to get a grip on this.
                       \_ Note your points were already brought up ...
                          three replies before your post.
           \_ How do polls of non-military citizens of 600-1200 meaningfully
              represent *millions* of people in a state if you're unwilling
              to allow the same 600+ to represent ~130k?
              \_ Sorry, not trying to be a troll, but genuinely curious. How
                 does this actually work?
                 \_ You may find this link helpful.  And oh yeah, obGoogle.
                    http://www.isixsigma.com/library/content/c040607a.asp
                    \_ thank you!
        \_ Is this the part where we're supposed to call them stupid and
           uneducated and braindwashed?
           \_ This is the part where we talk about yermom.
2004/10/8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:33978 Activity:high
10/7    If Bin Laden were found in the next week or so, do you think the
        election would favor one party or another?
        \_ Yes.  Dubya.  Duh.
        \_ W. might just be delaying a Bin Laden capture in time for the
           elections. At the very least, an early capture of B.L. might
           have kept W. from invading Iraq.
           \_ I worried for a while that this was a possibility... but
              if they were going to pull this rabbit out of the hat,
              don't you think they would have dont it already? Seems too
              late at this point to not appear calculated
              \_ If Pakistan can pick him up, basically anytime, then
                 maybe they can "bargain/extort" more for producing
                 B.L. for W. than whatever was agreed to before.
           \_ I think you need more tin foil in your hat.
              \_ Think reagan/carter/hostages...
                 \_ Think "I'm an idiot" you moron.
2004/10/6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33945 Activity:nil
10/4    "if you compare the language used to describe Jeffords to the
        language used to describe Zell Miller [after the Democrat's
        pro-Bush speech at Republican convention],
        you will know almost everything you need to know about the
        modern media."
        Remembrance of Contracts Past
        http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/691zjgqk.asp
        \_ Except Jeffords is right, and Miller is wrong.
           \_ I know nothing of Jeffords, but Miller tried to challenge
              his interviewer to a duel.  Now THAT'S news.
              \_ Honk if you demand satisfaction!
2004/9/7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:33389 Activity:high
9/7     After the Democratic convention and the last couple months, is it too
        late to recast Kerry as anything other than the Vietnam guy?
        \_ Certainly not.  If he picks two or three main points and gets the
           talking heads to parrot his talking points, he could easily enter
           October as the "We can do better" guy.
        \_ IMO, Kerry can spend a little time on Vietnam (basically be morally
           outraged and say it was all done in '96), but focus on for George
           W. Bush:  W. stands for "Wrong".
        \_ Play populist.  Show how GWBs policies have favored the rich and
           screwed the middle class (no-one likes to consider themselves poor).
           Ask "Where's Osama?" and point out half-assed security measures.
        \_ Do people have a memory that extends further back than 2 months?
           \_ It's easily modified.  E.g., even though there were no WMDs in
              Iraq, nukular weapons are the real threat.  Our use of force
              in Iraq caused Libya to give up its nukular program!  Anyway,
              the whold world thought we'd find WMDs in Iraq!
              \_ Bush had more than 2 months to change perception.
        \_ Is this your first presidential campaign? The campaign season
           just officially began.
           \_ Gallop poll, since 1980, at the start of September (polling
              number eyeballed from graph) and actual result:
              1980      Reagan tied, Reagan won at 50.8%
              1984      Reagan ahead at 57%, Reagan won at 59%
              1988      Bush ahead at 48%, Bush won at 53.9%
              1992      Clinton ahead at 50%, Clinton won at 43.2%
              1996      Clinton ahead at 53%, Clinton won at 49.9%
              2000      Tied, Bush won by winning the tie breaker
              If you bothered to do some research, you might actually learn
              something.  Is this your first election?
              \_ No, I have followed many campaigns. That is why I know
                 any question asked at the start of the campaign season
                 asking "is it too late" is really really stupid.
                 \_ I see.  And it's just coincidence that the candidate
                    leading the race in the start of September has won
                    every presidential since the 1980 (that I've bothered
                    to look)?  In fact, since the 1930's (when Gallop starting
                    tracking elections), only in 1960 did the leading candidate
                    in the start of September lose an election.  In 9/1960,
                    Kenneday was behind 46% vs 47%, and he won the election
                    with 50.1% of the vote.  Nah, just a coincidence.
                    \_ No, it just shows that elections are decided by
                       something other than personalities. The economy
                       in September determines the winner in November,
                       except during exceptional years.
                       \_ Now, how does this claim jive with your previous
                          claim that "*any* question asked at the start of
                          the campaign season asking 'is it too late' is
                          really really stupid."?  (Emphasis added.)
                          \_ I believe he's claiming that this is an
                             exceptional year.  I would tend to agree.
                             !the above guy
                             \_ Note that he didn't say "in an exceptional
                                year".  He stated it as a general principle.
                                Note also that he repeatedly asked "is this
                                your first election?".  The only reason to
                                ask that would be to use the history of
                                previous elections as a guide to what will
                                happen this time.  This is clearly contrary
                                to a claim that history doesn't apply because
                                this is an exceptional election.
2004/9/2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33289 Activity:insanely high
9/2     It takes a republican to put Elaine Chao, the first Asian American
        women in the U.S. Cabinet:
        http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/01/gop.main/index.html
        \_ more like, she had to marry a republican senator first.
           \_ Republicans are oppressing her with their big white penises?
           \_ http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/chao-bio.html
                \_ I am sure she's very capable herself, but that alone
                   isn't usually enough.
           \_ that is right.  Chinese communities knows Elaine Chao for years.
              and, if she never married to a powerful senator, she would never
              gotten where she is now.  Further, I hate her policies, and
              that alone is good enough for me to discredit her despite she
              belongs to the same ethnic tribe as I.
              \_ That's fine.  There are lots of Irish politians I don't
                 support.  I think race based support for anyone is
                 stupid.
        \_ I don't think the gwbush administration is racist.  I think
           they just hate poor people.
        \_ I hate those racist republicans!  We need more equal
           opportunity supporters like John Kerry and his all-white
           all-the-time campaign!
           \_ Yeah, like the way GWB has more non-whites in his administration
              at any level than Clinton did in 8 years and Kerry has on his
              staff now.  But don't let facts trip you up on the way to the
              next meeting of the proletariat, comrade!
              \_ You respond to obvious sarcasm by pretending it is an
                 honest statement. Boy are you stupid.
                 \_ Hi fool!  I was joining in on the sarcasm fun.  Thanks
                    for adding your idiocy to the motd.  We didn't have
                    enough stupid people here already.  Everyone understood
                    and let it be.  How'd you get so stupid?
           \_ But wait, say the Republicans, we're not racist. We put Colin
              Powell and Condi Rice in positions of power (where we can
              veto them immediately if they get uppity).  See? How can an
              Administration with token blacks possibly be oppressing blacks?
              Oh, that's right, by cutting valuable social services that help
              to redress more than 228 years of discrimination and outright
              oppression.
              \_ By putting people on the public dole, we lift them up and give
                 them incentive to do better from one generation to the next.
                 Er uh, yeah.  Right.  Have you ever been on the dole?  It is
                 the most anti-incentive thing I ever experienced.
                 \_ Except that the programs Bush has cut haven't only been
                    the welfare checks.  He's also cut housing subsidies,
                    funding for pre-school education, and tons of counseling
                    services.  If it was welfare alone, I'd be right there
                    with you, but when you take away the means to improve,
                    that's just wrong.
                    \_ Then you'd be unique among the left who think welfare
                       reform is the ultimate evil.
                       \_ Untrue.  See "Clinton and welfare reform."
                          (And if you're going to restore, restore it all.)
              \_ BWAHAHAHAHA!
              \_ Hey, can I have some of that?  My people were totally oppressed
                 for longer than yours. -- ilyas
                 \_ Than mine? I'm a Danish-Irish-Pole; my Danish ancestors
                    were oppressing my Irish and Polish ancestors before
                    Columbus was ever born.
                 \_ Wait, ilya, I missed the part where Russian Jews were
                    brought over in ships to do forced labor for their entire
                    lives on cotton plantations, and then "freed" only to face
                    official government policies of segregation and
                    discrimination for 100 years.
                    \_ Dude!  You had ships?  We wish we had ships.  We had to
                       go to Egypt and Babylon ON FOOT, UPHILL BOTH WAYS,
                       long before your ancestors even knew what slavery was.
                         -- ilyas
                       \_ This conversation has reached epic stupidity.
                          You don't think Jews have ever been SEGREGATED?
                       \_ You miss the point.  American government policy and
                          its people supported slavery and, later, "Jim Crow."
                          American government policy had nothing to do with
                          the oppression of the Jews - if anything, we helped
                          to save what was left of them with WWII.  The plight
                          of the African-American is a uniquely American
                          responsibility.
                          \_ The plight?  1) stop using crack, 2) stop shooting
                             your neighbors, 3) send your kids to school, 4)
                             install some values in your children, 5) stop
                             listening to music that glorifies thuggish street
                             life and says all women are whores and property.
                             That would be a good start.  You know, that whole
                             self responsibility thing.  Maybe we need a
                             Federal entitlement program to encourage more
                             self responsbility?
                          \_ I'm the guy who wrote the bit about tokens, and
                             even I can tell you straight up that American
                             government policy at several points had plenty
                             to do with the oppression of the Jews. We nearly
                             didn't even get involved in WWII because of
                             anti-semitism.  Look, both Jews and African
                             Americans have suffered. Cutting support to one
                             because the other's not getting a leg up is
                             just plain stupid and spiteful.
                             \_ I repeat, WHERE'S MY PIECE OF THE PIE!?
                                My ancestors suffered, damn it!  Gimme gimme
                                gimme! -- ilyas
                                \_ I blame the Jews.
                                   \_ And why not?  Everyone else does.  The
                                      weak always make good targets.
                          \_ Um, alright you should dig up the American
                             government and its people (who were around at
                             the time) and get them to pay up.  See, the rest
                             of the world has gotten past the feudal concept
                             of familial inheritance of legal responsibilities.
                             Maybe you should too. -- ilyas
                             \_ Do you support increasing the estate tax?
                                \_ jesus fucking batshit. why don't you
                                   spill some blood in the sharktank while
                                   you're at it?
                                \_ Do you support sending people to prison for
                                   what their 4x great grand parents did?
                             \_ Hey, it's not regressive to see that the
                                current social situation in the ghetto is a
                                direct result of both that "peculiar
                                institution" and Reagan's policy of cutting
                                assistance and enrichment programs, as
                                continued by the current administration.
                                \_ It may not be regressive, but it is BS.
                                   The "great society" did not increase
                                   the speed of blacks entering the
                                   middle class, it DECREASED the speed.
                                   Furthermore, prior to the great
                                   society, ghettos were pretty safe.  Now
                                   no one lets their kids walk down the
                                   street in the ghetto.  Woohoo!  Did we
                                   ever get a great society from LBJ!
                                   \_ Your claims are ludicrous.  Please back
                                      them up.
                                      \_ Yours is more so.  How does flooding
                                         an area with government cash encourage
                                         anyone to do better with their life?
                                         Please back up the claim that the
                                         ghettos are a result of Reagan's
                                         policies and slavery.  There were
                                         shitty ghettos and crime long before
                                         Reagan was around.
                                         \_ And yet another fallacy: throwing
                                            money at the problem does nothing.
                                            Spending money to improve schools
                                            (read: not on vouchers), provide
                                            retraining, educate children
                                            through Head Start and other
                                            pre-school programs, and provide
                                            drug-, health-, and job-counseling
                                            decreases crime and social welfare.
                                            \_ Spending money intelligently
                                               works.  Throwing money at a
                                               problem, by it's very nature,
                                               does not solve problems.  The
                                               schools are fucked because
                                               parents won't take responsibility
                                               for their kids in your nanny
                                               state and the teachers unions
                                               are all about the teachers
                                               unions and couldn't give a fuck
                                               about the kids.
                                         \_ I notice you have not provided
                                            the evidence. Perhaps because
                                            it does not exist?
                                            \_ I notice you have not provided
                                               the evidence.  Perhaps because
                                               it does not exist?  See how we
                                               can both play that game?  You
                                               made a stupid statement.  I
                                               challenged it.  Then you try to
                                               back your statement by saying I
                                               didn't back mine when you have
                                               provided no backing for your
                                               earlier statement.  That turkey
                                               doesn't fly.  Your debate fu
                                               is WEAK!
                                               \_ This is the first time you
                                                  have requested evidence.
                                                  I can provide plenty of it.
                                                  \_ It isn't but thats ok.
                                                     You're doing your best
                                                     and for that I think you
                                                     have earned a social
                                                     promotion to the next
                                                     level so we don't damage
                                                     your self esteem.
                             \_ Corporations live forever and can write
                                contracts far outlasting the life of their
                                signees. I think they can be held responsible
                                for their actions 150 years ago.
                                \_ Sue them.
                                   \_ Change the law so I can.
                                      \_ BWHAHAHAHA!!!  SO FUNNY!  Poor baby!
                                         You are such a victim!  What exactly
                                         are you going to sue them for and who?
                                         \_ There are plenty of corporations
                                            that benefitted from slave labor
                                            and could be sued. For economic
                                            damages of course, what else do
                                            you sue a corporation for? Are you
                                            this ignorant and rude in person?
                                            \_ I asked you to name them and
                                               what you'd sue them for since
                                               you weren't damaged by it.  Are
                                               you this obtuse in person?
                                               \_ A very quick google gives:
                          http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/03/26/slavery.reparations
                          http://www.millionsforreparations.com/lawsuit-ww.html
                                                  I think you can make an
                                                  economic argument that
                                                  the descendants have the
                                                  right to sue. We already
                                                  return solen art to the
                                                  decendants of the victims.

                                                  But the law would have to
                                                  be changed to make this
                                                  possible.
                       \_ Tell us about the legality of the sacking of Jericho
                          and the displacement of the Canaanites, ilya.
                          \_ Without the Infinity Trident we're defenseless
                             against the Five Jew Bankers!
                             \_ John is that you?
                             \_ Where's the magic spear and shield?!  I must
                                have the ring else all hope is lost!
                             \_ You idiot!  We made up the Five Jew Bankers!
                                \_ http://internationaljewishconspiracy.com
                                   (Relax, it's a satirical site, not racist.)
        \_ How did a conversation on Elaine The Asian And The Big White Penises
           become so intellectual?
           \_ Where exactly did it become intellectual?
        \_ I agree that the claims that the Republicans are racist are
           silly and
           counter-productive. It is not surprising that the Republicans are
           the first to put an Asian woman into the cabinet though. There is
           a great J. K. Galbraith quote about how it is the fate of American
           politics that the party that is not believed to embody a particular
           quality is the one that actually has to put it into practice. Just
           like how the Democrats are the party that actually has sensible,
           business- and growth-friendly economic policies. The Republicans
           don't need to have these, because everyone assumes that their
           policies are economically sound. The first Black or Female U. S.
           President will be a Republican.  - (one of many) motd liberal
           \_ thank god, there are people on motd has non-volitile memory.
           \_ last week we caught a Jewish spy, for some reason, we don't have
              the cox report and all that witch hunt.  Racism at work...
           (if the motd-format God would like to come bless me, I would
            be appreciative, otherwise sorry about the formatting)
                \_ I would except those other morons put their crap in the
                   middle making me uncertain who is writing the parenthetic.
                                --motd formatd
        \_ Chacellor Chang-lin Tien would have been another asian in the
           cabinet but the big China stealing nuclear secrets brouhaha made
           it impossible.
           \_ Tien was from Taiwan, not Mainland China.
                \_ it doesn't matter.  wenholee is from taiwan too.
                   incidentally, so it elaine chao.
        \_ Elaine Chao's chinese name means Little Orchid.
        \_ Does it ever occur to you guys that Lincoln was a Republican?
           \_ Somewhat clever troll, or didn't pay attention in U.S.
              History. Which one are you?
              \_ Are you saying Lincoln was a Democrat?
              \_ Yeah, Lincoln didn't want to ENSLAVE Americans, otherwise
                 he would be a Republican!
        \_ CSUA has its own Elaine
2004/8/12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32864 Activity:nil 70%like:32845
8/12    Hard fact is, Kerry froze up during the Cold War
        <DEAD>www.tardrepublic.com/focus/f-news/1189962/posts<DEAD>
        \_ Um, being against deficit spending is not dumb.  And Reagan ==
           Iran-Contra.  And well, Dubya ain't no Reagan.
           \_ So ceding central america to the Soviets was a good idea?  The
              Soviets were pouring hundrends of millions into Nicaragua.
              Why don't you condemn Carter in Afghanistan?
2004/8/11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32834 Activity:very high
8/11    Wouldn't even Republicans agree that any administration that purposely
        leaks classified info (in the latest case, the identity of a Al Queda
        operative working for us) for political gain, endangering this
        country's security in the process, should be removed? Isn't this on the
        level of Nixon's crimes, if not greater?
        \_ Wouldn't even Democrats agree that any administration that
           purposely sold nuclear secrets to China in exchange for campaign
           money, endangering this country's security in the process, should
           be removed?  Isn't this far above the level of Nixon's crimes, if
           not far far greater?
           \_ Yeah, if such a thing actually happened, it would be. But since
              it is only a fiction of some paranoid loons imagination, I
              not going to worry about it too much. Forget your tinfoil hat?
           \_ Which Clinton administration official admitted that this
              happened?  Condi Rice actually ADMITTED the name was leaked by
              the Bush admin
        \_ It's minor compared to what Nixon and Reagan administrations did.
           Nixon used the CIA to counter the FBI investigating his reelection
           committee's illegal activities. Reagan sold arms to an enemy state
           to fund an illegal war. This said, what Bush's admin did was just
           really stupid, not illegal. The Valerie Plame thing was illegal.
           \_ Nixon/Reagan stuff was clearly wrong ... but did it give aid
              and comfort to a foreign enemy we are at war with?  Scale vs.
              direct effect.
           \_ Why no recrimination for Clinton buying arms from Iran to give
              to the KLA?  So having another Soviet satellite state in
              our hemisphere would have been a good thing?
              \_ 1) Because after nearly 20 years, attempts of normalization
                 of relations with (supposively moderate) Iran through
                 economic mean is not a totally bad idea.
                 \_ The arms tranfers were illicit, just like those in
                    Iran-Contra.
                    \_ Sigh. Context has no meaning to you. -EOT-
                 2) The US Congress had outlawed the sales. Both El Salvador
                 and Nicaragua were economically, politically, and militarily
                 incapable of threatening the US.
                 \_ So a Soviet controlled Central America would have
                    been no problem during the 1980's?
                    \_ The US told these nations "our way or the highway."
                       They took the highway and Cold Warriors struck back.
                       If the US had tried to fix the oppressive (pro-US)
                       regimes, socialism wouldn't have taken root.
              \_ I had never even heard of this charge before. Are you sure
                 it is not one of those "who killed Vince Foster" type
                 Clinton-hater legend?
        \_ SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! - Bill O'Reilly
           \_ He only says that to people repeating liberal nonsense after
              they've had their turn.
        \_ Only 40% of Americans believe the Bush administration would be
              \_ And when encouraging people not to speak out about the war.
                 And when the son of a man killed on 9/11 tries to point out
                 that the terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.
        \_ Only 38% of Americans believe the Bush administration would be
           capable of that.
           http://i.timeinc.net/time/covers/1101040816/poll/images/poll_2.gif
        \_ No, it's only incompetence that led to the al Qaeda operative's name
           being leaked to the press at an inappropriate time.  Who exactly
           leaked it?  Tom Ridge says he doesn't know.  Rice implies the name
           was purposely released by the administration to press.
           http://csua.org/u/8jx
           \_ It's worse than that. The guy had flipped and was giving the
              Pakistanis viable intelligence, plus feeding Al-Quada trash.
              Knowing that someone had been found drove Al-Quada back
              underground instead of into the hands of authorities.
              \_ I'm just talking about the motive, not the results (which
                 are as severe as you say).  I say incompetence, not politics.
2004/8/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:32706 Activity:high
8/5     Hey, what happened to my "Obama as Max Headrom" post?
        \_ I'd like to see it if you can repost it.
           \_ It wasn't all that interesting.  I was just pointing out
              that Obama's angluar face and vinil like skin remind me of
              Max Headrom.  Only interesting because it's been deleted
              twice and edited once.
              \_ Well, Ronald Reagan looks more like him, IMO!
                 \_ One of the "Back to the Future" movies had a diner scene
                    in which all the waiters were celebs "headroomized".
                    The MJ Fox character is helped by Reagan.
2004/8/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32650 Activity:very high
8/3     Teresa Heinz is too much of a bitch
        \_ Apparently you missed out on Nancy Reagan.
        \_ A rich Republican one from South Africa no less. Nancy Reagan
           was actually liked. Kerry's okay, but if he can get along with
           that bitchy Republican wife then you have to wonder how strong
           his principles are. She's not that hot either.
           \_ sugar mommy
           \_ As they say about porn stars: its all about the money, honey.
              And just because Nancy was "liked" doesn't mean she wasn't
              a crazy beeyotch.  Have you ever seen the clips of the "Just
              Say No" speech?
           \_ Do you seriously think that Laura Bush is hotter?
        \_ No, Nancy Reagan was an EVIL BITCH.  Teresa Heinz is a bitch on
           the side of GOOD, that is, if she were a man, she stands for
           something, and won't take your stupid crap.  Now, if you imagine
           Dubya as female, Georgina Bush would just be a stupid, drunk bitch.
                \_ your republican talking point email wasn't that
                   funny today
        \_ I like Teresa Heinz very much.  She speaks frankly and doesn't
           pretend to be someone other than herself, unlike most American
           politicians who wears many masks.
           \_ I agree, she's not pretending to be insane, she really is!
              \_ kind of like bush being dumb?
              \_ why do you think she is insane?
                 \_ All Demoncraps are insane, by definition.
                    \_ Demoncraps?  I bow to your debate skills.
        \_ you prefer a stepford wife like laura bush, with her fake smile?
           \_ How about someone who is not a Republican senator's wife who
              got all of her money from an evil corporation?
              \_ What's evil about condiments?
                \_ Its not like she's from DeBeers.
                \_ Ignorant slut! Don't you know the cruel exploitative history
                   of Heinz ketchup? The tomato slave gangs, the Mexican
                   "ketchup coup" in 1971 (covered up by the liberal media of
                   course), those frustrating glass bottles... and Heinz was
                   a Nazi. And later a communist.
                   \_ At least he wasn't a commie-nazi -McBain
        \_ My brother roomed with Chris Heinz freshman year college.
           Privileged information says she's not all that bright and definitely
           not a nice person.
        \_ What about Hillary?
2004/8/2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32629 Activity:high
8/3     And here's a big up yours to all the Sandinistas-lovin'-commie-ass
        liberals from the 80's.  http://csua.org/u/8ey
        \_ Nicaraguans reflect upon history of their country and the long
           running Reagan-sponsored civil war.
           \_ 1. stop editing my posts.  post your own.
              2. nicaraguans didn't do the reflecting in the article.  a
                 sandinistas-lovin'-commie-ass liberal did.
           \_ Yeah, the US is way responsible for the Nicaraguan disaster
              in the 90's.  I just love how all these communist paradises
              happen to fail.
2004/7/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32484 Activity:nil
7/26    Does anyone have a link about Dubya's best 10k time? This
        recent http://espn.com article has his marathon and 5k times. It's
        difficult to google his 10k time.
        http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=merron/040726
2004/7/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:32307 Activity:high
7/15    Michael Moore is even more of a scumbag than I thought:
        http://www.townhall.com/columnists/johnmccaslin/jm20040713.shtml
        \_ Best. Nutty ring wing rant.  Evah!
           \_ Rant?  It isn't a rant.  It says the family is pissed off
              because Moore used their son's death for his propaganda and
              didn't even tell them much less give them the humanly decent
              option to say "no, thanks".
              \_ When you have a public event in a public place, you
                 open yourself up to reporting of that event. That is
                 called freedom of the press in America. I hope
                 the family does sue. They will lose.
                 \_ Who said it was public?  Was it public?  Who filmed it?
                    Why does he lack the common human decency to at least
                    inform the family it will be there.  How sickening to
                    show up at a movie and see yourself at your son's
                    funeral.  If you think this is a-ok, you're just a sick
                    bastard and not a human being.
                    \_ Arlington Cemetary == public space. Perhaps you
                       really didn't know that. I think the First Amendment
                       is a-ok and that it is really sad that you are
                       against it.
                 \_ Guess you missed this.  From the article: "The family
                    does not know how Moore obtained the video..."
                    I assume, therefore, it was not a public event.
                    \_ Do you assume that Yosemite Park is not a public
                       space as well? There is no presumption to privacy
                       in a public space. So if you are walking down the
                       trail in Yosemite and I take your picture, I can
                       publish it. That is the foundation of our free
                       press, that people are allowed to report on events
                       that occur in public.
        \_ Ohhh... that's why he's such a fat turd.  I hear human flesh is
           quite fattening.
2004/7/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:32212 Activity:high
7/10    How Multiculturalism Took Over America
        http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14164
        \_ How about the part where whitey took over America? And how
           everytime whitey feels threatened, they enact a law to
           "protect" their culture, though, this isn't really the
           original American culture....just whitey culture.
                \_ KILL WHITEY!
           \_ Enact a law?  Such as when the Republicans crushed the
              Democrats and brought about a victory for civil rights in
              this country?
              \_ Wow, when did this happen?  I was too busy watching the Repubs
                 getting coopted by the far right loonies and shredding my
                 civil liberties to notice.
                 \_ I think he's confusing "Democrats" with "Confederacy."
                    \_ Considering the South was solidly democrat until the
                       1980's I don't think you know what you are talking
                       about.
                       \_ Ronald Reagan brought about a victory for civil
                          rights?  How?  By showing that even an actor
                          with Alzheimer's can become president?
                          \_ Since you are historically ignorant why do
                             you persist with this polemic?  Your time
                             would be better spent reading a history book.
        \_ sincere question to OP: where did you grow up (state/region)?
           \_ seattle, south florida, virginia (DC), north carolina.
              \_ as a native northern californian i found the viewpoint
                 of the article to be laughably sheltered.  his fear
                 of "the new pioneers" is telling of his desire to
                 freeze progress now that "his" culture has reached
                 its peak.  i think he assigns too much malice to those
                 of us who appreciate the mixing of cultures taht is
                 intrinisic to the modern economy. (i asked about origins
                 because i am increasingly aware that i understand
                 the pacific rim mindset more than some of my u.s.
                 the pacific rim mindset more than [i do]  some of my u.s.
                 brethren's)
                 \_  Of course you are smarter and more perspicacious than
                     every else, especially the crude masses who live
                     outside of urban areas like SF, Ny, Hollywood, and
                     Boston.  That said, please
                     identify the virtues that have arisen
                     from multiculturalism in the past 2 decades.
                     Ethnic cuisine doesn't count.
                     \_ it's not so much that I think it has virtues
                        as I think it is the truth. people mingle;
                        people mix; they do not assimilate. the slow
                        pace of some backwoods places gives the false
                        impression that culture is static.  the article
                        ignores how the US changes after EVERY batch
                        immigration.  the virtues invclude not
                        taking an isolationist's stance with our heads
                        in the sand and asses in the air.

                        let me add that i think the core principle of
                        our government, namely federation, naturally
                        extends to multi-culturalism.  there is no "we"
                        that owns the civic stage with any uniform
                        cultural identity.  the wonderful future I
                        hope for is when all culturual identities are
                        equally as impotent and silly and we can get
                        on to individual merit again.
2004/7/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:31167 Activity:high
7/5     Read a detailed transcript of Cheney's comments to Sen. Leahy:
        http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2004/062504.asp
        \_ woot!
           \_ w00t!
        \_ Wow, that's almost clever.
2004/7/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:31161 Activity:very high
7/4     How much did the government spend on Reagan's funeral?
        \_ Newsweek says "just under 10 million" - danh
        \_ about this much: http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4026
        \_ Don't be stupid.  We take care of our Presidents, dead or alive.
           No one but a dumbshit questions how much money was spent on their
           funerals or their 24x7 secret service detail while they're alive.
           It isn't even a rounding error in the Federal budget.
           \_ If I were a president I would appreciate all the perks while
              alive but a huge and expensive funeral just seems a waste.
              \_ It isn't for the President.  It is for the rest of the
                 country.  Obviously, dead people don't care.
                 \_ Why do people care about a dead body?
2004/7/2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Recreation/Dating] UID:31127 Activity:very high
2.7     The Godfather is dead:
        http://csua.org/u/80r
        \_ That's what happens when you chase a kid around with an orange
           peel in your mouth.
        \_ He's the third, I guess. -- ilyas
        \_ The body's not cold, and they couldn't resist showing a picture
           from the horrible "Island of Dr. Moreau"?  Damn.
           \_ REAGAN IS THE STANDARD!
              \_ He could'a been a contenda, somebody, but Ronny sold him
                 out. And now he's a nobody, relegated to the back end of
                 a state funeral.
        \_ Hey, Bart.  How'd you like to escort 5,000 Big Macs to Marlon
           Brando's island?
        \_ I watched Last tango in Paris while packing boxes for a move.
           My friends couldn't believe it.  Why?
           \_ I'm guessing you're either not the kind of person who gets many
              dates, not particularly adventurous romantically, or incredibly
              experienced and unimpressed by the movie's contents. Many people
              would watch LTiP with a date or significant other.
              \_ I didn't see sex/romance as the point of the movie, and sexual
                 content, while prevalent, was not of the titillating
                 kind.  It seemed full of pain, the opposite of a date movie.
                 \_ You have a poor grasp of what makes a good date movie.
                    \_ So a good date movie is Das Boot?
                       \_ see, the goal is to maximize emotional distress.
                          then she turns to you for comfort!
                          \_ But this is SO Machiavellian!
                       \_ F9/11 is a great date movie.
2004/6/30-7/1 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:31100 Activity:low
6/30    Prostitutes ready to work overtime for family-friendly Republican
        National Convention!
        http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/206962p-178564c.html
        \_ Bringing back the Times Square of Reagan's day!
        \_ And here I thought putting most of the Repub delegates in hotels
           in Hillcrest was inspired.
2004/6/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30973 Activity:very high
6/23    NYTimes reviews "Fahrenheit 9/11"  -dgies
        http://movies2.nytimes.com/2004/06/23/movies/23FAHR.html
        /csua/tmp/fahrenheit911.txt
        \_ "Mr. Moore is often impolite, rarely subtle and occasionally unwise.
           He can be obnoxious, tendentious and maddeningly self-contradictory.
           He can drive even his most ardent admirers crazy. He is a credit to
           the republic."
           See, I don't understand this.  To a partial observer like myself,
           this just looks like, for lack of a better term, cocksucking.
             -- ilyas
           \_ Yes, because all begrudging praise for people we don't like is
              cocksucking. Cheney? Likes to have "swordfights" in his mouth.
              Bush? Satisfies the rich and loves bukakke. See how fun this is?
              \_ Sure, I understand begrudging praise.  But I don't understand
                 how in this particular case, the praise follows from what was
                 previously said.  Being rarely subtle and obnoxious does not
                 make one a credit to anything, be it one's parents, one's
                 race, one's country... -- ilyas
                 \_ There are any number of comedians, actors and politicians
                    to whom the same adjectives would apply, and they are just
                    as much a credit to this country as this author posits
                    for Michael Moore. -scotsman
                    \_ Like Al Franken and his popular radio show!
                    \_ Yes, but those characteristics don't make them a credit.
                       Those characteristics are negative.  Hence my problem.
                         -- ilyas
                       \_ It's not an if-then.  It's "He all these things that
                          people tar him with, and thank god he's there." Those
                          characteristics aren't necessarily negative. -scotsman
                       \_ All those characteristics make him a credit to his
                          country if his country also exemplifies those
                          characteristics.
        \_ perms
           \_ fixed, sorry.
        \_ It's funny that f911 is rated R and The Green Berets is rated G.
           \_ why is this even an issue? are there kids who aren't 17 now
              who will somehow manage to vote later this year?
           \_ Have you *seen* the Green Berets?
              \_ Did you see Burning Columbine?  footage of executions, etc.
                 PG-13
                 \_ Do you mean "Bowling for Columbine"?
           \_ Seeing corpses of actual people is probably more disturbing
              than phony violence.  Nothing wrong with that but it's not
              PG-13.
              \_ I see dead people... on the news. I think. It's all kind of
                 a haze mixed with the web media. A corpse is a corpse, of
                 course, of course, and kids can look at a corpse of course,
                 that is, of course, unless the corpse is in Fahrenheit 911.
                 Thousands of folks with their kids went to look at Reagan's
                 corpse, boxed though it was. There are hanging Jesus corpses
                 in all the churches. Bah.
                 \_ This must be a troll.  I can't believe you can't tell the
                    difference between showing a 15 year old cartoon violence
                    and showing a 15 year old the bullet riddled dehumanised
                    corpse of some poor dumb dead bastard lying in the street.
                    Or between a dead guy in a box and the same corpse in the
                    street.  Or between a symbolic carving or Jesus on a stick
                    and a dirty bloodied corpse in the street.  Go away, troll.
                    \_ You think 15 year olds aren't on the web? I remember
                       being 15. It depends on how it's presented, but don't
                       doubt those FPS-playing, pot smoking sex-having kids
                       are exposed to much worse if they so choose. They
                       saw jets flying into the WTC.
                 \_ Hi Lea.  Sign your name.
                    \_ I always sign my name iff it's mine. This isn't.
                       -chialea
                 \_ Are you trying to make it rhyme?
              \_ What's more amusing is that Moore appealed the rating because
                 an R-rating might decrease the audience.  Sorry Moore, the
                 rating system is on the content, no the /in/tent.
        \_ http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723
        \_ Why do you hate America?
2004/6/18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30904 Activity:high
6/18    Ronald Prescott Reagan:  "My father never felt the need to wrap
        himself in anybody else's mantle or pretend to be anybody else. I
        don't know what's wrong with these people -- they have to keep
        invoking him. It is their administration, their war. If they can't
        stand on their own two feet, they're no Ronald Reagans, for sure."
        \_ Why does Reagan's son hate America?
           \_ RR's gay son loves his dead father.
              \_ Is he actually out?  Or is it just assumed that he's gay?
                 \_ A WORLD EXCLUSIVE!  MICHAEL REAGAN 'OUTTED' ON CSUA MOTD!
2004/6/18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30890 Activity:very high
6/18    Reagan's cyber-war:
        http://www.fcw.com/fcw/articles/2004/0426/feat-strange-04-26-04.asp
        \_ The same sort of tech-theft and crap is going on now, but with
           China instead of Russia.
           \_ Why do you hate China?
              \_ MSG gives me a headache.
                 \_ MSG is Japanese, not Chinese.
                    \_ Why do you hate Japan?
        \_ huh huh, turns out US owns the French a big favor.
        \_ Here it is.  Direct action from Regean's Security Policy Directive
           #75.  http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsdd/nsdd-075.htm
2004/6/17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30872 Activity:nil
6/17    For those of you who felt that there was too much Reagan
        worshipping going on:
        http://www.jacksonhamiter.com/reagan
        \_ Server not found.
           \_ sorry, fixed
2004/6/17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/SIG] UID:30855 Activity:very high
6/16    Arch liberal 9th Circuit topples Mojave desert cross (WWI veterans
        memorial) Why don't we redo the crosses at Normandy and Arlington while
        we are at it.
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1155068/posts
        \_ We just swap out one God for another.
        \_ for the record, I'm an athiest jew and a liberal, and i think this is
           totally retarded.
        \_ for the record, I'm an atheist jew and a liberal, and i think this
           is totally retarded.  [80 columnd, spellingd]
           \_ I'm a liberal atheist and I think it's wrong for the government
              to put up or maintain a religiously-themed monument, but I don't
              see the constitutional imperitive to remove one.
              \_ so are you anti-cristmass trees on the town green also?
                 -laj
                 \_ Christmas trees are pagan/secular.  I'm anti-nativity
                    scenes.
                    \_ what about menorahs?
                       \_ No.  No general secular usage.  Maybe in another
                          generation they will be sufficiently stripped of
                          religious meaning.
                          \_ I hope not.  Keep your christmas time sales crap
                             to ruining your own culture.
        \_ Arlington doesn't have crosses.  Oh.  there is the Argonne cross.
        \_ Thanks for the chuckle. I love to watch the Freepers drool over
           themselves in anger.
           \_ It's better than watching them drool over themselves idly.
2004/6/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30819 Activity:insanely high
6/12    Ronald Reagan Started a War That Rages Today
        ...explains today's political landscape
        http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/dhenninger/?id=110005205
        \_ blue M&M, red M&M, they all wind up the same color in the end
        \_ You mean the money he gave to Saddam, or the money he gave to Osama?
           \_ I am a no fan of Reagan, but I want to point out that he is not
              the only person whose short-sighted policy has costed us.
              Example.  USA's policy to lure USSR to declare war with Japan
              in WW2.  We allowed USSR to occupy northeastern part of China
              (major arm factory, which they in turn arm the communist in
               China), as well as half of Korea.  USSR declared war with
              Japan for *ONE DAY* without firing a single shot.
              \_ The USSR was far scarier than any terrorists around today.
                 The mistake was not nabbing bin Laden in the 90s when he was
                 right there for the taking and we didn't accept the offer.
                 \_ In retrospect, the red scare was a hype.
                    \_ In retrospect you either weren't there or you are
                       simply blinded by your own agenda.  Or perhaps you're
                       one of the few people upset that the Soviet Union is
                       no more.  Did you shed a bitter tear the day the Wall
                       came down?  Were you happy the Clinton administration
                       didn't pick up bin Laden when he was offered to them on
                       a silver platter a few times?
                    \_ I guess this is proof that hindsight isn't always
                        20/20.
                       \_ it is sad that you haven't learned your lesson
                          from history.  Communism wasn't all that scary
                          because there are two types of communism.
                          There is the Soviet style communism expansion,
                          and there is a chunk of countries choose communism
                          over western european's imperialism.  Of course
                          you being a white imperalist never see this.
                          But for your information, communism in Cuba,
                          Vietnam, Korea, hosts of Southeastern Asian nations,
                          and China in great extend, all belong to latter.
                          Tragically, many policy makers in USA were as simple
                          minded as you are, lump all communist country into
                          one gigantic group.  If you bothered with each
                          nation's history and analyze the root of communism
                          individually, there is no reason to panic as the
                          way we did.
                          \_ I vote this 'dumbass post of the week.' -- ilyas
                             \- it's up there. --psb
                          \_ They're all dictatorships. The USSR installed
                             communism in eastern europe and effectively
                             they were puppet states. Those people didn't
                             want to be behind the "iron curtain". But that's
                             what communism gets you, just dictatorship. You
                             think North Korea's is in any way at all
                             representative of the people there? Then there's
                             China, see how it stagnated for decades until
                             they started embracing the imperialist capitalist
                             running dog economics. The power structure there
                             currently lets China function in a reasonable way
                             but it's corrupt and unrepresentative and keeps
                             control of the press etc. just like any other
                             self-serving dictator like Saddam would, comrade.
                          \_ The other guy may or may not have learned any
                             lessons from history, but goddamn -- you're
                             almost completely ignorant of it...and severely
                             prejudiced too.  Thank you for your infusion of
                             humor into the motd, chicom troll!
                          \_ Ah yes, the old variation on the "there is more
                             than one kind of communism and we're the 'good'
                             kind" nonsense.  It makes me just laugh when you
                             put China in the non-expansionist column.  I'm
                             really not in the mood to get into it with chicom
                             troll this late at night but anyone who passed a
                             grade school history class should know better
                             than your drivel.  In any event, you're also off
                             topic since it was a terrorism vs USSR comparison.
                             No one gives a damn about China.
2004/6/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30817 Activity:insanely high
6/12    Fox News gives positive review to "Fahrenheit 9/11."  Damn liberal
        media!
        http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122680,00.html
        \_ Damn liberal movie critics!  Damn liberal movie goers! Damn liberal
           movie renters!  Who else did I miss?
           \_ Damn liberal movie directors! Damn liberal movie distributors!
              Damn liberal people in damn liberal documentaries!
              \_ "Damn hippies" -S. Crothers. You forgot that. -- ulysses
        \_ It's called "Fair & Balanced".  Fox isn't a conservative news
           outlet.  They do shit like this all the time, you just ignore it
           in favor of the other stuff you don't agree with.
           \_ Sorry, I call bullshit.  Editorial policy drives bias no matter
              how much is done to prevent it - hence rightward tilt in WSJ
              articles or leftward tilt in NYTimes articles.  Truly
              "objective" reporting is an impossible fantasy, and striving
              for it usually does more to obscure the truth than to reveal
              it (i.e. "White House reports sky is green; some Democrats
              disagree").  Fox reporting oozes bias.
              \_ objective "reporting" a fantasy? ok, sure.  reporting is
                 crap anyway.  the only media model i'll accept is a combination
                 of original source material, like cspan, with a moderated
                 comment forum, like slashdot.  until we go to that model,
                 the press will continue to undermine, not bolster our
                 democracy.
                 \_ HAHAHA! moderated comment forum! jeezus. And CSPAN isn't
                    original source material, it's politicians blabbing.
              \_ Let me guess, you think CNN, MSNBC, ABC,CBS, LAT, are
                 all centrist sources of information?
                 \_ They are corporate sources of information.  They will
                    print whatever they thinks makes money.  Let me guess,
                    you buy into the "liberal media" myth?
                    \_ LAT, NYT, WP do not apply -- these newspapers are
                       driven at least equally by personalities as well as
                       corporate profit.  TV stations, it's debatable either
                       way.
                    \_ Let me guess, you buy into your own "corporate media"
                       myth?  The newsrooms and editors are predominately
                       liberal.  Why is that so hard to understand?
                       \_ well, they are (1) corporations and (2) media,
                          therefore: corporate media.  What, you think they
                          do this for free?
                          \_ Since they control all information and they're
                             mostly liberal, there is no competition so they
                             can charge for their own version of the news.
                             Only very recently has more centrist news been
                             available which in the last ~5 years has over
                             taken their leftist competitors in TV viewship,
                             and radio listenership.  AFAIK the newspapers are
                             still left controlled.  I'm not aware of any mass
                             market printed news that isn't left biased.
                       \_ It's not hard to understand, it's just untrue.
                          \_ Uh, whatever.  That's been checked a few times
                             over the years.  You're simply ignorant or lying.
                             Don't bother coming here with one liner bullshit.
                             \_ I bow to your superior 3-liner lying ignorance.
                       \_ Sure, most reporters are liberal. Most owners
                          are conservative. They kind of balance each
                          other out, but when push comes to shove the
                          owner fires the liberal reporter.
                          \_ Reporters don't get fired unless they fake stories
                             and even then it takes dozens of stories and years
                             to come out.  The owners are not vetting stories
                             and you know it.  The editors who are mostly on
                             the left do it.  How far do you think a reporter
                             would get in the typical newsroom if he was known
                             to be a registered Republican?  His career would
                             be dead and you know it.  It does not balance out
                             in any way in the general case.
           \_ "Fox isn't a conservative news outlet."
              So if you compare Fox to CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS, would you
              say Fox is the "least liberal" of the aforementioned stations?
              \_ Good try.  I would say CNN and the others are losing ratings
                 share to Fox because they cater to the left, not the center
                 where most people, by definition, live.
                 \_ Are you insane?  Are we watching the same stations?
                    The same CNN that ran like a gajillion fawning non-news
                    reports about Reagan last week?  THAT is a liberal media
                    outlet?  I'd like some of what you're smoking, if you don't
                    mind.
                    \_ Reagan is not a good example.  Every station wanted
                       to out-do the other in pro-Reagan coverage; now he's
                       dead, the liberals don't want to appear as if they
                       are dancing on his grave.
                       \_ Nice dodge.  I suppose the coverage of the run-up
                          to the Iraq war isn't a good example either, or
                          anything else substantial?  Nope, the boogeyman of
                          the Liberal Media is still out there, never to be
                          defeated!
                          \_ Hey, all I said was that Reagan was not a good
                             example.
                          \_ Pre-war, everyone but whatshername in Ber/Oak was
                             in favor of it.  We didn't instantly find 100 tons
                             of WMD (until it recently started showing up in
                             other countries) so that makes them sycophants?
                             How many times have you seen Kerry described as
                             "arch-liberal, John Kerry, jr. Senator from Mass,
                             under Ted Kennedy"?  Never.  How many times have
                             you seen, "arch-conservative so-n-so, Senator from
                             xyz"?  All the fucking time because anyone who
                             isn't a Democrat has a 50/50 chance of being
                             tagged as an arch conservative.  Or better yet,
                             extreme or ultra conservative.  You will *never*
                             see an extreme ultra arch leftist like Kerry
                             described that way.
                 \_ You are confusing cause and effect.  Fox *is* a
                    conservative news outlet -- whether the cause is corporate
                    profit, a vast right-wing conspiracy, the little green
                    men in your pants, or all of the above -- the effect
                    is still the same.
                    \_ Fox provides left, right and center.  You only see the
                       right because you're blinded to how left the left
                       really is.  Left looks normal to you so only the right
                       stands out for you.
                       \_ Wow, you really need to look in the mirror and think
                          about this statement. The center, as defined in this
                          country is somewhere between the democrats and the
                          republicans, and most mainstream media outlets run
                          stories that give voice to both of the major parties.
                          Those newspapers that endorse candidates endorse both
                          republicans and democrats. In other words, they are
                          centrist, at least to those not blinded by their
                          right-wing prejudice. Fox news aligns itself with
                          the extreme right wing of the republican party, and
                          doesn't give any voice to the opposition. They only
                          look "normal" to extremists like you.
           \_ Once William Hung's CD sold 100k copies, everything, including
              this, is possible. -- Coming soon -- flying pigs and hell
              freezing over.
              \_ I have to admit that I bought 99,998 of them.  He bought one
                 for his mom and this drunk dude picked up the other copy.
                 \_ thank you, NERFAMC
2004/6/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Recreation/Food/Alcohol] UID:30811 Activity:insanely high
6/14    Even better than ketchup as vegetable, USDA declares that french fries
        are a vegetable!  Or is that Freedom Vegetables?
        http://csua.org/u/7rs (yahoo news)
        \_ it's like the Ents took a long time to decide something obvious
        \_ Ketchup isn't a vegetable, it's a fruit.
           \_ Look, a fruit bat!
              \_ Eric the fruit bat?
        \_ The USDA never said ketchup was a vegetable but it's up there with
           Al Gore Invented The Internet jokes.
           \_ They were considering classifying it as a vegetable for school
              lunches. The fact that they even considered it is enough...
              \_ 'They' consider all sorts of stupid things.  I'll bet you
                 there are war plans on a dusty shelf in the pentagon somewhere
                 for what to do when Britain turns against us, invades Florida
                 and nukes the New York and Washington.  Just because it was
                 considered doesn't mean anything.  You take your government
                 way too seriously, IMO.
                 \_ Uh, the point was/is that governments suffer from
                    dilbertesque idiocy and lack common sense. I don't
                    see how you could grok that I "take government too
                    seriously" from that. Perhaps you are projecting...
                    I think it's rather sad that our tax money is being
                    wasted on studies such as "should ketchup be classified
                    as a vegetable." Apparently you don't. Perhaps you'd
                    like to pay for my share in all stupid studies, because
                    I'd certainly like a refund on my tax dollar.
                    \_ I think it's worse than sad.  I think government is too
                       big and too stupid.  I think our taxes should be 10% at
                       most and all the stupid programs, welfare, etc, should
                       go away.  I also think it's a hopeless cause.
                 \_ read the cia's own account of the government conspiracy
                    to conceal the existence of extraterrestrials--even
                    in the absence  of any such ETs existence:
                    http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/97unclass/ufo.html
                    \_ Ok...?  But what has this to do with ketchup, the
                       USDA and Al Gore's inventions?
                       \_  It's an example of government idiocy which may
                           appear somewhat sinister, but is really just
                           plain old idiocy.   hence it supports what the post
                           one level up was saying, which was why i posted it.
                           \_ Ah, ok.  Thanks.  I'll check out the link when
                              I get home.
           \_  But he DID!!!! Remember the information super-highway???
               \_ Remember the Alamo!
           \_ Wrong. The Reagan administation did propose classifying ketchup
              as a vegetable until public outcry forced them to back down:
              http://mimi.essortment.com/historyketchup_rlju.htm
              \_ Why do you hate America?
              \_ Yes yes some idiot always has to bring up some bullshit.
                 Move along.  I was there.  You were in diapers.
                 \_ obBothWaysUpHillThroughTheSnow
                        \_ Off topic, eh?  I said you were ignorant, not that
                           my life was harder.
                        \_ wimp. we had to fight sabertooth tigers
                           for our lunch and access to the modem
                           pool. This being before fire, clubs or
                           dsl.
                           \_ tigers?  you had tigers?!  jeez, what kind of
                              goddamn wet behind the ears punks are they letting
                              in these days, anyway?
                 \_ This is accepted fact.  Stop with your blatant attempts
                    at mythologizing.
                    \_ Accepted fact among your "thank god he's dead, I'm
                       going to rent Taxi Driver to celebrate" friends.  The
                       rest of us remember the truth.
                       \_ Wow.  You are truly deranged.
                          http://www.fact-index.com/k/ke/ketchup.html
                          \_ http://fact-index.com?  uh huh.
                       \_ Wrong. Of course, this is the "liberal
                          Washington Post" so I am sure you will
                          discount it:
                          http://csua.org/u/7s6
                          \_ Discount it?  Yes, but that's better than simply
                             deleting it instantly which is what you do when
                             I post links to back my statements.
2004/6/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30799 Activity:insanely high
6/14    The Myth of Reaganomics
        http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1544
        \_ http://www.nationalcenter.org/WCT010804.html
        \_ MISES!
           fuck that I use to think that was the bomb 5 years ago... then I
           realized how inefficient markets are, and there is nothing we can
           do to stop it perfect competitions DOES NOT WORK- it has been
           proven- its the whole line of research called Neo-Keynesian, led by
           some buy named Romer from Stanford (at least that is where he use
           to teach)
           \_ If we had perfected the market or government or anything else
              we'd be doing.  It isn't perfect but it is certainly proven to
              be more efficient than a heavy top-down command economy.
        \_ Hey, where'd the reply go that said this was from a right wing
           nutcase site?  If you had read the article you'd see it is quite
           the opposite.  Stop knee-jerking.  -!op
        \_ decent article; thank you -darin
        \_ I am no fan of Reagan, but I have a hard time accepting this article
           as credible.  For example, he oversimplifies the issue of dumping
           as something which is purely beneficial to the American consumer.
           I thought dumping referred to situations where foreign governments
           subsidized production costs and sold them below cost in order to
           put local firms out of business.  That definitely does not follow
           the spirit of free trade.  --jeffwong
           \_ Dumping also can be used to stabilize a local commodity.  For
              example, the EU dumps agricultural products globally to keep
              their food costs stable.
              \_ helo, this is another topic a little large for the motd but:
                 while dumping exists in theory ... the idea of killing off
                 a domestic industry to later apply monopoly pricing, but in
                 reality this is extrmely unlikely. first of all, if the
                 foreign country has multiple suppliers, they will compete
                 among themselves. it would be odd for either all of
                 them to collude to sell at the lower price ... if only one
                 them to collude to sell at the lower price. If only one
                 acts, then that firm is making all the losses in return for
                 only part of the mkt when the loss making eventually stops.
                 if a foreign country wants to subsidize you "forever"
                 If a foreign country wants to subsidize you "forever"
                 that might not be so bad. when the banner of dumping is
                 being waved it is almost certainly going to be an industry
                 group and their "captured" regulators and politicial and
                 not any kind of broad consumer group or academics. [you can
                 waved it is almost certainly going to be an industry
                 group and their "captured" regulators and politicians,
                 not any kind of broad consumer group nor academics. [you can
                 google for (mexican tomato florida dumping)]. also you cannot
                 naively look at prices. something like 75% of the trade vol
                 between the us and japan is between parts of the same firm,
                 so the transfer prices are not necessarily "true" prices.
                 while i dont ness buy the comment about EU price stability
                 [i think it is about income support for domestic political
                 reasons, not price stability, nor mercantilist market
                 conquest], but it is correct that another wrinkle has to
                 do with capacity management, so you cannot immediately assume
                 a price differential represents dumping [this is a somewhat
                 involved scenario [see e.g. Ethier, Wilfred: "dumping",
                 in J. Political Econ.] these comments are relvant to the
                 involved scenario, see e.g. Ethier, Wilfred: "Dumping",
                 in J. Pol. Econ.]. n.b. these comments are relvant to the
                 post ~1980 era, as the legal regime as well as poltical
                 realities have changed over time. ok tnx. --psb
                 \_ Hi Partha.  You should learn a useful English trick of
                    structuring your thoughts into paragraphs, rather than
                    throwing up all over the motd like kinney, punctuation
                    and readability be damned.  Thank you, come again!
                    \_ Wow.  Partha and Kinney in the same thought.  Never
                       thought I'd see the day.
                    \_ excluding "helo ... ok tnx --psb" there are 278 words
                       in that posting. this is to convey something that
                       would take about 1.5 pages and a graph and 2 footnotes
                       to do "uncompressed" ... so yes, it might be a little
                       lossy. --psb
                       \_ It's 'lossy' because it's poorly written, not because
                          it's compressed.  Write better, don't look like a
                          dumbass.
                          \_if i am willing to spend t time on something that
                            t is partitioned between content and form. i am
                            sorry you disagree with my tradeoff. if you want
                            to edit it and send me a note, i'll consider
                            pasting that in. sometimes i'm willing to write
                            something up nicely and put it in ~psb/MOTD
                            and sometimes currente calamo is the best i can
                            do. if you have some particular interest in this
                            and want a clarification, you are welcome to
                            send me a mail. --psb
                            \_ your lack of form dimishes the quality of the
                               content by making it unreadable.  free flow
                               thought is available by trying to talk with
                               any of the fucked up homeless people babbling
                               on the streets.
                               \_ hey partha's response was pretty good
                                  considering the average quality level of
                                  content on the motd.  The gist of it makes
                                  sense.  Do you think he's going to waste
                                  time carefully editing his reply to please you?
                                        -jeffwong
                                  \_ He should waste his time carefully editing
                                     his reply to please me, though. -- ilyas
                                  \_ It was ok, but really, if you're going to
                                     bother writing that much, why not stick in
                                     a few commas and maybe a period here and
                                     there?  If the point is to make a point,
                                     then grammar, spelling, and punctuation
                                     count.  If the point is to just fluff his
                                     ego then it doesn't matter if anyone else
                                     can read it.
                 \_can anayone name a single successful dumping case
                   where the person complaining wins in court rather than
                   just pressuring the govts to compromise if not out and
                   out losing in court? --psb
                   \_ Didn't the various asian memory makers get smashed a
                      few years ago?
           \_ These guys are a libertarian think tank, so they don't really
              believe in regulating markets much. I don't really agree
              with that part, but I thought that whole thing was well
              researched, well thought out and reasonably accurate. -op
2004/6/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30764 Activity:insanely high
6/11    For those who think it was sheer dumb luck that Reagan just
        happened to be President as the Soviet Union collapsed.  Have a look
        at National Security Decision Directive #75.  Scanned straight from
        the archives:  http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsdd/nsdd-075.htm
        \_ Some on soda have been arguing that, while it was certainly
           Reagan's prerogative to spend heavily on defense, he had no idea
           that the Soviet Union would collapse in trying to keep up with
           the U.S.  If you ask me, though, he should still get credit for
           it.  Although I think it's also likely a Democrat would have spent
           just as much in the face of the Soviet threat. -liberal
           \_ http://tinyurl.com/2vnpa (His spending vision)
           \_ You mean like a Cold War warrior like Carter failed to do?  The
              Nixonian detente idea probably looked good at the time and they
              really couldn't understand how screwed up things really were
              behind the Iron Curtain in Nixon's day, but it clearly wasn't
              working by the time Reagan came on board.  It isn't just a
              simple case of spending heavily on defense.  It was an active
              plan to sucker the Soviets into destroying their own economy to
              keep up.  It was economic warefare.  One tiny example: we gave
              them and sometimes let them steal technologies that we already
              knew weren't viable and had abandoned so they could dump oodles
              of cash down a black hole.  That isn't merely heavy spending.
              That is an active plan, a strategy, to destroy your enemy.  So,
              in fact, yes, Reagan believed quite strongly that the USSR was
              set to collapse if enough buttons were pushed hard enough.  Also,
              go read his private papers that were published a few years ago.
              He was writing in-depth political commentary and philosophy for
              years during which time he was lambasted as a bozo by the press.
              \_ "Lambasted as a bozo by the press"... Maybe he was in the pages
                 of the Nation, but its an accepted fact that Reagan had some of
              \_ "Lambasted as a bozo by the press"... Maybe he was in the pages
                 of the Nation, but its an accepted fact that Reagan had some of
                 the most positive press of any president in the modern era,
                 due in no small part to the amazing public relations people
                 who constantly worked to carefully massage his image.  Even
                 after his death, they are working overtime - witness the
                 years of elaborate planning behind all of this celebration
                 (which the press has conveniently failed to report, acting
                 as if it all spontaneously erupted from nowhere).  In fact,
                 the press would often _ignore_ the fact that Reagan couldn't
                 seem to speak clearly, writing incredibly positive reports
                 about his press conferences where he was so garbled that his
                 aides would spents hours afterward "clarifying his remarks."
                 \_ It is an accepted fact?  You can say that but that doesn't
                    make it so.  I was there.  I read the newspapers, I saw the
                    TV reports.  Bozo, cowboy, and idiot was the constant
                    refrain.  As far as the funeral goes, *all* Presidents are
                    required to make their funeral plans *while still in
                    office* so you're barking up the wrong tree on that one.
                    And I'm shocked that you seem to be the only one unaware
                    that Reagan was showing signs of Alzheimer's in his last
                    2 years of office.  Everyone knew.  His announcement letter
                    later was a surprise to no one, so no shit he was sometimes
                    a bit off at the end.  What are you trying to say with
                    that?
                    \_ You see what you want to, I suppose.  "Idiot," "Bozo,"
                       "cowboy" as a constant refrain?  Sure.  Whatever.
                       Selective memory is a wonderful thing.
              \_ I said, Reagan should get credit, if you didn't see that.
                 If you want to say that "it was an active plan to sucker
                 the Soviets into destroying their own economy to keep up",
                 you need to back this idea -- which is hardly mainstream --
                 up.  Otherwise it's just intellectual masturbating from
                 a Republican, and we know how much that is worth. -liberal
                 \_ I posted a primary source.  If you didn't read it, then why
                    are you here asking for evidence?  I already posted it.
                    What more do you want?  I also personally recall this
                    being talked about at the time so I'm not sure where your
                    mainstream is but I didn't make this shit up in the
                    middle of the night.  I'm not that smart.  I posted a
                    longer thing below if you'd like to respond to that.
        \_ Admittedly, I only read the first page, but on what basis are
           you suggesting that Reagan's policy of competitive spending
           was a conscious ploy?  All I see is a resolve to be bigger,
           better, and more powerful than the Soviets in every arena so
           as to show them the error of their ways.
           \_ But ... as you just said yourself ... the resolve to be bigger,
              better, more powerful was there...  That's all there was to the
              ploy -- the Soviets had a choice of keeping up and ruining
              themselves, or falling behind like China.  Why are you confused?
           \_ How did you manage to form an opinion after reading only the
              first page?  What sort of reply were you expecting?  You don't
              see it because it is there yet you did not read it.  The basis
              upon which I suggest that Reagan's policy of competitive spending
              *among other things* was a concious strategy to destroy the
              Soviet Union is in those pages.  Sheesh.  Read it and then come
              back and let me know if you still think I'm full of shit but
              at least put in some trivial effort to read the most real world
              document you'll ever see from the time period instead of some
              reporter's stripped down version before expessing your disbelief.
              99% of URLs here are from some shitty online newsrags which all
              have some bias or agenda in some direction.  This is primary
              source material.  Read it and find enlightenment.
              \_ Wow, thank you for goading me into reading the document. I
                 see a very concious strategy in place to destroy the Soviet
                 Union, and I am now happy to report that it does not rest on
                 competetive spending at all.  Instead, as noted in the first
                 page, the plan calls for a resolve to be bigger, better, and
                 more powerful than the Soviets in every arena so as to show
                 them the error of their ways-- as I sussed out from the first
                 page.  The only place that even mentions draining the Soviet
                 purse is where the policy talks about keeping an occupation
                 of Afghanistan as expensive as possible-- until the Soviets
                 withdraw.  More importantly, this document shows very clearly
                 where the modern GOP got their strategy for owning the
                 debate and marginalizing their competition.  Bush is the
                 successor to Reagan; how sad to see him squander the
                 opportunity the Gipper's strategy gave him.
                 \_ I shall explain since you're not getting it.  This is a
                    policy directive.  What that means is this goes from the
                    President's desk as a general plan and outline for action
                    to all the 3 letter spook agencies, the pentagon, and the
                    state department for implementation and execution.  No,
                    the President doesn't ever come up with super detailed
                    specific plans such as "let's give them this broken
                    missile guidance tech so they waste money on it".  That is
                    what the spooks and others get paid for.  This primary
                    source shows exactly what I claim it shows, namely, that
                    Reagan wasn't merely lucky to be around at the right time.
                    They USSR would have collapsed in on itself later if we
                    had continued the same containment policy we'd been
                    following for the previous ~40 years, but that might have
                    been another 10, 20, 30, or more and you'd still be
                    concerned about living long enough to have kids.  What
                    Reagan did was step up from the containment policy to
                    actively pushing the USSR's weak spots in an active effort
                    to push them over.  Growing up in the 70's, me and all my
                    friends made ghoulish jokes about nuclear death and not
                    living long enough to see college.  My wife's very little
                    sister who was born in the early 80's is completely
                    ignorant of the concept.  It's an amazing thing to talk to
                    someone born late enough to be unaware of the Cold War and
                    see how their differently their concerns and fears are from
                    those born earlier.
                    \_ Like you, I'm a child of the 70's.  And like you, I
                       thoroughly enjoy not having to live under the threat
                       Mutually Assured Destruction.  Where we differ is this:
                       While I see a will to dismantle the Soviet Empire in
                       this document, I don't see any policies that resulted
                       in the economic instability that the USSR was already
                       lurching toward.  I see a lot of pomp and circumstance,
                       but none of it contributed directly to the thing that
                       finally killed the Great Bear: namely, that a corrupt
                       state-run economy is doomed to fail.  I'm glad the
                       USSR fell, but Reagan shouldn't get the praise simply
                       because his administration wanted it to happen, any more
                       than Bush should get to claim to have brought down the
                       Berlin Wall.  These things were virtually inevitable.
                       In the meantime, due to Reagan's nuclear brinksmanship,
                       I and my friends were more than certain that the world
                       would be over by 1988, much more so than we'd been
                       before he started his John Wayne politics.
2004/6/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30753 Activity:moderate
6/11    1985: Kerry Asks to Postpone Anti-satellite
        Weapons Test until After Reagan-Gorbachev Summit
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1152045/posts
        Why delete an article form the Wash. Post???
        \_ Why post an article from 1985?  Oh, yeah, because the Right has
           nothing stronger on Kerry than whether he toed the Gipper's line.
           God, I'm going to enjoy watching Kerry win.
           \_ It's called 'history'.  The man has a ~20 year record in public
              office.  You're saying we're only allowed to see him for his
              last 6 months or something?  Next you'll be bitching about not
              getting URLs from the early 80s.
        \_ If that's what it is, link to that, not freeper garbage. Here's
           a real link to wash. post: (Robert G. Kaiser is communist?)
         http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32927-2004Jun10.html
         "...Gorbachev brusquely dismissed the suggestion that Reagan had
         intimidated either him or the Soviet Union, or forced them to make
         concessions."

         http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25142-2004Jun8.html
         Washington, D.C.: Your piece in the Post today was excellent. What do
         you believe Gorbachev is thinking when he reads this week's Economist
         or all of the other nonsense about how Reagan won the Cold War?

         Robert G. Kaiser: I haven't seen the Economist piece, but I think
         Gorbachev made clear his reaction to me: "That's not serious!" In my
         view it is profoundly insulting to Gorbachev, and to the citizens of
         the former Soviet empire, to give an American primary credit for what
         happened at the end of the 1980s in Eastern Europe. Every American
         president from Truman onward was vigilantly, and expensively,
         anti-communist and anti-Soviet. As Gorbachev pointed out, this cost us
         trillions of dollars. But it did help prevent any spread of communism
         beyond the borders of the empire Stalin created after World War
         II. Reagan's biggest historical advantage was to be on duty when the
         end came. But I am confident that my grandchildren will read that
         Gorbachev himself was the principal hero of this drama.
         \_ So if Carter, that simpering wimp was on duty when the USSR fell
            you really think we'd give him credit for it?  No.  Because he
                \_ No, of course you wouldn't.
            didn't do jack.  Oh yeah, there was that great malaise speech and
            we tired yellow ribbons on trees and posts for the hostages he
            couldn't do a damned thing about.
2004/6/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30751 Activity:insanely high
6/11    Would any Dems or Reps disagree:
        RR > GB > GWB
        \_ I'd say GB > RR > GWB  -liberal
           \_ I agree. GHWB was much more of a pragmatist, and much less of
              an ideologue than the other two. I didn't agree with a lot of
              his policies, but his presidency didn't fill me with terror.
              \_ The man was head of the friggin' CIA!!  What the fuck is
                 wrong with you?  Pramatist?  You mean the way it's ok to
                 just fucking shoot someone in the head if you don't like
                 their political philosophy?!
                 \_ Yes, he was a republican and a cold warrior with cia
                    roots, but he also understood the value of diplomacy.
                    And on the economy, he said "no new taxes" but when it
                    came down to it, he wasn't willing to bankrupt the
                    country the way his half-witted son is doing. It may be
                    largely subjective, but, like I said, as much as I
                    disliked him and his party, he just didn't scare me
                    like Bonzo or Dumbya.
                    \_ So he was a vicious bastard, a killer, a thug, and he
                       was the King VB,K,T for a few years before becoming
                       President and you think that's ok because he raised
                       taxes?  You're nuts.
                       \_ calm down.
                          \_ I'm calm.  You're praising a thug.
                       \_ so how would you order the three?
                          \_ GWB > RR > GB.  GWB and RR never ordered anyone
                             to be murdered.
              \_ I didn't agree with him, but I could respect his point of
                 view and way of doing things.
                 \_ In what way did he do things?  What are you talking about?
             \_ at least GHWB saw some real action - got shot down by
                japanese plane.
        \_ GB , RR >> GWB -liberal
        \_ RR >>> GB + GWB  - moderate
        \_ Has anybody else noticed that in the beginning of the last century
           we had 3 persidents with alliterative names?  WW, CC and HH.
           Were alliterative baby names a fad in the mid 1800's?
           \_ You have discovered our secret!  Now you must die!
        \_ RR > GWB > GB -conservative
           \_ agreed, except RR >>>>>> others  -another conservative
              \_ Agreed. -- ilyas
            \_ what makes GWB > GB?
               \_ GB was a flip floppy wishy washy man that no one liked for
                  good reason.  GWB is nothing like his father.  That makes
                  him better than his father in this case.
        \_ Take away the propaganda, and what you're left with is
           left hand amputed > deaf > blind.  The choices already suck.
           \_ More like lobotomy in the current case.
              \_ Yeah, he's a real dumbshit.  So how is it that this dumbshit
                 has control of all 3 branches of government?  How much more
                 stupid are your guys if they let him do this?
                 \_ America wants small government and protection for the
                    homeland.  America thinks you need more guts than brains
                    for this task.  Think Kerry:  brains (maybe), no guts.
                    \_ He got elected during a time of peace.  Security was low
                       on the list and "homeland" wasn't in the vocabulary yet.
                 \_ The economist article on Reagan was great.  "Clearly the
                    man was no intellectual.  Yet surprisingly, he was the man
                    for the job."  Lenin was an intellectual.  Sometimes I
                    wonder if we need less intellectuals in govenment. -- ilyas
                    \_ Did the economist fail to read Reagan's papers?  Must
                       be or they just had an axe to grind.
                    \_ nah, lenin was an ideologue, just like RR and GB.
                       \_ Lenin was an intellectual.
                    \_ You would.
                       \_ No one wants an "intellectual" as President, when
                          you could have a "strong leader" instead.  But,
                          everyone wants an "intelligent" leader.
                          Big difference.
                          everyone wants an "intelligent" leader.  Big
                          difference.  And even though I completely disagree,
                          nearly all Republicans would say that Bush is
                          intelligent.
                          \_ No.  I would say Bush is a somewhat above average
                             "Joe" kind of guy who follows through on what he
                             says.  No one can pin the "wishy washy" label on
                             the man.  Sometimes in life it is better to just
                             *do* something, even if it is the wrong thing than
                             sit on your ass wondering what to do.  Doing
                             nothing is often the worst option.  We call it
                             'leadership' when you decide *before* seeing the
                             poll results what you're going to do.
                             \_ But it's not so good when you decide without
                                considering the long-term consequences. This
                                kind of "leadership" is like that of the
                                first lemming leading the others over a cliff.
                                \_ I said "sometimes".  And yes "sometimes" it
                                   is better to act immediately than ponder the
                                   longer term consequences becausing pausing
                                   to do so takes time during which things may
                                   get even worse than whatever your long term
                                   consequences were from the initial decision.
                                   It also means not going all wiggly when the
                                   rubber hits the road and things don't go
                                   perfectly.  In real life they never do.  A
                                   man who understands that has leadship
                                   potential.
                    \_ Reagan "glazed over in meetings" and let his aides write
                       all his speeches and make policy decisions. I'm not sure
                       these are admirable leadership traits. The economic
                       policy of huge tax cuts, increased spending, and
                       increased payroll taxes makes little sense to me. If you
                       believe in small government you should cut the services,
                       not shovel the debt into the future.
                       \_ Yes, it's true.  You have discovered that he was
                          suffering from Alzheimers in his last years.  This
                          may come as a shock to you, but the rest of us knew
                          it at the time.
                       \_ My officemate and I are TAing a class for my advisor.
                          He basically lets us handle most of the decisions for
                          the class, including grading, the kind of midterm to
                          give, etc.  Does this mean he is a bad teacher or
                          not intelligent?  Reagan's spending was mostly
                          military, and I would say they were due to specific
                          international circumstances at the time.  His record
                          wasn't perfect, but as The Economist noted, Reagan
                          was a libertarian at heart. -- ilyas
                          \_ You guys got everything all mixed up.
                             Dubya is The Great Delegator.
                          \_ I don't consider big tax-cut + big spending to be
                             an example of leadership. It's the easy way out.
                             It's just ignoring reality. Whatever Reagan was at
                             heart he never consistently applied it to policy.
                             From the article: "...spent much of his presidency
                             compromising the free-market principles...", "one
                             of the more protectionist American presidents".
                             Add to that his lying about Iran-Contra. I don't
                             think any of this points to strong principles.
                             I consider Truman the greatest 20th century
                             president by the way. That was a guy who had
                             both capability and responsibility, who actually
                             led rather than function as a figurehead. "The
                             buck stops here."
                             \_ lied about iran contra?  next you'll say the
                                actions in central america were evil.  you
                                know, freeing the people from the evil
                                sandinistas?  yeah much better to let that
                                shit continue and allow the ussr to establish
                                a base in our hemisphere.  brilliant.
                                \_ so it's ok for the president to knowingly
                                   break laws passed by Congress as well as
                                   U.N. sanctions, as long as it's for the
                                   noble cause of aiding guerilla death
                                   squads against a democratically-elected
                                   government and appeasing Iranian terrorists
                                   who were at war with Iraq who we supported.
                                   Brilliant! Oh and the lying, piff.
                                   \_ Break laws?  Name the law.  And yes it
                                      is absolutely ok for the President to
                                      ignore the UN.  You're a bit confused
                                      about who was running Nicaragua at the
                                      time.  You're aware that the now truly
                                      democratic governments that have been
                                      elected since then are all very pro-US
                                      and very very happy that the US saved
                                      them back then?  We're talking here about
                                      governments elected by the now free
                                      Nicaraguan people.  Free people who keep
                                      re-electing pro-democracy, pro-US
                                      governments?  Maybe you think they'd
                                      prefer to get the sandinistas back or
                                      miss those butchers at all?  They only
                                      miss their dead relatives killed by the
                                      illegal sandinista government.
                                      \_ sheesh, might wanna work on that
                                         signal to noise ratio re: nicaragua.
                                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandinista
                                         And ignoring the U.N. is one thing.
                                         But when the United States happens to
                                         be signatory to international treaties
                                         including accepting the U.N. charter
                                         then it's not the president's prerog-
                                         ative to violate them.
           \_ Which propaganda is that?
              \_ Right-wing == corporate media propaganda
                               Clinton-haters, Bush-lovers
                 Left-wing  == traditional liberal media
                               Clinton-lovers, Bush-haters
                 \_ So the right = propaganda, the left = goodness++?  Okey!
                    Glad you cleared that up in an unbiased and rational way.
2004/6/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30738 Activity:insanely high
6/10    Why no one mentioned the fact that Reagan dump 10 billion dollars
        to support Islamic Extremist in Afghanstan, and GWB is now eating
        the bitter fruit?
                \_ carter started it
        \_ Why no one mention you have bad grammar like FOB?
        \_ because corporate media is utterly corrupted.
        \_ Because the first is not the direct cause of the second.  You just
           skipped 12 years of history to make that leap of logic.
        \_ And FDR dumped 100 billion to help the Soviets.  Why no one
           mention eating bitter fruit?
        \_ Becuase throughout our history we've almost never considered the
           long term consequences of almost any of our policy.
           \_ Yeah it would be better if the USSR was still around than a few
              rinky dink sand eaters.  I grew up while the USSR was still very
              strong and I had a lot more fear of nuclear death than I do now
              of terrorism.  I honestly didn't expect to live to see my 20th
              birthday when I was 10.  I'm much older than that now.
        \_ Because given the choice between the big and the little evil,
           intelligent people go with the little one.
2004/6/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30727 Activity:very high
6/10    Ray Charles, RIP.  Something tells me that he isn't going to get the
        travelling corpse treatment.
        http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5182959
        \_ Why would you expect the "travelling corpse treatment"?
           \_ Just in comparison to another recently deceased famous person.
              \_ You mean "former president" -- not just famous.
        \_ Elvin Jones and Steve Lacy have also recently passed away. :(
           \_ And (sadly) 99% of the world has never even heard of them.
           \_ who?
        \_ Which President was he? Slot machines?
        \_ Ronald Reagan, former two term President of the United States of
           America vs. Ray Charles.  Hmm.  I'll bet Ray doesn't get a marine
           drum roll, a ride of air force 1, a 21 gun salute or a state burial
           either.  It must be Republikkkan racism.
           \_ Come on.  The Reagan-mania over the last week has just been
              ridiculous.  They're acting like a Saint died, or something.
2004/6/10 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30721 Activity:insanely high
6/10    Why is Reagan credited with "winning the cold war"? Isn't it basically
        Gorbachev's doing? All Reagan did was quadruple our national debt.
        http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/foreign/reagrus.htm
        http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/kbank/profiles/gorbachev
        \_ He is credited with it because he did.  I laughed my ass off the
           other day when one of the complaints from some leftist blog was
           bitching that Reagan destoying the Soviet Union put an end to any
           hope for detente.  Unreal.
        \_ In Soviet Russia, Cold War wins YOU!!
        \_ Well, Gorbachev himself credits Reagan with ending the cold war:
           http://csua.org/u/7om
           \_ He says "made a huge, possibly decisive, contribution to creating
              conditions for ending the Cold War". That's not the same.
              \_ Pretty close though.  Within epsilon.
                 \_ So Hitler made a huge, possibly decisive etc. for ending
                    the Third Reich, by his various blunders. The conditions
                    for ending aren't the ending.
                        \_ Hilter didn't come out and say 3rd Reich is going
                           away and I'm going to make it happen. Reagan said
                           that he was going to bring about the end of Soviet
                           communism and he put into place policies to that
                           end. That is the difference. I know YOU don't care
                           but I still felt like mentioning it.
                    \_ Wow, talk about turning reality on its head.  A good
                       rhetorical attempt at twisting words to suit your
                       agenda but silly when presented to an audience with
                       more than 1 brain cell.
        \_ When the Soviet Union collapsed, I didn't hear anybody crediting
           Reagan.  I heard credit going to the collapse of their economy.
           \_ And the entire intel community saying "Holy shit.  We didn't
              expect that..."
        \_ Two words: Zero Option. Look them up.
        \_ USSR collapsed because Gorbachev was an idiot, really. Although
           his reforms that were meant to modernize the party and the economy,
           he accidentally unleashed forces that lead to the disolution of the
           soviet union. Today he might be writing in his memoirs that this was
           his original intention, but that's complete bs.  The truth is that
           he was plain incompetent as a leader. His reforms, specially in the
           economic areas, usually didn't go beyond rhetoric.
           \_ His reforms led to greater freedom and the breakaway of the
              client states and so forth... whatever he intended, incompetent
              or not, this was basically his doing. He clearly intended moving
              towards more openness and reducing the command economy.
           \_ Well, the ussr had their own expensive vietnam going on in
              Afghanistan. They had to spend hugh sums on this war, and on
              continuing the cold war with the US increase in defense
              spending (modernizing and expanding), and SDI. The ussr
              couldn't keep up, financially - their old economy collapsed
              on itself. Reforms were the result which we all know didn't
              work out so well. So the Reagan administration's was able to
              end the cold war w/o firing a shot by outspending the ussr.
              Probably a good use of the money considering the alternative.
              \_ so why didn't China and North Korea collapse? They never kept
                 up. it's just not that simple.
                 \_ You said it yourself.  They never kept up.  The USSR was
                    attempting to keep up and couldn't play that game.  China
                    and NK haven't tried and haven't kept up either.  If China
                    or NK was to engage in an all out WWIII style blood bath
                    like the US & USSR were prepared to do for almost 50 years
                    they were be crushed like bugs before it even started.  If
                    the same thing happened with the USSR, the odds are good
                    that all human life on the planet would have been snuffed
                    out.  If China or NK tried to keep up they would collapse
                    too.  Why?  Because our system, our culture, and our
                    society are superior.
                    \_ right... so if life would have been snuffed out anyway,
                       USSR could have really cut back without any particular
                       danger to their empire. So it seems to me the real
                       difference is that under Gorby, the USSR failed to
                       keep up the autocratic iron fist. China never let up.
                       \_ no, they couldnt because eventually something like
                          star wars would have worked and other tech advances
                          would have made their land forces obsolete as well.
                          if we had continued dumping billions into SW we might
                          have a functional system today which would make their
                          nukes useless, or useless enough.  our modern land
                          forces of today would have obliterated their forces
                          of 25 years ago.  I agree with the iron fist part,
                          except: 1) the USSR had to do something, Gorby tried
                          something and lost, 2) China has not kept up and can
                          not stand up to the US today.  China is not the US
                          military equal the USSR once was.
                 \_ exactly.  liberlize economy first, but retain strong
                    political control, like what putin is doing today.
        \_ It takes Leadership to cut taxes, recognize your enemies in the face
           of nuclear war, and spend on defense.
           (And defined in this way, as many Americans do, Democrats don't
           have Leadership.)
           \_ JFK? Reagan increased the total tax burden on the middle class
              btw. He cut income taxes and raised payroll taxes, shifting
              the overall tax burden down. Overall collections as a percentage
              of GDP changed only very slightly.
              \_ You need an unbiased URL to prove the first two sentences, and
                 not from an opinion column.
                 \_ Reagan DID lower income and corporate taxes but raise
                    payroll taxes.  It shoudlnt' be too hard for you to find a
                    URL. -second opinion
                    \_ Then find one.  Your opinion is worth the bits it takes
                       to print them.  Probably less.
                 \_ Look, I am not going to do your research for you. Taxes
                    as a percentage of GDP is a prety easily obtained stat.
                    Is the WSJ unbiased enough for you?
                http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/mhelprin/?id=65000365
                  http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/mhelprin/?id=65000365
                    \_ Dumbass.  Yes, you, dumbass:
                       First two sentences.  That does not include "JFK?".
                       The person who makes the unconventional claim must
                       back it up.
                       \_ The only reason it is "unconventional" to you
                          is that you are economically uneducated. I do
                          not have the time to educate you, that is something
                          you have to do yourself. Here is more data:
                          http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm
                          Look at Federal tax burden as a percentage of GDP
                          in 1980 and 1989.
                          \_ Are you JUST NOT FUCKING UNDERSTANDING?
                             "First two sentences."
                             \_ Okay, I see the confusion. You should have
                                said second and third sentences. I will
                                research this and get back to you. I am
                                busy at work right now.
                             \_ It is in this book:
                                http://csua.org/u/7ol
                                Look at the source of federal revenue through
                                out the Reagan Era. The percentage amount from
                                payroll taxes increases and from income
                                decreases. Reagan raised payroll taxes
                                numerous times. Here are CBO numbers:
                                http://csua.org/u/7on
                                Income tax dropped from 8.9 to 8.0
                                while Social Security went from 5.8 to 6.7,
                                perfectedly offsetting the decrease.
                       \_ and the ad hominem begins. conservatives lose!
                          \_ Actually, I'm a Democrat, and I'm not thinking
                             of switching.  I just can't stand it when
                             some liberal makes a claim far out of left
                             field without some backup.  Republicans think
                             we're all idiots, and I'm not going to help them
                             with that myth.
                             \_ No, we don't think you're all idiots.  If that
                                were so we would've destroyed your entire
                                movement decades ago.  We think that many of
                                you are well meaning but either confused or
                                simply wrong and the rest are simply selfish to
                                the point of being evil.  I do appreciate you
                                coming forward and trying to bring the level of
                                debate above the usual "yoo teh suk!" that we
                                see on the motd from the fringes and the echo
                                chamber.  --conservative
           \_ It takes Intelligence not to waste trillions on nukes and star
              wars and tax cuts while promising balanced budgets and accruing
              massive debts. Defined in this way, Republicans don't have
              Intelligence.
              \_ The same Americans would say that if we had Carter in there,
                 we wouldn't have spent as much, the Soviets wouldn't have
                 spent as much, and the Evil Empire would still be there.
                 The same Americans would say the deficit-spending was money
                 well spent, and without big government too.
                 \_ Reagan also passed some of the biggest tax _increases_
                    of any President.
                    \_ Do I have to continue this?
                       The same Americans would say that raising taxes was
                       necessary to support defense spending in the arms race
                       with the Soviets, to keep Social Security solvent,
                       and to not let the deficit go wildly out of countrol
                       and to not let the deficit go wildly out of control
                       (and it was wild) -- all worthwhile causes.
                       \_ But wait, so its okay to raise taxes to pay for
                          war and control the deficit?!  Why can't we do that
                          now?!
                          \_ Because tax cuts stimulate the economy.  Lowering
                             taxes asctaually increases revenue!
                             taxes actaually increases revenue!
                             -- voodoo economist
                             \_ Hehe, ok so you're saying that raising taxes
                                stimulates the economy?  That high taxes will
                                increase revenue *over a period of time* and
                                not just initially?  That high taxes create
                                private sector jobs?  Okey, dokey!
                                \_ Of course it is more complicated than
                                   that. Taxes spent in economically useful
                                   activity tends to grow the economy faster
                                   than when that activity doesn't happen
                                   or only happens at the whims of the
                                   market. Universal public education, paid
                                   for by taxpayers, has been shown to be
                                   a win by many diverse economies. I think
                                   universal healthcare is too, as
                                   demonstrated by countries like Canada,
                                   where they spend less as a percentage of
                                   GDP (by far) but get similar results. Tax
                                   money wasted stupidly or in fraud is
                                   always a drain on the economy. Compare
                                   The Netherlands vs USA economic growth
                                   rates over time to see that higher tax
                                   rates do not always strangle the economy.
                                   \_ So you're saying the command economy is
                                      better than the demand economy.  I think
                                      the failure of the Soviet Union and now
                                      China moving to a demand economy buries
                                      that idea.  Money siphoned off to the
                                      government can never be spent as
                                      efficiently as money spent directly in
                                      the private sector.  What the government
                                      can do that the private sector can not
                                      is big public works projects that benefit
                                      everyone such as building/maintaing the
                                      highways, defense, dams, and other large
                                      projects that are unlikely to yield
                                      direct monetary benefit or are impossible
                                      for the private sector to deal with.
                                      Re: Netherlands.  Uhm, yeah, let's
                                      compare a homogenous highly controlled
                                      tiny country that doesn't have a military
                                      or any of the other problems the US has
                                      as a large nation and only super power to
                                      the Netherlands(???).  It isn't even
                                      worth discussing.  How about you compare
                                      the US to some other country or group of
                                      high tax countries that can almost equal
                                      the US in some way?  You know, the apples
                                      to apples thing?  Try Germany, France,
                                      Britain, etc. combined.   Netherlands?
                                      That's laughable.  The mouse that roared.
                                      \_ Heh.  In my current game of Victoria,
                                         I am playing as Netherlands.  It's
                                         1850s, I still control Indonesia, and
                                         I am rivalling the US for the #2
                                         world power status (Britain is #1).
                                         Netherlands used to be powerful back
                                         in the days.  Didn't they make Japan
                                         a satellite state at one point?
                                           -- ilyas
                          \_ Those in favor of the war should pay more taxes.
                             \_ That would be great!  We could all choose
                                what government services we want to pay
                                for.  I have no kids, so screw education!
                                I also have no need for social security,
                                medicare, or welfare, so I'm not paying
                                for them either! I think you should run
                                for office on that ticket.
                                \_ Amen, brother!  I'm totally in favor of us
                                   each only contributing as much as we take
                                   out!  My taxes would drop from a total
                                   burden of just over 50% (fed, state, etc) to
                                   about 5%.
                                \_ Sure. Make sure to vote for me.  I'll
                                   be running as CSUA party in '08.
                                \_ You're using CSUA account...that's part
                                   of education.  As for social security,
                                   you'll need it unless you plan to
                                   die before 67.
                                   \_ I don't need the CSUA account, I'm
                                      paying way more in taxes for
                                      education than the value of a CSUA
                                      account. Do you really think you'll
                                      get back even a fraction of the
                                      money you put into social security
                                      now?  Here's a hint: save money.
                                      \_ No but it's more for helping out
                                         those who need it.  How do you like
                                         seeing those senior citizens sleeping
                                         out on your streets if there's no
                                         social security?  Here's my hint:
                                         MAX out your 401k.  Save money is
                                         not getting you anywhere.
                                         Same goes with welfare.  No welfare
                                         means more bums in yoour neighborhood.
                                         or maybe you pay extra tax to have
                                         govt to deport them somewhere else
                                         or pay extra to move to richer place.
                                         It's totally your choice.
                                         \_ No welfare means fewer crack heads
                                            after they either get jobs or
                                            starve to death.  I'll pay an extra
                                            1% for funeral costs for the first
                                            year or two it takes to shake the
                                            garbage people out of the country.
                                            \_ But what if the crackheads
                                               decide to start burglarizing
                                               your house and carjacking you
                                               so they can afford to eat?
                                               Now you've been robbed and
                                               possibly shot and you then have
                                               to help pay the $50K per year
                                               to keep them in prison.
                                               \_ Prison?  No, 2nd amendment.
                                                  Anyway I think more highly of
                                                  people than you do.  Most
                                                  will work if forced to.
                                               \_ It doesn't take much
                                                  carjacking to eat. drug
                                                  adicts rob to pay for their
                                                  habit, not their dinner.
                                                  (yet another legalization
                                                   arg.) -phuqm
                                      \_ I have to disagree whether you
                                         need education or not.  In someway
                                         you used the education fund already
                                         by having gone to public schools and
                                         UCB.  Just because you don't need
                                         it now doesn't mean you got ripped off
                                         by the govt.  Without this education
                                         fund, your parents would have paid
                                         a premium to get you educated.
                                         \_ Very little of your education costs
                                            go to teaching students.  If this
                                            was a pure undergrad school most of
                                            us could easily afford it with a
                                            part time job.
                                      \_ I think you pay education not solely
                                         for yourself, but for a better
                                         society.  Just imagine what's like
                                         to live in state with no public
                                         education.  You'll end with so many
                                         kids on the streets doing random
                                         things.
                                         \_ Duh, that's what the second
                                            amendment is for.
                                            \_ Yeah, that is working out
                                               real well in places like
                                               Afghanistan and Congo.
                                               \_ They don't have the other
                                                  body of laws or culture to
                                                  support a non violent pro-gun
                                                  culture.  The Congo?  Yes,
                                                  when barbarians get weapons
                                                  they kill each other.  Big
                                                  surprise.
                                \_ You'll never know if you need welfare.
                                   \_ I'm hungry and cold.  Send me your money.
        \_ We PRC Chinese made the USSR collapse.  We kicked them out of the
           house and cozied up with Uncle Sam.  Then we did a punitive
           expedition against Vietnam, after which the USSR sent huge amounts
           of money to their Vietnam lackey.  USSR also had to deploy many
           divisions along the world longest land border.  Not long after
           we punished the Vietnamese for being traitors, the USSR invaded
           Afghanistan in part to surround China, and got their butt kicked
           there.  In conclusion, it is us who brought down the USSR.  We
           rule.
           \_ Kind of true. If a large country was supporting Afghanistan/Iraq,
              I am sure the outcome would be different. Too bad the Soviet
              is too chicken to do what the US did to them in Afghanistan!
              \_ The Soviet?  What is the Soviet?  Whatever it is there isn't
                 a the Soviet anymore.  Perhaps that is why the Soviet didn't
                 do anything about Iraq?
           \_ The USSR invaded Afghanistan for oil and a warm water port.  Why
              would they want an even longer border with China?  Not only is
              this not even "kind of true", it isn't even internally
              consistent.
              \_ Really? Then how come Afghanistan has neither a port or oil?
                 They have invaded Afghanistan just to put another satelite
                 country under their belt. I think that was the main point,
                 though most Russians themslves don't know what was the point
                 of this war.  I have read somewhere that it was mostly
                 Brezhnev's idea who after having recieved lots of literary
                 awards for his WWII trilogy "Malaya Zemlia" imagined himself
                 to be the world's greatest military commander and ordered the
                 Afghanistan invasion right before his death.
              \_ Warm water port to a river?  What for?
                 \_ Uh, you're kidding right?  Russia and then as the USSR
                    has been trying to get a warm water port for _hundreds_
                    of years.
                    \_ I just don't see how a river port is worth invading a
                       country.
                    \_ Yes, but their goal was to reach Mediterranean Sea,
                       not the Indian Ocean. They were actually pretty close
                       to reaching the Mediterranean but were prevented
                       by the British and other allies of the Ottoman empire.
              \_ Why would they want a longer border?  No, it's not that
                 they want a longer border, it's just that the USSR likes to
                 threaten and bully.  That's what the USSR is about.  Until
                 it fell apart.  Warm water port is just part of the whole
                 picture.  Mostly USSR wants to dominate the region, with
                 help from friendlies like India and Iran.
                 \_ So they conducted a 10 year war in Afghanistan just because
                    they're mean?  And a warm water port and a shitload of oil
                    was secondary?  Ok, yeah, that makes lots of sense.
                    \_ they thought it's gonna be just a few months.
                       countries that sent most aid to the mujahadeens:
                       us, china, saudi arabia.  china was poor and
                       stingy.  why would it send aid in this case?
                       and no, there is no oil in afghanistan. ussr
                       has plenty of oil, they don't need more oil.
2004/6/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30719 Activity:very high
6/10    Hoping to draw parallels between our recently departed 40th
        president and the current one, the White House today revealed that
        George W. is known fondly among the staff and cabinet as "the
        Great Communicatator."  The President was unavailable for comment.
        \_ exactly, Reagan is unavailable for comment as well.
        \_ CFR (Call For References) on this claim.  -emarkp
           \_ Are you the type who reads The Onion and tries to verify the
              quotes?
           \_ it's supposed to be a joke.  communicator unavailable for
              comment.  ha ha.  -tom
              \_ I guess this worked better out loud, but read it again.
                 Imagine Bush trying to say "communicator" in public.
                 Communicatator isn't a typo.
                 \_ Dear god, is it possible to kill an already dead joke all
                    over again?  Good job, motd!  Ha ha indeed.
                    \_ Yeah once tom got on here trying to 'explain' to us
                       unedjumikated plebes it was dead dead dead.  After that
                       it just didn't matter any more.
2004/6/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30711 Activity:high
6/9     Reagan's death to help Bush's election, yay! Republicans rules!!!
        http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/09/inside.edge/index.html
        \_ Maybe they planned it?  He really died a while ago, and they
           just released it now when Bush needed a boost? (Watch out for
           the sudden capture of Bin Laden next month...)
           \_ I hope this is a joke but it's hard to tell on the motd these
              days.  Anyway, donning my tinfoil cap for a moment, if they were
              going to 'release the body' for political reasons, late October
              would be a better time or during some serious PR crisis.
2004/6/8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30677 Activity:insanely high
6/8     BAHAHAHA.  Go to http://www.somethingawful.com and scroll down for
        "The Ronald Reagan Rap."
        Sample verse:
        Laying flowers on the grave of the Waffen SS,
        Straight playing Jimmy Carter and cleanin up his mess,
        You're an old school shoota,
        Central America booty loota,
        Poppin collas and stabbin Y,
        Droppin' dollas on SDI.
        \_ boy that's funny
           \_ at least it showed some imagination unlike most of the venomous
              drivel going around the last few days.
              \_ Yawn, it's just Dubya-hate carrying over.  I would guess most
                 Reagan haters on soda just remember Iran-Contra, "I do not
                 recall", deficit spending, and trickle-down, and assume it's
                 mean-old-bastard neocon Reagan.  Then again, I don't remember
                 anything substantial to like about him.
                 \_ Don't forget the Savings and Loans mess ("All in all,
                    I think we've hit the jackpot," Reagan said as he
                    deregulated the SnL industry), the HUD corruption
                    scandal, EPA corruption, the Pentagon procurement scandals,
                    etc. etc.
                    \_ It could be that most of the Reagan mourners just
                       miss the '80s.  Don't forget your pastel jacket.
2004/6/8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30672 Activity:insanely high
6/8     Troll all you want but I spent 10 hours waiting to see Reagan.
        5 hours to travel 4 miles. 5 hours in line. Starting at 12AM.
        \_ 6 hours total for me.  1 hour to travel, 5 hours in line.
           Started at 8PM.  Was worth it.  No cameras were allowed. -- ilyas
           \_ so was the coffin actually open?
              \_ Hell no, the man was 93 with Alzhiemer's. It's just a flag
                 covered coffin.
                 \_ Then what's the point of going?!?!?
                    \_ The chicks! Reagan's corpse is a babe magnet.
        \_ so was it worth it?  How did he look?  Pics?
        \_ I still think he should be embalmed.
           \_ And placed next to Lenin's in the Kremlin.
              \_ No!  Permanant display on the bridge of the USS Ronald Reagan.
                 \_ With his hands epoxied to an old-school ship's wheel.
        \_ why not bike from tierra rejada rd & take esperance dr to the
           r. reagan library ? (just have to avoid the bullets...maybe..)
           \_ There seems to be something inherently wrong with riding a
              bike to pay last respect to Reagan.
              \_ Yeah, better to drive your H2 out to Humboldt and cut down
                 an old-growth redwood tree in tribute.
              \_ Because Reagan had all those ties to the oil industry?  What?
2004/6/8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30666 Activity:nil
6/7     Hey I heard that Reagan is still here in CA for one dya only!  Let's
        get a bunch of us to go down there and show how much we respect him.
        We can spit on his coffin.  That'll show em!
        \_ A fellow alum called me and wanted us to follow him around the US.
           It's Reagan-palooza! I'd carry a big picture of him in front of the
           parade^H^H^H^H^H^Hfuneral procession, Chinese-style, and he'd throw
           out fake billion dollar bills with Reagan's face on them. Just like
           olde times! We'd even make concert-type tshirts.
        \_ Troll.
        \_ I dare you to do it, oops i forgot, you're a spineless liberal
2004/6/8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30661 Activity:high
6/7     So I guess its okay to play politics with Reagan's death if you're
        a Republican:
        http://csua.org/u/7n9 (latimes link)
        \_ Idiot troll and a liar.  From your own link:

        '"Don't allow any of the commemorations to turn into a political
        rally," he advised. "If any Republican says at a memorial service that
        we should win one more for 'the Gipper' " paraphrasing Reagan's famous
        line from "Knute Rockne All American," in which he played Notre Dame
        football star George Gipp, "they're sunk."
        In fact, Gillespie and other Republican leaders have avoided that faux
        pas so far.'

        So no, it's not ok, they're not doing it, the LAT didn't say they are
        and you're a troll.  Why should your crap stay on the motd any longer
        than the mislabeled freeper links?
        \_ Who's the idiot?  You're quoting a CNN political analyst, not a
           GOP representative.  Look elsewhere in the article.
           \_ You're the idiot.  Quote something from elsewhere in the article
              you troll.
              \_ Fourth paragraph:
                 "But unofficially, several Republican strategists said the
                 nation's outpouring of nostalgia and respect for Reagan may
                 have offered Bush an opportunity to improve his flagging
                 popularity - if he can find a way to don the mantle of his
                 well-loved predecessor."
                 Of course nobody's going to say this directly ON THE RECORD.
                 And then there's the quote later from Bush's campaign
                 spokesman:  "The life and example of Ronald Reagan reinforces
                 how important conviction and determination are in a president,"
                 which is clearly directed at their opponent.  Come on.  Don't
                 be a fucking tool.  Its right in front of your face.
                 \_ Most of the benifit the article speculates about is
                    just a general side effect of Regan-nostalgia.  Of
                    course Bush is going to give a eulogy, are you
                    suggesting he shouldn't?  And of course he'll  say
                    nice things about Regan, and of course it will look
                    good for the cameras.  Are you suggesting he
                    shouldn't?  How do you think Bush should handle this
                    to elminate any possible political misuse? -jrleek
                    \_ He should avoid drawing false parallels between the
                       fall of the Soviet Union and the invasion of Iraq.
        \_ It's already happened. Republicans have praised Reagan's
           accomplishments as the touchstone for the World's Only Superpower
           for the last decade while ignoring the bad stuff. Democrats couldn't
           dare attack the poor old man with Alzheimers' for fear of looking
           mean-spirited. Even now, all the Republican praise centers around
           the Reagan Myth, while the Democrats will praise his "style" and his
           "patriotism" never mentioning Iran-Contra, S&Ls, internal corruption,
           the deficit, brinksmanship, secret wars, etc...
2004/6/8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30660 Activity:nil
6/7     "By the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been
        convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official
        investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations."
        -Haynes Johnson, from *Sleepwalking Through History: America in the
        Reagan Years*
2004/6/7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30646 Activity:insanely high
6/5     Reagan's last words: "Vote for Dubya Bush"
        \_ I think we should embalm Reagan for public viewing forever.
        \_ The Mississippi River is now the Mississippi Reagan.
           \_ The "Star Wars" anti-missile laser system will be named the
              anti-missile Raygun system.
                \_ The Ronald Reagan Memorial Space Based Weapons Platform
                   (Bonus g33k points for knowing what show that was
                    featured on)
        \_ Can you at least wait until his body is in the ground before mocking
           his death?
           \_ No!  Mocking continues for the next 100 years!
           \_ I believe OP is mocking the Karl Rove and Falwell types who want
              to make GWB seem a mystical religious figure.
              \_ Was this a B5 reference?
        \_ "If you've seen one redwood, you've seen them all."
        \_ To nursing staff: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"
        \_ you know, if Reagan were the president who vouched for pre-emptive
           attack on Iraq, Syria, and N Korea, you'd be fine with that.
           Presidency is all about media relationships and charisma, and as
           long as he looks good in front of the camera (Kennedy, Reagan),
           you'd believe any bullshit he has to give.
        \_ The respect that all sides are treating Reagan with is very
           interesting, and very American I think.  Its probably one of
           our traits I'm most proud of.  An English friend was contrasting
           us with his culture, where if (for instance) Margeret Thatcher
           died there would probably be a good chunk of the population
           openly celebrating.  Anyway, I'm no fan of Reagan or his policies,
           particularly his (non) response to the AIDS epidemic, but he DID
           go against a lot of nutty Republican hawks like Cheney and bargained
           with Gorby.  For that he gets a lot of credit from me.
           \_ I know too many people who lived through the results of his
              policies in Latin America to have anything but bile for this
              man.  On top of that, I remember my family struggling through
              the results of his domestic economic policies.
           \_ Gorby on Reagan:
              http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/07/opinion/07GORB.html
              Having the leader of the opposing superpower write a elegy like
              this is not bad either.
              \_ All he ever wanted was the chance to be in a commercial for
                 Pizza Hut.
           \_ I think the coverage is a bit TOO reverant.  I was reading the
              Tri-Valley Herald, and amidst paragraphs lauding all the "good"
              things Reagan did was a one-line mention along the lines of
              "He was involved in the Iran-Contra scandal, which was a scheme
              to funnel aid to Central-American anti-communist forces."
              Absolutely no mention of the atrocities perpetuated by the
              "friends" we helped, including Saddam Hussein.
              \_ You don't see too many people writing shit like that because
                 the man is dead.  You aren't supposed to smear someone in
                 their obituary.  Show some class even if you can't show any
                 respect.
                 \_ Actually that does hinge on respect. You won't see fawning
                    obituaries for Saddam.
              \_ One thing to watch out for is the "most popular president ever"
                 meme which I've seen a lot of in the last couple of days.
                 Apparently it was actually Clinton:
                 link:csua.org/u/7mh (pollkatz chart)
                 \_ The whole fatherly, reassuring presence of Reagan I think
                    is the main reason people like him. 80's children have
                    nostalgia for him. I think people liked Clinton a lot but
                    the constant noise about the sexual scandal stuff and
                    whitewater and whatever else republicans could carp about
                    eroded the "dignity of the office" and all that. But it was
                    the republicans' own dogged scandal-hunting that kept this
                    stuff in the limelight. In any case I think it's what got
                    Dubya into office.
              \_ Reagan won reelection by sweeping 49 states.  It's not a
                 surprise that many people respect him.
                 \_ By all means, respect him.  But it should also be mentioned
                    that he did some Very Bad Things.
                    \_ You had 93 years to mention the Very Bad Things he did.
                       You can give a dead guy a break for a few days until
                       after he's in the ground.
                       \_ I won't tell you that Reagan was a bad or evil
                          man, and I will absolutely agree that he did (for
                          the most part) what he thought was best for the
                          country, but we need to remember his foibles and
                          misdeeds now before the cult of Reagan becomes
                          irrevocably entrenched.  He was a man, no more, no
                          less. [edited by op to be less obnoxious, sorry]
           \_ Yeah!  I hate Margret Thatcher for saving the British
              economy!
              \_ You blithering idiot.  I didn't say anything about Thatcher,
                 and neither did my friend.  For all you know, he *loves*
                 Thatcher.  However, he's not an American, so he's able to
                 consider the idea that others may have a *different* opinion
                 than him.  Sheesh.
                 \_ Ha!  Thanks, you gave a good laugh by assuming that
                    was responding to you or your friend directly.  You're
                    silly.
        \_ Reagan's repeal of 70% tax cut for the rich-- totally Republican.
           While I disagree with a lot of his policies, I'm ok with that
           because he's such a handsome charismatic guy. Now Bush... has
           no charisma whatsoever.
           \_ Agreed wrt Bush's charisma.
           \_ Please don't overwrite posts.  Use motdedit.
           \_ Bush has charisma.  A *lot* of charisma.  What he doesn't have
              is Reagan's speaking ability to the camera or large crowds.
              Everyone who has met him personally writes/says later how
              incredibly charming he is.  I haven't met him so I can't say
              anything about that but yes his public speaking skills are
              very weak.
                \_ sorry, either you're so uncharismatic that you actually
                   think he's charismatic, or you're just plain dumb.
              \_ Bush is charming to the citizens he meets, but charisma,
                 he lacks.
        \_ I don't get the not smearing people when they are just
           dead part.  If it is out of consideration for the family,
           I can understand.  But in principle why is it ok to
           smear people when they are alive, and not when they are
           dead.  Isn't it more important that what you said is the
           truth, or at least what you truly believe in?  I prefer
           the Zorba the Greek approach: treating living people
           as more important that dead people.
           \_  I have no problem with critizing Regan, or any other dead
               person, in context.  However, using news their death to
               tangent into cheap insults is pretty low.
               \_ Obviously a dogpile of critisism is not polite, but when it's
                  a polarizing political figure who dies, fawning praise
                  without any mention of his faults seems like little more than
                  propaganda.
                  \_ I agree.  I haven't bothered to read the articles,
                     they aren't worth my time.  (But I'm reading the
                     motd?  Nevermind.)  But really, is acting ghoulish on
                     the motd really the correct response?
2004/6/6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30633 Activity:very high
6/5     Reagan was right about almost everything.
        http://www.andrewsullivan.com/people.php?artnum=20010204
        \_ "Thanks to the peace dividend of the post-Cold War world, and the
            free market expansion that Ronald Reagan initiated, America is now
            enjoying record surpluses."
            \_ ob you mean clinton's surplus
               \_ "The era of big government is over."  Your boy Clinton was
                  smart enough to realize that he better start parroting
                  Reagan to stay popular, political affiliations be damned.
                  \_ You make a far better case saying, "Because Reagan won
                     the Cold War, Clinton could reduce defense spending".
                     What do you think?
                     If you're going to credit Reagan / the Republicans for
                     Clinton's budget surplus, you might as well credit
                     Kerry / the Democrats for trying to get Bush bringing
                     the UN back into Iraq, and a still-functioning
                     safety net in the U.S.
                     \_ ... Wow.
        \_ 28% tax for the filthy rich instead of 70% is good? Bull. Lets
           get it back to the Carter era and maybe the rich oil/construction
           bastards could pay back what they stole from us.
           \_ What makes someone filthy rich?  At what point have you decided
              someone is making *too* much money and should not be allowed to
              have any more?  And where should that money go, exactly?  To
              people who have done nothing to improve their lot in life or
              society as a whole?  Taking money from one person to buy votes
              from another is not what democracy or this country was supposed
              to be about.  If you don't like what you're paying for oil or
              building materials, go off grid, sell power back to the rest of
              us and build your own house somewhere.  Others have done it.  I
              don't want to pay 70% taxes because you're unwilling to live up
              to the demands of your own philosophy.
              \_ Filthy rich: making money off of the misery of other human
                 beings; squeezing out more profit by slashing workers'
                 healthcare and human dignity; indulging in immoral business
                 practices but using your enormous profits to buy votes for
                 legislation to keep those practices legal.
                 \_ So where's the legal distinction between "filthy rich" and
                    someone who's just rich?  Do you believe that all people
                    who have a lot of money are evil and opportunistic and
                    should have that money taken away from them?  Or would
                    you pass tax laws for the rich based on some subjective
                    criteria of their individual merits?  How much money
                    constitutes "rich"?  What about evil opportunistic middle
                    class people who indulge in immoral business practices?
                    Do you believe it's wrong to have a lot of money,
                    however it was acquired?  I really appreciate your well
                    thought-through, differentiated political views.  -John
                    \_ Actually, John, I'm not for new laws, just the equal
                       and fair enforcement of existing labor and business
                       laws and the elimination of the numerous tax-shelters
                       and dodges that allow unscrupulous corporations to
                       avoid paying taxes and fines on crimes committed.
                       \_ This is fair enough, but your original phrasing left
                          a lot to be desired.  I am personally envious of
                          people who inherited a lot of money or have it for
                          whatever reason (no judgment about whether or not
                          they deserve it) and feel that yes, they should
                          pay more taxes than joe sixpack, but that's a far
                          cry from punitive wealth taxes (a la Swedish
                          attempts at wealth redistribution.)  -John
                       \_ That's the only question of John's you answered?  Wow.
                          \_ Well, I thought the rest of the questions
                             hinged on the assumption that I wanted new
                             laws to punish the filthy rich; since I dispelled
                             that misapprehension, it seemed pretty clear to
                             me that I didn't need to actually come out and
                             say that I have no problem with people making
                             all the money they want through fair, legal, and
                             ethical business practices.
                             \_ Except ... will you introduce a 70% tax for
                                'the rich' or 'the filthy rich?'  Reagan
                                repealed it for all the wealthy Americans,
                                while are you bitching about the criminal
                                wealthy.

        [Freeper link deleted because you are an ass who uses ip addresses
         to hide the freepness of it all]
         \_ You would've deleted it anyway.  Freeperboy only tries to hide
            his links because you always deleted them instantly when he was
            not trying to hide them.  I think the freepers are a bunch of
            idiots no different than the leftist echo chamber on soda but
            you can't hold it against him for trying to hide his links when
            being honest only got him purged (probably by you) that much
            faster.  If you left his links alone and just did the mature
            thing (ignore them), then he would post a link every other day or
            so, get no replies and eventually just go away.  You only make it
            worse by highlighting his posts through endless post/restore wars.
            You give power to something by trying to silence it.  You should
            know that long before now.
                --conservative but not a member of the freeper echo chamber
                \_ Somebody else might have deleted it, but I would have
                   let it stay.  -op
            \_ If a freeper link added any value to the link it points to,
               I could understand keeping it around.  As it stands, there's
               no reason (apart from freeper vitriol) not to simply post a
               direct link to a credible news source.  I'd feel the same way
               if someone started posting fark links.
        \_ free economy-- rich gets richer and poor gets poorer. I support
           the 70% tax.
           \_ Die communist scum die.
2004/6/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30631 Activity:nil
6/5     RIP Ronald Reagan
        \_ It's bedtime for Bonzo.
           \__ Oh smart comment. And what have you done in your life up
               until this point?  Help throw down communist regimes? Or
               trying to build a new one here?
               \_ Been in a movie with a chimp.  At this rate, I'll be
                  President in no time.  How about you?
                  \_ Heh, you are a credit to your political wing. -- ilyas
        \_ When lilacs last in the dooryard bloom'd,
           And the great star early droop'd in the western sky in the night,
           I mourn'd, and yet shall mourn with ever-returning spring.
2004/6/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30628 Activity:high
6/5     Ronald Reagan dead at 93.  RIP.
        \_ Only the good die young.
                \_ dumbass.
           \_ Only the young die young.
        \_ rude comments deleted.  he's an ex-president.  show some respect.
           he's dead.  let him rip.
2004/5/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30211 Activity:very high
5/12    The Revolution Will Not Be Blogged
        http://www.mojones.com/commentary/columns/2004/05/04_200.html
        (why blogs suck as political force, basically)
        \_ here's a shock; masturbation sucks as a political force, also.  -tom
           \_ I disagree.  There are a ton of wankers in politics.
              \_ but outside the ASUC, it won't get you elected.  -tom
                 \_ did someone get elected to ASUC for masturbating?
                    \_ Can you prove there is no God?
                       \_ it's a reasonable question, dammit.  tom made it
                          sound like there's a story there, and i want to
                          hear it.
                          \_ I think there was a "Masturbation Party" a few
                             years back.  I don't know if they won.  -tom
                             \_ And I wasn't invited?
                                \_ You were, but you didn't come.
                                \_ You're a founding member.  We signed you
                                   up while you were "busy" pushing your
                                   "political agenda".
        \_ That is what this guy gets for spending all his time reading
           echo chambers. Blogs have already proven to be good fundraising
           tools.
2004/5/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30122 Activity:very high
5/9     The Wages of Appeasement
        http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004952
        \_ Can't a freeper even tell that this guy is a looon?
           \_ coherent rebuttal please.  The WSJ is now a freeper
              publication? Do you know anything about V. hanson?
                \_ the editorial pages in the WSJ are pretty close to
                   freeper territory
                        \_ So the largest newspaper in the US is in freeper
                                  \- i do not believe that is still true.
                                     usa today climbed past WSJ, unless
                                     that has been reversed. --psb
                                        \_ USA Today is
                                           a newspaper?
                                           \_ Sure!  Its the Cartoon News!
                           territory.  What does that tell you about
                           your politics?
                           \_ That I can see blatant unrelenting partisanship
                              when I see it? The New York Times editorial
                              pages are just as bad, but anti-Bush. The WSJ
                              gave up any pretense of being anything other
                              than a partisan rag about six months ago. So
                              have most publications in the country.
                      http://www.lyinginponds.com/archive.200301.html#20030103
              \_ The WSJ published the name of a juror in the Tyco trial
        \_ Great. Another "wasn't Reagan soooo GOD-like?" article. Let's look
           at the reverse angle. Reagan's cowboy "More Nukes" attitude began
           the split in American-European relations. He appeased the Iranians
           after the hostages were released, took sides in Lebanon (resulting
           in 241 Marine deaths), and responded to that by invading Grenada.
           Claiming "appeasement" has been of the great boogieman arguments.
           ALL politics has meant weighing the options and every choice not
           to attack or invade can be seen as "appeasement." The concept is
           political oversimplification for the masses. Otherwise, the US and
           USSR would have nuked each other in the 60s.
           \_ Well, it turns out Reagan was right about trees causing pollution:
              http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3700565.stm
              I'm sure all his other kooky ideas will soon be vindicated as
              well.
              \_ Nice Red Herring. Stick to the topic, please.
              \_ Next you'll have complaints about trees producing CO2 at
                 night.  Oh, and catsup will qualify as a vegetable.
                 \_ If you've seen one vegetable, you've seen them all.
                 \_ Ironic isn't it that Reagan is now is a vegetable whose
                    only use it continuing to produce pollution.
                    only purpose is continuing to produce pollution.
2004/5/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30020 Activity:high
5/5     Did you catch former Ambassador Joe Wilson telling Jon Stewart that
        Karl Rove should be run out of town on a rail?  Most excellent.
        \_ Who's Karl Rove?
           \_ http://www.famoustexans.com/karlrove.htm
              AKA, the guy who leaked the identity of a CIA operative to
              punish her husband for writing an editorial critical of the
              Administration.
              \_ Well last night Wilson was intimating that he thought it was
                 Scooter Libby (Cheney's Aide) or Rove or one other guy.
              \_ Is this confirmed? Is this still in investigation?
                 \_ Sorry, not yet, if ever.  Wishful thinking on my part.
        \_ That was pretty kickass.
2004/4/30-5/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:13497 Activity:high
4/30    I am impressed, GWB knows about bit from byte. He said "..... one
        bit". Wow.
        \_ That's nothing compared to Al Gore, who invented the internet.
        http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue5_10/wiggins
        Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the
        importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development.
           \_ You know, if Star Wars had succeeded and Reagan had the
              physical capacity today to say "I created Star Wars", all
              you freepers wouldn't be saying that Reagan invented
              laser-based-weapons. Fortunately, for Reagan, Star Wars
              was only something you watch in movie theaters and he
              never had a chance to make such statements that would be
              intentionally misinterpreted.
              \_ If Star Wars (SDI) had happened under Reagan then he could
                 say he "created" it.  The internet didn't happen under Gore
                 either in the sense that he made it happen nor in the joking
                 sense that he literally created it with his mad skillz.
              \_ You squished 2 posts.  Use motdedit.
              \_ Do any laser-based weapons exist today?
                 \_ Deployed?  No.  There's a prototype of a chemical-powered
                    laser mounted in a 747 which detects and destroys missiles.
                    Last I heard they were planning on bringing it into
                    production.
           \_ but he did!!
           \_ he took the initiatives.
           \_ alg0r > joo
              http://csua.org/u/74z
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore#External_links
        \_ urlP?
2004/4/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:13421 Activity:very high
4/28    Watch Out Berkeley, Ronald Reagan University will
        snatch all the smart kids in the country:
        http://csua.org/u/73m
        \_ Hmm... They say they will only admit applicants with SATs of 1400+.
           If you have a 1400+ SAT, why would you want to attend a brand new
           university, and not one with an established reputation.  I guess if
           you really love Raygun...
           \_ and they expect 10,000 students
           \_ i had 1400 SAT and i hated berkeley
              \_ Too many commie pinkos?
                 \_ wait, is Pinkman a commie?
                 \_ Too many ugly women.
                    \_ That's changed.  Blame geordan and mice.
                    \_ With a 1400 SAT, you cannot convince us you had time
                       or skillz to meet women.
                       \_ Funny, but there are attractive, socially adept
                          people who aren't as dumb as you.
                          \_ Yes, true, but I somehow doubt you are one of
                             them.
           \_ I thought 1400 was near the minimum now for Berkeley.  No?
              \_ I think median is around 1350.
                 \_ According to LATimes, average was 1342:
                    http://csua.org/u/73n (log/pwd: csuamotd/csuamotd)
                 \_ Median for EECS is significantly higher, I just read that
                    it's SAT 1460, GPA 4.45.
                    \_ That's interesting, but what does it have to do with
                       Ronald Reagan University?
                        \_ Why the comment here? The topic of 1400's started
                           up 5-6 posts ago.
              \_ I'm guessing you're a non-priviledged Asian minority type.
                 \_ Misinformed white guy perhaps.
        \_ What would they teach there?  How to get the best dollar selling
           missiles to Iranian terrorists?  Best ways to funnel money to
           illegally fund wars in South America? Top five ways to lie to
           Congress?
           \_ [formatting fixed so threads make sense]
           \_ How to do all of the above and still have people deify you.
              \_ ^people^stupid people
2004/4/26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:13383 Activity:moderate
4/26    NYTimes is running an editorial promoting marijuana decriminalization
        http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/26/opinion/26SCHL.html
        \_ An article written by Eric Schlosser.
           'Eric Schlosser is the author of "Fast Food Nation" and "Reefer
            Madness."'
           Just so's you know.
           \_ Right.  Thanks for the correction.
              \_ how is this a correction? is the piece no longer on
                 http://nytimes.com because Eric Schlosser wrote it?
                 \_ Someone performed sed s/editorial/article/ on my post.
                    \_ It's neither an article nor an editorial. It's an
                       op/ed piece.
        \_ Has anyone been able to get nytimes working with the web browser
           links?  I can do it with lynx, but not links.  tia.
        \_ Wow.  Was it really necessary ot modify my posting like 4 times? -op
           \_ Yes.  It is easier for the weak minded to modify your post
              instead of replying intelligently to it.  When my posts are
              modified I accept it as complete and total victory over the
              vastly inferior intellects that invest the motd.
2004/3/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:12911 Activity:kinda low
3/28    Let's take some prespective on Dick Clark.  He was the host of
        American Bandstand through 7 presidents.  His emcee style, whatever
        it may be, obviously wasn't unpopular enough for his show to
        get on the air under Eisenhower and remain under Reagan.  So he's
        really old.  Big fucking deal.  He played the music of the bands that
        were popular.  This somehow makes him a sellout?  Does it not disturb
        you that his show is no longer on the air?  Because he hosts the
        New Years celebration, his experience is negated?  mumble mumble player
        mumble mumble haters...
2004/3/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:12884 Activity:nil
3/26    Carter's Man in Managua
        http://www.affbrainwash.com/archives/007518.php
2004/3/19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:12748 Activity:moderate
3/19    Proof that we are morally superior to the neocons.
        http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/03/19_neocon.html
        \_ Couldn't you have just pointed to http://kpfa.org and gotten it out of
           the way?
        \_ I'm still waiting for a definition of "neocon".  Other than "ooh,
           they're scaaaary."
           \_ I have posted this many times. Did you not see it, or
              do you disagree with the Christian Science Monitor
              defintion?
              http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html
              \_ Hadn't seen it.  I must have been too slow and missed it
                 before motd purging.  However, how is this different from just
                 plain conservative (at least the "what they believe") part?
                 Also, how does this definition of 'neocon' imply the
                 http://democraticunderground.com link's assertion that neocons have
                 "utter disdain for any and all governmental social
                 initiatives"?
           \_ I'm not sure if they call themselves neoconservatives, but
              here is a statement of principles by the guys who everyone
              *else* calls neocons:
              http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
              I would define neocon as someone who agrees with this set
              of principles.
              \_ "the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to
                 "override strategic considerations" -- Does that mean that
                 when Bush guts regulations neocons think it is bad (just
                 kidding)
           \_ "neocon = jewish."
           \_ I guess it's trying to distinguish this group of republicans who
              call themselves conservatives but whose policies don't match
              more traditional conservative principles, as e.g. Pat Buchanan.
              \_ Pat Buchanan is NOT a traditional conservative.  He is a
                 flaming moron.  It's like calling Trotsky a traditional
                 liberal.
                 \_ Your frustration is understandable but the comparison is
                    inapt. Buchanan would probably be satisfied with the term
                    "traditional conservative". If Trotsky (or Stalin) heard
                    you call him a "traditional liberal" he would have been at
                    best...displeased. He would probably have tried to have you
                    shot.
                    \_ Inept.  Actually their feelings on the matter are
                       irrelevant.  Both are poor choices to represent the
                       mainstream of the respective movements.
                 \_ I prefer Trotsky to Stalin.  Anyway, Stalin is neither
                    a liberal nor a real communist, actually.
2004/2/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:12361 Activity:moderate
2/23    I just finished reading Reefer Madness by Eric Schlosser, the
        author of Fast Food Nation.  I highly recommend it.  Especially since
        the big issue of 2004 is jobs and outsourcing.  Market forces have
        no value or soul.  That's why we pay $2 for a pack of strawberries
        while the illegal immigrants pick the berries during the day and
        sleep underneath a bridge at night.  It's a very well researched
        book (75 pages of notes and references).
        \_ Stalin had a soul and Hitler had strong values.
           \_ Pathetic attempt at Godwining a thread - foiled!
              \_ Intentional invocation of Godwin's law will not work.
              \_ Mocking the op is different from godwin trigger.  get a brain.
        \_ Strong centralized government has no soul either.  -- ilyas
           \_ the book doesn't talk about needing a big govt to fix the
              problem.  I think he wants the public to be aware of the
              issue.  For myself, I try to shop at Whole Foods as much
              as possible.  Their stuff is more expensive, but that's because
              they pay their employees higher wages and their suppliers also
              pay a living wage.
              \_ Making the public aware of the issue will not do anything.
                 People are naturally selfish, and economics are naturally
                 market driven.  So to stop any sort of perceived nastiness
                 you need to stop natural behavior, which can only happen
                 with strong government. -- ilyas
           \_ It is not an either/or proposition. -ausman
        \_ The chapter on marijuana got me thinking - I can't think of a single
           sane person I know, liberal or conservative, that thinks the War On
           Drugs is a good idea or should continue.  So why does our drug
           policy remain insane?  Schlosser's argument is interesting - since
           liberals are perceived as being "soft on crime," the drug issue
           was a perfect way for them to appear tough - hence Bill Clinton
           had the highest rate of drug incarceration of any president in
           history.
           \_ Ronald Reagan once remarked that the surest road to immortality
              is to be born a government program.  This is why the War on Drugs
              is still with us.  I am not even sure moderate conservatives
              support it anymore.  Almost no liberal does.  -- ilyas
              \_ Ronald Reagan also escalated the War on Drugs, especially
                 marijuana, more than any other president before him.  Hell,
                 he's the one that _created_ the "Drug Czar."  Before Reagan
                 the country was on a slow course towards decriminalization
                 of marijuana, and in fact 10 states already had.  That said
                 I appreciate the quote.  As for who does and does not support
                 it, it seems that no thinking conservative or liberal does
                 yet not a single actual elected official will dare to come
                 out against it.
           \_ How many liberals do you know?  How many conservatives do you
              know?  How many others?  Have you considered that when you
              express your deep felt emotions on a hot button topic most
              people who disagree with you yet value your friendship find
              it easier to just agree and move on rather than get into a
              heated debate and damage or destroy your friendship?
              \_ Well, I think that my friends tend to be open-minded and
                 don't allow things like politics or discussion thereof to
                 ever "damage" a friendship.  Arguments are fun!  That said,
                 I think you'll find a huge spectrum of thinking people are
                 in firm agreement on this issue, from the Economist to
                 the Libertarian party to the Green Party to the Cato Institute
                 and etc. ad infinitum.  That's extremely rare, nay unheard of,
                 yet politicians from both parties just mutter about "the
                 children" and then hand out more life sentences to nonviolent
                 drug offenders (who, as Schlosser points out, are merely
                 engaging in Adam Smith's capitalism at its purest).
           \_ exactly what does the president have to do with drug
              incarceration?
              \_ Are you this stupid?  Are you aware of what "federal prison"
                 is?  A "mandatory minimum sentence?"  How about the "Drug
                 Czar?"  No, never mind, you're just another clueless motd
                 nerd.
                 \_ I could have sworn that laws were drafted by Congress.
                    \_ And the president signs and executes them.  DERR!
                       And for our next Civics lesson...
                       \_ The number of drug cases in federal prison is
                          actually a pretty small percentage.  The reason for
                          the large increase in drug incarcerations is
                          programs like "three strikes", adopted by many
                          states in the early 90s, which put such cases in
                          state prison, and which the President has nothing
                          to do with.
           \_ "Why should marijuana be illegal?"
              "Because it's bad."
              "Well why is it bad?"
              "It's illegal."
              \_ second hand Highs
              \_ no, because mj makes people stupid and destroys their
                 initiative which is bad for society.
                 \_ I know plenty of people who have tons of initiative when
                    they are mildly high.  Anyway, when did stupidmaking mean
                    illegal?  I mean are we going to make Everyone Loves
                    Raymond contrabrand next?
                 \_ But why is alcohol legal then while marijuana is banned?
                    "We tried banning alcohol but prohibition didn't work."
                    or "Alcohol is a traditional part of our culture, so it's
                        OK."
                    \_ Neither.  I think it should be.
                 \_ As does alcohol and TV.  Next.  -John
                    \_ Added no value to discussion.  Next.
                        \_ Allow me to explain John's point, since you seem too
                           stupid to get it yourself:  Many things make (some)
                           people (who overuse them) apathetic and/or tend to
                           be "bad for society".  That, in itself, is not
                           enough cause to ban them.  (Or else we would be
                           banning many other things as well).  Clearly there
                           is some other reason to ban it, and there are plenty
                           just none that are reasonable.  If you can come up
                           with some (one?) to demonstrate otherwise, we would
                           be glad to hear it.  -phuqm
                           \_ How about providing welfare at taxpayer expense
                              for the tycoons of the prison-industrial complex?
                              Easy re-election for petty government officials
                              who claim to be tough on crime but do little
                              of real use?  Oh, wait...you said "reasonable."
                              Never mind.
                 \_ I think that's not the reason. Isn't there still a question
                    as to the health effects of mj? It seems like mj has the
                    potential to do more lasting harm to ones mental faculties.
                    \_ No, there's no question; pot has long-term health
                       effects, different than alcohol but certainly not
                       any worse.
                       \_ and not much worse than smoking regular cigarettes.
                    \_ I know MJ has caused lasting harm to my mental
                       faculties.  Oh, wait, you're not talking about Michael
                       Jackson.  Nevermind.
                        \_ I'm so sorry.  Did Michael Jackson rape you when
                           you were a child?
           \_ right...
        \_ [deleted for irrelevance]
           \_ Oh my god!  Not a discussion!
2004/1/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:11972 Activity:nil
1/27    Anyone have a recommendation for a decent digital sniper rifle scope?
        \_ What's the diff between a digital scope and your bog standard
           tube-with-lenses-at-either-end?  -John
        \_ just curious, what is wrong with an optical one?
                -- can't shoot anything beyond 150 yards
           \_ y00 sux0rz!!1  my gild w1l r0x0rz y00r sux0rZ gild! h@r!
        \_ how are digital scopes different?
           \_ they're kewler!1  i hav wun in doom3, d00de!
        \_ ask on http://www.freerepublic.com
        \_ what's wrong with a leupold vari-x?
           \_ my g1ld doom3 hax0rz sk0pe r0xrz y0r lamER lop0ld!
        \_ you are most likely a troll.  But to those who know,
           what is the advantage of a digital scope?
        \_ http://www.nightvisionplanet.com/atn-dgtlu.html
           \_ Seems like a waste.  You really only need one good reticle,
              and once you learn to use it well it'll be more than
              sufficient.  For those who have the time/interest, there's
              a book by Maj. John Plaster called, "The Ultimate Sniper,"
              that has a chapter on choosing and using various reticles.
2004/1/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:11742 Activity:nil
1/9     IMF: US budget policy will destabilize and threaten the world's
        economy.
        http://csua.org/u/5i5
        \_ Please explain how, as more nations become industrialized,
           thus enter the global economy, that the U.S. economy GAINS
           further influence? The U.S. could have relegated everyone
           else to eternal squalor after WWII, and NOW its affects
           are more powerful?!
           \_ yeah, there weren't any other superpowers after WWII.
           \_ Trade makes countries interdependent.   Duh.
        \_ Don't you America haters ever give up?
           \_ If I hated America, I'd leave.  As it happens, I love America,
              I just hate the people who are trying to destroy it (the Bush
              administration and their dittohead followers.)
              \_ They said the same thing about Reagan oh young one
                 \_ And the fallout from reagan's dismantling of the new deal
                    has been ramping up ever since..
                    \_ Dismantle? Reagan didn't dismantle anything. He
                       created this elaborate Star Wars system where
                       satellites shoot other satellites in space with
                       giant "lasers" and they get blown to smithereens.
                       Don't you watch TV?
        \_ Buffett said this months ago:
           http://www.pbs.org/wsw/news/fortunearticle_20031026_03.html
                \_ Understand that these guys don't say anything
                   without the intent of making a profit
                   \_ I sense in you an entertaining rant waiting to burst
                      forth onto the motd.  Come on, let's hear it.
2003/12/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:11382 Activity:nil
12/9    Nancy Reagan opposes replacing FDR with Reagan on US dimes
        "When our country chooses to honor a great President such as Franklin
        Roosevelt by placing his likeness on our currency, it would be wrong
        to remove him and replace him with another," she said. "It is my hope
        that the proposed legislation will be withdrawn."
        http://csua.org/u/57m
        \_ but we already replace Washingon Airport in DC with Reagan Airport.
           What is one more replacement?
           \_ All Millard Fillmore schools are now Ronald Reagans. The
              Mississippi River is now the Mississippi Reagan.
            \_ my original point was that if those who think Reagan's
                "accomplishment" is good enough to replace the name
                bears the name of *THE* Founding Father, what is the big
                deal of replacing *MORE* Founding Father's figure with
                his?
                \_ Heh.  If FDR is a founding father, I am the Queen of
                   England.
                   \_ Go directly to English 1A. Do not Pass Go! Do not
                      collect $200.
                      \_ and "replace the name bears the name" is English?
2003/11/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:11238 Activity:moderate
11/26   Granted she and her husband got $540K for 80 of them from the Chinese
        government, but what exactly is a "Military Intel486 DX2
        microprocessor"?  I know what an Intel 486DX2 CPU is.
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16259-2003Nov26_2.html
        \_ maybe one of those special radiation-hardened ones like they used
           in some nasa spacecraft.
           \_ I don't think it costs $53,000 to harden a chip for radiation.
              \_ It takes about $5 worth of lead, maybe $50 to manufacture the
                 specific casing, air vents, etc....
                 \_ and how much r&d and testing to manufacture a small number
                    of chips for non-commercial purposes?  Yeah, you're right,
                    each chip should be retail price+$55+$8 s/h.  Nerds....
              \_ Why do you think the sale price of an item illegal to export
                 would be even close to the manufacturing cost?
                 \_ On the other hand, wasn't our own military buying $15,000
                    toilets during the Reagan '80s?
                    \_ Yeah, but they were radiation-hardened toilets.
                    \_ Yes, some during the Reagan era when a Reagan era audit
                       uncovered the problem going back through the Carter era,
                       but it makes the joke better if you leave out the truth.
                       \_ Source?
                          \_ I'm old enough to remember.  Find your own
                             links if you're not.  It isn't history to me.
                             \_ Ah, so you have none and are basically just
                                spewing nonsense.  Thanks for clarifying that!
                                \_ I don't have a link that says Nixon resigned
                                   either or that the hostage crisis happened
                                   during Carter's time but I remember those,
                                   too.  Must be that they didn't happen.  Or
                                   we could apply logic and figure out that
                                   gross abuses of budgets don't spring up
                                   over night, it takes years for that sort of
                                   government stupidity to fester and then
                                   see that it had to have been going on.  Hmm.
                                   You're right.  Before the web and urls there
                                   was nothing.  Time didn't exist.  There was
                                   no web at the time so anything talking about
                                   that time can't have happened.  Thanks for
                                   clarifying.  History didn't start until
                                   Netscape, right?  Here, try this although
                                   I know you'll just dismiss the source since
                                   it's only the President saying it:
                http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/resource/speeches/1986/21086d.htm
                                   \_ Thanks for the link.  And I didn't ask
                                      for a URL, I asked for a source which
                                      you've finally provided.
                                   Netscape, right?
                                   \_ Thanks for the link.
                             \_ In my day, we had to walk 6 miles barefoot
                                through the snow, uphill, to find out about
                                government waste!
2003/11/6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:29620 Activity:nil
11/6    Sanity from the Economist
        http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2189237
        \_ You just wanted to tie in to the Beanie thread below:
           "For all his rhetoric about keeping Washington in check, Mr Bush,
            as one Republican analyst puts it, has been spending like 'a
            drunken sailor'."
           \_ yeah, but it's all on the war against terrorism, not on
              government handouts and abortionists -troll
              \_ I thought it was all spent on Halliburton contracts and
                 scaring Americans into thinking they're faced with imminent
                 nuclear destruction.
2003/10/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:10571 Activity:nil
10/10   Arafat dead soon.  All the lies and rumors and denials reminds me
        of how the Soviets handled their leaders being sick (or dead for a
        few weeks sometimes).  http://nypost.com/news/worldnews/7776.htm
        \_ while I agree in principle that the PA is likely to lie through
           their teeth about this, it's also clear that everything in
           this article is based on rumors.  If he's really about to die,
           wouldn't isreli spies know that?  And if they knew that, why
           the very recent public death threats against Arafat?
           That bastard should have been executed in public years ago,
           but he seems to be remarkably resiliant, and I'll believe he was
           at death's door only when he finaly dies.
           \_ yes, it's rumors.  that's all we ever got from the soviets
              until a few days after they each dropped dead.  that's all
              i was saying.  contrast to this country where we're told about
              carter's hemroids(sp) and every other disgusting personal
              health fact.  well except for clinton, but whatever.  -op
              \_ where is dick cheney?
                 \_ in hiding for security reasons
              \_ and reagan
                 \_ in his home slowly dying of a horrible disease.
              \_ or FDR, or JFK...
                 \_ dead. also dead but he met with Elvis on his alien ship
                    before they got him.  some would say that's why, too.
        \_ Well he was trained and financially backed by the Soviets...
2003/8/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:29415 Activity:insanely high
8/20    http://207.44.245.159/article3807.htm
        It is obviously time to give the Germans another ass-whipping.
        \_ um, this site will be taken down by the government in no time.
           Why do you think it has no domain name?      -long live GWB
        \_ This was eye-opening.  Thanks for posting it.
        \_ To what in particular do you disagree?  with his stated facts?
                \_ 'Vorwaerts' is very closely affiliated with the Social
                   Democratic Party.  Their motto translates to "partisan,
                   political, initiative".  Draw your own confusions.  -John
                   political, initiative".  Draw your own confusions.
                                        -John
                   \_ You draw a vague comparison with a foreign political
                      party and a motto... I'm ok with this, unless you
                      believe you're making a point about something--
                      or are we supposed to follow "Social Democrats" to
                      "Socialism" to "Communism" to "If you're aren't with
                      us, you're with the terrorists"?
                        \_ That article was published in 'Vorwaerts'.  As
                           a quasi-organ of the SDP, it is bound to have a
                           slant.  It's not a vague comparison.  -John
                           \_ When was the last time the biggest threat to
                              freedom and security--both for you and the
                              world--the US president and his
                              world-- was the US president and his
                              administration?  The article has some very
                              good points.
                      \_ Draw your own conclusions.
2003/8/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:29246 Activity:very high
8/5     Be careful what you read in public. Sad what America is turning into:
        http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/2003-07-17/rant.html
        \_ that's nothing, http://www.csua.org/u/3tx
           is much more frightening - danh
                \_ The public defender even recommended 4 months, so
                   clearly this is not the whole unbiased story.
           \_ much more frightening and much more believable.
           \_ this particular type of hysteria predates 9/11 by a good 20
              years.  ever since Wargames came out, prosecuters and judges
              have been on the lookout for "evil geniuses."  unfortunately,
              they set the bar pretty low both for evil and for genius.
              a guy from my highschool got crucified by the local law
              enforcement types for some crap on his bbs, and i'm pretty
              sure the numbnuts prosecutors were convinced he was going to
              start WWIII from his commodore 64.
           \_ this kinda thing use to be covered by "free speech", but I
              guess that's a thing of the past. Heil Bush! Heil Ashcroft!
              \_ You guys do realize he was encouraging people to throw
                 maltav coctails at police, right? I'm not sure that was
                 ever ok.
        \_ Here's the article that guy was reading:
           http://www.weeklyplanet.com/2003-06-11/cover.html
                   and whine.
                \_ This same rhetoric was incessant during the Reagan
                   administration.  We saw the result - althought, granted
                   Bush is no Reagan.  Fox news has ~ 2 million viewers,
                   compared to upwards of 40 million for the broadcast
                   networks.  I enjoy reading you sissified twits squirm
                   and whine, so keep Raging against the Machine.
                   \_ are you sure it's 2 million and not closer to 100 million?
          \_ This is an unreadable screed, even to one who is generally
             sypathetic to the position.
2003/7/23-24 [Reference/History/WW2/Germany, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:29118 Activity:nil
7/23    More academic execellence from Berkeley
        UC BERKELEY STUDY - What do Hitler, Mussolini, Reagan and Rush
        Limbaugh Have in common....
        http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml
        Too bad Hitler was a socialist.
        \_ Putting a general label like 'socialist' on what passes for
           Hitler's political philosophy is a bit simplistic.  I trust you've
           had a browse through Mein Kampf and a some good work on Nazi
           economic policy in the 1930s to help you come up with that
           statement.  -John
2003/7/7 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:28952 Activity:high
7/7     Justice Breyer: U. S. Constitution should be subordinated
        to international will.  A justice goes on television
        to argue his case.
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/941589/posts
        \_ Scalia's a homophobe!  (News bulletin!!1!)
           \_ At least he defined the homosexual agenda.
2003/6/19-20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:28775 Activity:nil
6/19    Reagan won the Cold War and can't even enjoy his victory.
        \_ that's just like a product of berkeley to not understand
           the idea of greater glory of the U.S.
2003/5/26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:28552 Activity:high
5/25    Check out this game
        http://www.smalltime.com/dictator.html
        It's guessed all my characters -- Arnold Jackson (from Different
        Strokes), Seven of Nine, Michael Knight, and Ronald Reagan
        \- This has gotten better. It got Laurent Kabila. It didnt get
           the Roman Emperor Galba. --psb
        \_ It got McGyver.
        \_ Yo, it's just the "animal game".  I copied this out of a book
           in BASIC in 1978.
        \_ http://www.20q.net is more interesting. General 20 questions game.
2003/4/23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:28194 Activity:high
4/22    What's the stupidest thing you've ever seen?
        \_ G. W. Bush
        \_ /etc/motd
           \_ :O
              \_ Incredibly, I think the motd has become quite a bit more
                 stupid since I joined the csua in '97.  At that time, it
                 was already the most stupid thing ever.  Maybe it will
                 eventually wrap around some kind of singularity and become
                 really witty.
                 \_ ...but this wasn't it.
        \_ The species known as Homo Sapiens
           \_ you said homo.
        \_ For contrast, I'll post some of the best.  During the
           Carter-Reagan Pres. debates:
           Jimmy Carter (after some Reagan comment): "Look, Mr. Reagan
           doesn't even know the difference between a recession
           and a depression."
           Ronald Reagan: "If the president wants a definition of
           these concepts, then I will give him one. A recession is when
           your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when
           you lose your job. And recovery will be when
           Jimmy Carter loses his."
           Coincident with the '68 Democrat Covention (read Chicago riots)
           where attendees were waving VietCong flags and such.
           Gore Vidal: "That statement you made makes you
           sound like a crypto-Nazi."
           William F. Buckley Jr.: "Now you listen to me,
           you goddamn faggot. If you call me a crypto-Nazi one
           more time, I'm gonna punch you in your goddamn face and you'll
           stay plastered!"
           \_ motd censor censor was here
2003/4/14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:28119 Activity:nil
4/14    Mallard Fillmore (conservative policital comic) claimed
                today that when Reagan lowered taxes, revenue doubled.
                Is that true?  If so, how is that possible?
        \_ wow you actually think things in Mallard Fillmore
           are true?  mf is a piece of crap that comics page editors
           are contractually obligated to print to balance
           doonesbury. - danh
        \_ No idea if it's true but the idea is that due to lower taxes people
           and business have more money available to spend in the economy
           instead of throwing it away to the government thus making more
           taxable transactions occur.  Imagine if the tax rate was 100%.  Who
           would bother working?  If it was 0% people would keep more of what
           they earned and spend more but then we wouldn't have any government
           services.  The key is to find the right balance.  We're still
           looking.
           \_ Right, but lowering taxes while massively increasing defense
              spending (and the deficit) doesn't do any good at all.  The
              increases in interest rates that result more than offset the
              positive effects of the tax cuts.
              \_ I like to look at defense spending as wealth redistribution
                 that benefits engineers among many others.
                 \_ For one thing, that doesn't address the offsetting effect
                    of higher interest rates and huge federal debts.  For
                    another, the positive economic effects of defense spending
                    are completely overrated.  Rather than creating investment
                    for products that create further positive economic benefits
                    (for example, building a delivery truck which allows a new
                    business to make deliveries), defense spending only creates
                    products that blow things up.
                    \_ Gee, you're arguing for general effects, and I'm just
                       glad that I'm getting some pork barrel from the
                       government.  Yes, there are negative general
                       consequences, but those negative effects are paid for
                       by everyone.  So long as the benefits that I share
                       with a smaller group outweigh the negatives shared
                       with everyone, I still win.
         \_ getting your econ data from a really lame comic strip
            is not recommended.
            http://csua.org/u/d18 - danh
         \_ and even more!
            <DEAD>www.boss-tweed.com/mallard/mallardindex.html<DEAD> - danh
        \_ revenue doubling is probably fiction.  total tax revenue did
           generally increase in the years after the the reagan tax cut
           of '81.  the percentage of tax paid by the upper bracket
           increased also.  however, it's silly to talk about tax revenue
           purely in terms of the effect from tax cut.  there are a lot of
           other things happening that affect total revenue more.
2003/4/9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:28041 Activity:nil
4/8     The good ole days:
        http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/01/clinton.debt
        \_ yes, though helped by the 4 year roth conversions in 98 and
           a roaring stock market.  Would have ended with Gore.
2003/4/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:27998 Activity:high
4/4     Making Peace: 100 Years of Leftist Failure
        http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=7092
        \_ Makes perfect sense if you accept that FDR is a conservative
           and the Vietnam War was a liberal excercise.
           \_ If FDR is a conservative, i just got a lot more comfortable
              with my recently admitted liberalism -crebbs
           \_ It's truly amazing how you can take one or two lines completely
              out of context or just rewrite them from whole cloth and dismiss
              the whole thing based on your twisted and contorted version of
              what the article is saying.  Why do you even bother making a
              vague reference to the article?  Why not just completely make
              up everything instead of making up 95%?
              \_ Your entire article is bullshit. It would make more sense
                 to call it Making War: 100 Years of Conservative Success.
                 \_ It wasn't my article but unlike you I at least read it and
                    since I actually have read a history book I understand it.
                    \_ Who has started the major wars of the 20th century?
                       How many times did liberal France invade conservative
                       Germany? To blame a liberal for failing to contain
                       conservative agression is literally perverse.
2003/3/27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:27876 Activity:nil
3/26    unconfirmed Russian sources stated that Vice President Cheney's
        oldest daughter is in Jordan right now intended to  be part of
        the human shield bound for Bagdad.
        \_ what, the gay one?
           \_ must you put a label on everyone?
              \_ I believe you're assuming I think being gay is a bad thing.
                 \_ No.  I think you're putting a label on her.  You could
                    have described her in so many ways but you chose to merely
                    reduce her to a label.  "the gay one".  As if that's all
                    she is.  I made no assumptions.
        \_ Speaking of Dick Cheney... His awesome neo cold war policy is
           going to cause WWIII.  I'm just glad we're going to get a second
           chance.  I was afraid I'd never see it in my lifetime after the
           USSR fell apart.  From CNN: http://csua.org/u/bac
           \_ Glad to know you've got this all worked out and it's going to
              WW3.  Who exactly is going to be engaged in this war?  Did you
              ever consider dropping out and going straight into the State
              Department so you can save us all from this madman?  Please
              bring your vast experience in world affairs to the global stage.
              The world won't survive without you leading the way!
           \_ This is EXACTLY what all the wackos said about Reagan.  Is it
               necessary to remind you of the result?
                \_ multi-trillion dollar debt?
                        \_ Which payed for all of the military hardware we are
                           now using.  Reagan presented a balanced budget every
                           year.
                           \_ But that darn Republican congress just couldn't
                              resist loading up with pork, right:
                      http://www.lafn.org/politics/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html
                             \_ Dems have controlled Congress since FDR.  Reagan
                                had two years of a Republican controlled Senate,
                                half of Congress.  Why do you libs pretend
                                that you want smaller government, its silly.
                                \_ it's the republicans who pretend they want
                                   smaller government, and use phrases like
                                   "big gubbiment liberals".  Now we have
                                   a Republican president and Congress--how
                                   much would you like to bet that the
                                   deficit and the national debt both rise
                                   signifcantly over the next two years?  -tom
                                   \_ Conservatives wants smaller governement.
                                      Liberals want larger government.  Do not
                                      confuse political parties with political
                                      philosophies.  It's overly simple.
                                   \_ Ex-frickin' zactly. The largest gov'ts
                                      has been created by Republican efforts
                                      with Democratic backing. The Reps like
                                      their big gov't in the form of a vast
                                      military state, is all. The Dems pretty
                                      much do, too, since the bases are "good"
                                      for their constituencies. It's all good
                                      You'll all be able to get jobs working
                                      on military projects locally soon so
                                      stop complaining.
                                      \_ And people wonder why I talk about
                                         moving to alaska to get away from
                                         all this gov't bullshit?  Both parties
                                         are guilty of bloating up the gov't.
                                \_ Who created Social Security?  Who allowed
                                   access of Social Security receipts for
                                   general expenditures?  What VP then cast
                                   the deciding vote in the Senate to tax
                                   Social Security.  Who proposed and almost
                                   passed a balance budget amendment, defeated
                                   only by one senator?
                                   \_ do you want to bet or not?  -tom
                                        \_ Unfortunately Bush is Clinton-lite,
                                           however, this is far better than
                                           electing socialists.  800 billion
                                           + goes to Medicare, who created these
                                           programs?  I'll stick to try to
                                           making the Reps more conservative,
                                           thanks.
        \_ Isn't it a "shooting gallery" along the highway to Baghdad? Seems
           like the only thing she'll shield is a blown up motor vehicle.
2003/2/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:27501 Activity:very high
2/22    Help fast for our President:
        http://www.heartlight.org/fast
        \_ Does President Sheen need my prayers?  I'm there!  We love you
           and your centrist inclusive message President Sheen!
           \_ President Sheen?  What d'you mean?  Are you trying to say
              that Bush is just an actor?
              that Bush is just an actor?  \_ EIN REICH EIN FOLK EIN BUSH!
              \_ he's not smart enough to be an actor.
                 \_ as if any actor could be smart enough to be a president.
                    \_ appearently not. Look at how fucked up Ronald Reagan
                       was.
                    \_ I sincerely hope this is a joke or a troll.
2003/2/23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:27498 Activity:very high
2/22    The BBC & The Perils Of Reporting From The Islamic Republic Of Iran
        http://iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news_en.pl?l=en&y=2003&m=02&d=17&a=7
        Plus 12 minutes video
        Thank you jimmy carter and ramsey clark.
        \_ really, it was carter who sold arms to Khomeni to help him
           suppress rebellions?
                \_ no, you must be thinking of Bill Clinton who bought
                   them from Iran to arm the mujahideen in Bosnia
                   and Kosovo.
           \_ Carter is secretly a radical islamic terrorist who masterminded
              the whole thing. I think he has something to do with Al Qeada too.
                \_ We saw some of his (and Bill's) handiwork in
                   North Korea too. Please pick up a history book.
        \_ http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/chap_27.htm
                \_ LOL I love when people post this.  Carter himself
                   tried to lavishly bribe the 5 or so Sandinista
                   generals to woo them to the US.  Of source, we know
                   generals to woo them to the US.  Of course, we know
                   delegated to the President.
                   the result.  Incidentally, war powers are explicitly
                   delegated to the President.  Of the 200+ conflicts
                   since the founding of the Republic Congress has
                   declared war ~ 5 times.
                   The overt funding by the Soviets to the Sandinistas
                   was well in excess of 1 Billion.  As a proxy for the
                   Soviets, Castro had a large military advisory
                   and fighting contigent there as well (not to mention
                   angola and elsewhere in africa)
                   Right back at ya:
                   Clinton Approved Iranian Arms Transfers Help Turn
                   Bosnia into Militant Islamic Base
                   http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/DCH109A.html
                   \_ What does any of that have to do with Iran?
                      Please try to stay on topic.
                        \_ the topic is Republican administrations providing
                           arms to Iran, and the freepers don't want to
                           talk about that.
                           \_ Under the Democrats People exploit people
                              Under the Republicans it's the exact opposite
2003/1/21 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:27176 Activity:high
1/21    I read that tuition/fees/whatever is going back up to pre '98 levels.
        How many of you plan to get jobs and start voting republican?
        \_ why?  we need to raise taxes to cover the deficite.  how can the
           republicans help?
           \_ why dont you get a job and pay your 38% in taxes to help out?
           \_ You don't get it. You should lower taxes when there's a deficit,
              in order to stimulate growth which will lead to more revenue.
              That's what I learned from Reagan.
              \_ Yeah.  Economic theory proposed by Alzheimer's patients
                 and supported by coke-driven stock brokers is exactly
                 what we need.
                 \_ Totally.  Anything proposed in the past by anyone now
                    sick or dead is worthless.  I mean, who needs math
                    thought up by some crazy dead virgin? (Newton)
2002/12/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:26842 Activity:very high
12/16   Ollie's Army Takes Grenada, Again
        http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2002/45/ma_152_01.html
        I can't imagine a ship I'd much rather see come down with a
        Norwalk-like bug.
        [deleted and restored-- guess it's not just the lefties doing
         the censoring, eh?]
        \_ Maybe it was deleted because it's such an obvious troll?  Since
           when is anything about Ollie news?  Link from the center and right
           that get deleted are from main stream/leftist news sources.  This
           is noise from motherjones for christ's sake.  Hardly main stream
           or unbiased.  They make ABCCNNCBSNBC look right wing.
           \_ gee, the freerepublic links are never obvious trolls
              \_ Straw man.  You're ignored what I said.  I'm glad that
                 frereper links get killed.  They're stupid.  You also purge
                 standard main stream/leftist links.
                 \_ How this a "straw man?" You do know what that means, right?
                    \_ Sure do.  Do you?  How is it not?  I never once said
                       anything about freeper crap.  Freeper crap is troll
                       fodder and everyone here except the freeper poster would
                       easily agree on that.  I'm talking about mainstream
                       links on real news items that get censored because
                       certain lefties don't like to see real news that doesn't
                       fit their world view.
           \_ Aw, does the widdle right-winger not like leftie news posts?
              Suck it up....
              \_ I don't care.  Just be aware of the difference between
                 propoganda and biased drivel and real news.  When you figure
                 out the difference, you can take off your debate training
                 wheels and say something worth the bits required to store it.
                 \_ You've obviously mistaken MotherJones for a news outlet.
                    Mother Jones discusses and critizises and opines on the
                    news.  They have journalists on staff and as contributors.
                    But I don't think anyone would be willing to claim that
                    they are trying to be a "fair and unbiased news source".
                    They embrace and trumpet their agenda far and wide.
                    --scotsman
                    \_ Exactly.  Same shit as the freepers.
                       \_ Except that motherjones actually attempts to include
                          historical context and hard facts.  If you had
                          compared to, say, the Economist, your statement might
                          have some weight.
2002/11/14 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:26547 Activity:nil
11/14   Big Brother is coming:
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40942-2002Nov11.html
        \_ "Poindexter said any operational system would include safeguards to
            govern the collection of information. "  At least there will be a
            Minority Report!
2002/11/6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Reference/Military] UID:26433 Activity:high
11/5    Hah!  I always knew Reagan's Starwars could *never* work!  What a
        ridiculous waste of money and we got *nothing* for it.
        http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2407807.stm
        \_ Knocking out artillery with photons != missile defense.  This is
           a different weapon.  Congrats to the engineering team.
        \_ are you really this stupid?
           \_ no, i always thought of myself as "that" stupid.  got any other
              stupid-questions-not-worth-asking that you'd like to ask?
                \_ Dear Moron, look up the work "rhetorical" in the dictionary
                   \_ wow pretty snappy for a freshman.  were you the "smart
                      kid" in your high school?
                   \_ Clearly he didn't agree with the implied answer.
        \_ What part of the article says that Reagan's "Star Wars" could never
           work?
           \_ the sarcasm part?
           \_ the "are you really this stupid" part is that shooting down one
              thing, that you fired yourself, doesn't say anything about
              whether you could shoot down everything that a particular enemy
              wants to shoot at you.  It's obvious you can't.
              \_ Ah yes, the man who could fly before he could crawl....
                \_ how much does a high-tech defense laser with missile
                   tracking guidance system cost?  how much does an artillery
                   shell cost?
                   \_ You're looking at the wrong numbers.  If the laser costs
                      say $150m per unit but can limit the effectiveness of
                      enemy artillery by say 25% then it's easily worth it.
                      It'll break enemy morale to see their shells shot out of
                      the air and the technology will be useful for other
                      things like oh say killing 100% of enemy artillery units
                      in LOS for a few kilometers.  Would you prefer our troops
                      get blasted by 100% of enemy artillery instead of 75%?
                      \_ are you really this stupid?
                         \_ Obviously the answer is yes. Why do you keep asking?
                         \_ "There you go again!"  Do you really think this is
                            some sort of genius quality reply?  Obviously you
                            must since you keep rehashing what never should
                            have been said the first time.  Take it back to
                            the sandbox.  The rest of us are in college or have
                            graduated.
                            \_ Except tom.
                               \_ you serious?  tom never graduated?
                     \_ Where did you come up with your $150m figure? If it
                        was that cheap, it might be worth it. The truth is
                        that something like this costs Billions and won't
                        be coming down in price much soon. Not to mention
                        being far too fragile and energy consumptive for
                        actual combat duty.
                        \_ I was guestimating but I was wrong.  It was $118m.
                           It was in one of the articles on it from slashdot.
                \_ This is for ICBM, SCUDs, etc., not artillery shells.  Laser
                   detonation of a missile was demonstrated in the '70s
                   \_ 70s??  URL?
                      \_ I did it in a top secret experiment using my grade
                         school science kit. If I tell you any more I will
                         have to kill you.
                         \_ Oh Jesus!  I already knew that!  Now that you
                            spilled it the MIB will be arriving at your door
                            step in a few moments.
2002/9/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:25891 Activity:high
9/14    Blinded VIGILANCE
        Unfortunately Reagan's politicization of the CIA is omitted,
        but useful information nonetheless.  Read about diversity
        quilts and 'moral' espionage at our intelligence agencies.
        When a civil aircraft crashed into the White House in
        Clinton's first term, the running joke in Washington
        was that it was James Woolsey trying to get a meeting
        with the President.
        http://laurea.topcities.com/911/sew.html
        \_ It all went downhill bigtime when that idiot Carter said our agents
           could no longer associate with known criminals and other unsavory
           types.  As if the local girl scouts would know anything.
           \_ But this is par for the course for the modern liberal (as opposed
              to the classical liberal who believed in something).  It's more
              important to feel good and look good than to be right or efficient
              or successful.
2002/8/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:25723 Activity:high
8/28    Why must we fight the Iraqi's head on? Why can't we use other means
        like assassination?
        \_ I've always wondered if the gwbush administration has
           a bunch of crack smoking linguists on their staff, what the heck
           is a regime change?  has their ever been a "regime change"
           in history before?  are they still saying "homicide bombers"? - danh
           \_ That's 'cunning linguists' to you, bud.  -John
        \_ Cause we are not very good at assassination, but we are really
           good at bombing the shit out of bad mamas.
           \_ And we're bad at combining the two. Reagan and Libya (Khadafi),
              GB1 and Iraq (Hussain), and Clinton and Afghanistan (Bin Laden).
              The problem is lack of decent ground-based intelligence. Can't
              hit them if you can't find them.
                \_ Libya was fine.  They were pretty much in their place after
                   that.  We never intended to kill Momar, just scare the shit
                   out of him which I think the bomb in his backyard tennis
                   court accomplished that just fine.  GB1 fucked up by not
                   finishing the job the first time but that's not at all the
                   same as pulling a Castro a la Kennedy.  Both Clinton and
                   GB2 screwed up the Bin Laden/Afghanistan thing, true, but
                   both were afraid of the anti-war body-bag counting left in
                   the media who love to see dead American soldiers on film.
                   \_ Wrong. Reagan aimed for the palace and Khadafi wasn't
                      in it at the time. Killing wives and kids doesn't count.
                      \_ Ah, but you'd lose huge amounts of pork for the
                         defense contractors who've been hit hard by the end of
                         the cold war.
                      Libya funded activities after that (see Lockerbie
                      bombing) Hussain was a "high-level target of opportunity"
                      during the Gulf War. They could never track him down.
                      \_ Nonsense.  Find any semi-respectable reference that
                         says my buddy Momar was a direct target.  They knew
                         where Saddam was because Wolf Blitzer was reporting
                         his movements from his hotel room.  GW1 had
                         specifically stated we are not targetting him
                         personally.  Thanks.
                \_ are you implying that the multi-million pound allocation
                   to the British intel is better than the multi-billion
                   dollar allocation to the CIA?
                   \_ Hell yeah.  They have James Bond!
                   \_ Yep. The USA relies too much on technology and
                      bureaucracy, not enough on human intel. August's
                      wargames proved that an unsophisticated approach to
                      communication and basic slight of hand can devastate
                      the tech-laden, middle-management bloated American
                      military machine. The whole missle shield crap? Spend
                      a couple of billion bribing the tech folks on the other
                      side to sabotage their country's efforts or buying all
                      of the "loose" nuclear material. Cheaper and easier.
                      \_ Ah, but you'd lose huge amounts of pork for
                         defense contractors who've been hit hard by the end
                         the cold war. All those Sun buildings on the bayshore
                         frontage road in Palo Alto near Charleston used to be
                         Lockheed and Loral.
                      \_ You make it sound so simple.  Just bribe everyone on
                         the other side.  My God!  Why didn't anyone else ever
                         think of that?  Oh wait, they did.  Those people are
                         all dead or in Siberia now and hey guess what?  Not
                         everyone is bribable.  Glad you're here to generate
                         these great national security plans.  Why are you
                         being wasted here on the motd when you could be in
                         some bunker on the east coast coming up with this
                         great stuff?
                         \_ Everyone is bribable. It's just a matter of what
                            you bribe them with. It's the CIA, NSA, and the
                            folks in charge who don't trust bribery. And you
                            don't bribe everyone, you bribe the right people.
2002/8/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:25508 Activity:very high
8/5     UN part of sex slave trade.  Knew it before.  Here's more on it:
        http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-376444,00.html
        \_ Give them more money! Go Koffi!
        \_ I don't get why Conspiracy Theorists, Rightwing Republicans, and etc.
           want the U.S. out of the UN? I consider the UN nothing more than a
           rubber-stamp of the U.S. international policy. If anything leaving the
           UN reminds a little too much about pre-WWII.
                \_ I encourage you to investigate more thoroughly, ie.
                   beyond CNN and NY Times.  The UN was founded
                   by Soviet agents and Marxists, and that
                   legacy remains today.  There have been numerous
                   violations of US sovereignety.  If you applaud
                   this, that's another matter.  Reagan wanted us out,
                   so did Nixon.  They have the ICC, now they want
                   a standing army, an outlaw of all firearms, and global
                   taxation.
                   That it 'reminds you of pre-WWII' further reveals
                   your historical ignorance.
                   \_Whoaw, you need to get off of the drugs there.
                   So who REALLY killed JFK?
                        \_ LOL go read a history book and published
                           U.N. documents - or can you read?  Facts
                           were stated contrary to the assertation,
                           and all you're capable of is trite
                           invective that would be expected from a
                           12 year old - right...
        \_ Restored.  All function pointers and no reality makes Jack a Geek
           Boy.  You're at Berkeley.  Get well rounded and aware.  It's your
           last chance.  This is easily the most important URL the motd has
           seen in a long time.
        \_ This is exactly why we cannot condone the international criminal
           court.  Think of all the charges against US servicemen for using
           sex slaves and abusing little girls and boys worldwide.
           court.  Think of all the charges against US servicemen in peace-
           keeping and liberation operations for using sex slaves and abusing
           little girls and boys worldwide.
2002/6/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:25058 Activity:very high
6/9     awwwwww, man!  my troll got deleted! must train harder.
        \_ even kinney trolls better than you.
           \_ ouch!

6/9
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/06/09/MNCFLEADIN.DTL
        Secret FBI files reveal covert activities at UC
        Bureau's campus operations involved Reagan, CIA
        \_ [ kinneydrivel deleted. ]
           Kinney if you don't acknowledge human rights, I would be happy to
           shoot you like a dog, next time we meet.  I know you wouldn't
           object.
           \_ murder isn't about human rights, per se.  and btw, you don't have
              the "right" to be alive anyway.
               \_ Umm, yes, you do.  It's not inalienable though. -RAH
                  \_ From where does this "right" derive?  Do only humans have
                     it?  Do only Americans have it?
                     \_  Yes.  Terrorists (that is, non-Americans) have no
                         right to live, and we're finally enforcing that.
2002/6/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:25051 Activity:very high
6/9     awwwwww, man!  my troll got deleted! must train harder.

6/9
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/06/09/MNCFLEADIN.DTL
        Secret FBI files reveal covert activities at UC
        Bureau's campus operations involved Reagan, CIA
        \_
        \_ Reagan?? that guy was just a figure head, an actor....
             As for the substance of the article.... really who cares... you
           see in my view our entire system sucks big eggs. The whole idea
           of man has certain freedoms is a joke. The case about that guys
           computer which contained the details of 9-11 but the fbi couldn't
           look at in until they had a search warrant, obivously that case
           is blown out of proportion but still the issue is that MAN
           doesn't have the rights. But you then get into a little game
           theory,, how do you try to keep the average mans rights, well
           obivously that means you have to break the rules for certain
           indididuals for the better of the society. Ya so what the fbi was
           looking into UC faculty and heads, who knows what else they were
           doing and hasn't been disclosed nor never will be disclosed.
             That should NOT be the issue- they main point to EVERYTHING
           should be- was it done to better society? Know that is a
           debateably point on "whoes" society, but still I hope you get my
           drift.
            This article just says that out of 6000 people - 1 person was
           harrassed. Is that the price we pay.... maybe, if that one person
           happens to be a friend of mine its hard to sell but what if that
           one guy was really making like bad for millions others, in that
           case its a no brainer.
             The idea of MAN's rights needs to be considered in much greater
           debt. Much like the 3 laws of robots and the creation of a zeroth
           law, protect society over all else.... if that rule wasn't
           created......but it initially din't exist because people were to
           worried about the safety of each individual life. This is the
           argument you trying to discuss, but this argument is just beyond
           current media and press. Instead they like to get political and
           crap.
        \_ [ kinneydrivel deleted. ]
           Kinney if you don't acknowledge human rights, I would be happy to
           shoot you like a dog, next time we meet.  I know you wouldn't
           object.
2002/5/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:24772 Activity:high
5/8     So how'd that anti-nuclear 80's style teach-in/propoganda-session go?
        Did you solve the nuclear crisis?  I hope you figure it all out before
        the Berlin Wall comes down or something....  For some reason, Cyndi
        Lauper lyrics are now floating through my head... ah the 80s....
        \_ Goes well with the deficit spending and draconian statements from
           the president, doesn't it? It was a $600 toilet seat on a P3
           Orion in 1982. What will it be this time, I wonder, now that the
           military procurement is having a new dawn?
           \_ girls just waaaaaaanna have fuuuuuuuun, oh yeah girls just wanna!
           \_ hehehe.
           \_ So the anti-nuke thing went poorly, I see.  1982... I remember
              1982.  That was the year all the contracts signed in the late
              70s came due and delivered those toilet seats and hammers.
              Good call but isn't it too easy to bash on the Carter folks?
              Hey, got any quotes for us from Reagan?
              \_ not all DOD mioney is wasted.  I work 80 hours a week
                 for 18k/yr of DOD money doing research that I think is
                 important for America(trying to build a quantum
                 computer.)  that should make up for a couple
                 toiled seats.
              \_ yeah, because all those contractors love waiting 3 years
                 to get paid on their invoices.
                 \_ silly child, they got paid in 79, the items were found in
                    a Reagan administration sponsored audit.  Gotta keep your
                    agenda nice and shiny, all facts to the contrary, eh?
              \_ Sorry, what did toilet seats and hammers mean?
                 \_ It's the name of my new band. You're playing drums.
                 \_ Purchased when?  Discovered by whom?  Thank you for
                    playing.  You were 2 when this happened.  You can't be
                    expected to know the facts.
2002/5/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:24664 Activity:insanely high
5/1     The Jenin "massacre" death toll = 56 (I'm going to *ASSUME* that
        this wasn't censored repeatedly)
        http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020501-5587072.htm
        \_ Of course it was censored repeatedly.  I'm still waiting for the
           hysterical British rags to make this front page news for a few
           weeks the same way they made the original false charges front page
           news.  We know the British rags are all top notch and unbiased,
           right?  They'll retract of course.  Any good papers would.
           \_ Got a URL for any of these so-called British rags?
                \_ Where've you been?  Go read the motd archives.  We've
                   discussed this at length on the motd before.
                   \_ Typical straw man arguement. The Guardian and BBC,
                      both widely quoted in the motd, have been pretty
                      balanced. They always said things like "Palestinian
                      sources claim massacre" and I defy you to show otherwise.
                      Here is a recent BBC article about it, btw:
                      http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1957000/1957862.stm
                      \_ Garbage.  It's all in the archives.  And go read your
                         own BBC link.  The non-BBC rags are screeching and
                         anything but unbiased.
        \_ 26 israeli soldiers die to kill 56 in jenin? I think the non
           military "civilians" kicked well equiped israeli soldiers
           asses in that case.
           \_ Israel could use planes and bombs like we do, but they actually
              want to protect lives on either side.
            \_ Maybe because they weren't civilians?  2:1 in man to man street
               fighting is pretty good.  The US no longer does this sort of
               combat.  We just flatten shit from 50,000 feet.  Imagine the
               outcry if Israel fought wars the way we do.
        \_ http://www.realjournalism.net/times.htm
           http://www.fair.org/extra/best-of-extra/washington-times.html
           \_ This is all FUD and noise.  The http://fair.org link is so old it talks
              about Reagan reading it everyday.  I doubt he's read anything of
              note for almost 10 years.
              \_So are you saying the moonies stopped being a cult sometime
                recently, or what?
              \_ Are you claiming that Reverend Moon did not say all that?
                \_ To both of the above: I'm saying I don't see how it matters.
                   I want to take over the world also.  So what?  Please show
                   in some way other than attacking the paper's owners that
                   the information in the link is untrue in some way.  The
                   same information is elsewhere on the net.  It must be a
                   grand moonie conspiracy, eh?
        \_ http://www.mediachannel.org/originals/revmoon.shtml
           much more about Moon's attempts to buy influence worldwide
        \_ Anyone who reads the Washington Times for anything but
           humor value is seriously wacked.
           \_ That's nice.  Do you have any evidence or alternate sources
              that this article is incorrect in any way?  Please post your
              URLs so we can judge for ourselves.  Thanks.
2002/3/22-23 [Health/Disease/AIDS, Recreation/Celebrity/MichaelJackson, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:24195 Activity:insanely high
3/22    People born in the 70s and grew up in the 80s had:
        madonna, michael jackson, star wars, top gun, aids, etc.
                                                      \_ I didn't have AIDS
                                                         \_ Very few people
                                                            have it. Fewer
                                                            contract it.
                                                            (read urls below)
                                                            \_ Winner:
                                                               Unclear on
                                                               the Concept
                                                               Award.
                \_ Those things existed, but so what?  They were painful then
                   and painful now and all of them are still here so what's
                   the difference?  (Tom Cruise is still here even if his
                   earlier movies are forgotten)
                \_ Technically star wars is from the 70's. Or did you mean
                   Empire and ROTJ.
        How about the people born in the 80s and grew up in the 90s?  What
        is your equivalent?  I'm wondering if there's a generation gap with
        you young folks.
        \_ fuck your pop culture.  i was born in '76 and grew up in the 80's
           and know nothing for your pansy ass micheal jackson crap.
           DRI, Metallica, Iron maiden, motorhead, minor threat, black flag,
           repo man, thrasher magazine, skateboarding, setting stuff on
           fire, hating ronald reagan, being an anarchist, programming
           the apple ][e in assembler...
           \_ So Reagan was in office from 81 to 88 which makes you all of
              about 12 when he *left* office.  And you were all of about 14
              when the 80s ended.  So you were a Reagan hating anarchist
              listening to Iron Maiden all through the 80s from age 4 to 14?
              Sure, kid, sure.  We all know the 90s sucked but trying to worm
              your way into the 80s with bad math won't help you any.
        \_ They get nothing.  They are weak and easily pushed to the wall.
        \_ Ewe! You are so 80s!
           \_ How dare you call them a sheep.
        \_ you mean there are people born in the 80s?  How weird is that?
        \_ VH1, Win95, High Speed Internet, AIM, PlayStation
             \_ You really want to lay claim to vh1, win95 and AIM?
                \_ I'm just saying these are things that kids growing
                   up in the 90's had. I'm not saying that they are
                   good. Some other things that 90s kids had:
                   Linux, Street Fighter 2, MTV's Real World/Spring Break,
                   Gulf War, bad scifi (TNG, DS9, VOY, B5, etc.)
                   \_ They had fewer parents, more pregnancies and higher
                      rates of drug use and suicide, too.
2002/3/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:24115 Activity:very high
3/14    All hail Governor Davis!!!
        http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/03/14/ED40228.DTL
        \_ Yeah, the only problem is, Simon is a right wing nutcase.
           Congratulations Republicans, you elected the only guy who
           could possibly make Davis look good.
           \_ One day you leftiest will figure out your worldview is not the
              only possible valid choice.  Then again maybe not, then you
              wouldn't be lefties.
              \_ You will lose, nonetheless. You can believe that aliens
                 in Black Helicopters control your brain, for all I care.
                 Just don't expect to be elected governor in a democracy.
           \_ in what way is he a right-wing nutcase?
              are you saying he is a right-wing nutcase compared to
              Ronald Reagan or Dan Lundgren?
              \_ A Director of the Heritage Foundation? You gotta be kidding.
                 I am sure they love him in Orange County, but I bet you
                 a beer he loses by at least 10 points.
                 \_ A beer on a 10 point spread?  No shit Sherlock, there are
                    10 points more Dems than Reps in CA.  Duh.
                 \_ actually, i was just asking, not disagreeing, i no
                    longer live in ca.
                    \_ Okay, he is anti-abortion, pro-voucher, favors
                       deregulation, anti-gun control, anti gay rights.
                       A lot like Lundgren, come to think of it,
                       who lost by 20 points, if you don't remember.
                        \_ 1) Exactly why should people be given
                           preferential govt treatment based on their
                           behavoir in the bedroom?  2) AIDS is a
                           complete scam.  It is 100% preventable,
                           but irresponsible homosexuals want tax
                           payers to bail them out for
                           incontinent behavoir.  This is common
                           sense.
                           \_ No, they just want equal rights.
                                \_ They already have equal rights.
                                   \_ The right to marraige?
                                      \_ Gays have the right to marry someone
                                         of the opposite sex.  This is the
                                         exact same right straight people
                                         have.  I see no inequality issue.
                                         \_ They do not have the right you
                                           enjoy to marry the person they
                                           love.  If you don't understand this
                                           then you are either stupid or
                                           trying to deprive them of rights,
                                           or a troll.
                        \_ The 2nd amendment is the ONLY guarantor
                           of the Constitution.  How blind can
                           you be to not see this.
                           And we all know how effective gun control is.
                           \_ Gun control is very effective.  I control my
                              guns very well.  I've yet to shoot an innocent
                              or allow a child to gain control of my weapon.
2002/2/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:23859 Activity:very high
2/13    Who will win best actor?
        \_ russell
        \_ p. nunez.
           \_ if only!  I'm weary of this hollywood navel-gazing.  -PeterM
              \_ They need something to keep them busy.
              \_ don't be so crabby PeterM.  You sound like such a crotchety
                 old man.
              \_ then perhaps you should stop.
        \_ does it matter? oscars are nothing more than self-pats-on-the
           back and do not reflect anything but the liberal masses of the
           academy
           \_ Are we that peeved that Arnie never won an Oscar?
           \_ You and Rush Limbaugh are soooo cool.
              \_ Hey Genius, you trying to say Hollywood is anything but 99.9%
                 liberal?  You're on the same planet with the rest of us,
                 right?  The one where Hollywood is Left and proud of it?
                 \_ Yes, I am saying that. How many former Hollywood
                    movie stars turned Republican politicians? I can
                    think of four without even trying hard, starting
                    with the Right's Darling Boy, Reagan. Turn off that
                    Limbaugh and read something a bit more balanced, like
                    maybe the Wall Street Journal.
                    \_ WSJ balanced? Propagandist of the capitalist world? HA!
           \_ No, it's more than that.  It's an indicator of which actresses
              / actors have been sleeping around with the judges the most.
           \_ what a radical opinion...wow, you must be intelligent.
              \_ Stating the obvious doesn't make the poster stupid.
                \_ yeah those damn liberals gave a bunch of oscars to that
                   damn communist propaganda "schindler's list"
                   \_ WTF are you smoking?  What does SL have to do with
                      *anything*?  You're aware the Nazi's were... oh ya know
                      what?  Just nevermind.  Go find a history book.  Sheesh.
2002/1/15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:23567 Activity:high
1/15    sodans beware: sf is outlawing homelessness.-brown
        \_ I'll bite: Yes, homeless people should be enabled by the government.
           Because you know that getting off the streets would ruin their
           lifestyle choice.  Seriously, what really bugs me about this is
           that in the 80s when Reagan's people were saying some people
           preferred homelessness as a lifestyle choice they were harshly
           criticised (and rightly so).  Now the ultra left is saying the same
           thing in the same way and anyone who tries to do anything that
           might actually help a person get off the streets is harshly
           criticised.  As if the right thing to do is 'assist' the homeless
           at being homeless instead of helping with drug rehab, job training,
           and getting them cleaned up so they can get a job somewhere.  Yes,
           rejoining and being a productive member of society is somehow a bad
           thing in some people's eyes.  sodans beware: SF is a seething pit
           and a wreck of a city.-!brown
                \_ how is stealing homeless people's shopping carts going
                   to help them?  -tom
                   \_ By returning property to the owners who agree not to
                      have the homeless person arrested posession of stolen
                      goods.
                        \_ har har.  -tom
           \_ You are looking at the problem incorrectly. Can you force
              someone who is an addict or has mental problems to get
              treatment without infringing their personal rights? How do you
              treat those who refuse your assistance?
                \_ well, before Reagan, there was federal funding to keep
                   people who were mentally disfunctional, but not a threat
                   to others, in institutions.  Reagan's brilliant idea
                   was that if you kick them out of the institution, they'll
                   magically become functional.  The thought process is really
                   the same as Willie's--"the only reason there are homeless
                   people is that no one has given them a kick in the ass."
                   I'm sure Willie's campaign will be as much of a success
                   as Ronnie's.  -tom
                   \_ So you meant those 6-foot 200-pound muscular healthy-
                      looking homeless men can't get jobs at a moving company
                      or a wearhouse?  They look like I need more food than
                      they do.
                        \_ har har.  -tom
        \_ The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as
           the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and
           to steal bread.
2002/1/15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:23564 Activity:very high
1/14    When Reagan was shot, Alexander Haig got a lot of crap about the
        line of succession and the 25th ammendment. I looked at the
        25th ammendment and I can't find anything about the speaker
        of the house comming after the VP and the secy. of state coming
        5th. Is it stated in the constitution anywhere?
        \_ yes.
        \_ I heard the same thing after 9/11 when they talked about why they
           were keeping Cheney away from Bush.
           \- hello. q.v. Article XXV is on minimal requirements on
           presidential sucession. the exact details and procedures consitent
           with this scheme is spelled out in a congressional acts (per II.1.6)
           general recommendation: there is a good edition of the
           consititution of the US printed by the govt printing office with
           a lot of tactical info and a good index. it's probably a couple
           of bucks.
           as we have learned with election 2000, the "u.s. govt finite state
           machine" doenst have all of its i's dotted and t's crossed.
           ok tnx --psb
           \_ How about those executive orders? I don't see anything in
              the constitution giving the president law-making powers.
              \_ and I see nothing in the constitution that forbids it.
           \_ To properly answer your question, NO, it is not specifically
              listed in the US Constitution.  The 25th amendment does allow
              Congress to set up the order of sucession in Article XXV.  So all
              the Constitution states is that it's up to Congress.  Congress
              currently has an Act in place that states the specific order of
              sucession.  Sorry, I don't remember where in the law books that
              one is located at.  I'll leave that an exercise for the reader.
2001/8/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:22065 Activity:nil
8/9     Who said this:
        "Approximately 80% of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons
        released by vegetation, so let's not go overboard in setting and
        enforcing tough emissions standards from man-made sources."
        \_ go go google.  Ronald Reagan (10 Sep 1980)
        \_ He was right then and he is right now.  Reagan rules!
           \_ Riiiight.                                        -Dr Evil
                \_ Someday you'll understand.
        \_ eh. what a dumbass thing to say. we were worried about dangerous
           chemicals dumped in rivers and CFCs, and he's talking about
           hydrocarbons?
           \_ He right. Tough environmental standards reduce the
              effectiveness of American industry and cause big losses
              in jobs because industry will move overseas to more hospitable
              countries. What's the point in "preserving the environment"
              when people are going to go hungry and die in the streets
              because they can't get jobs to buy food.
              \_ This doesn't quite hold up in a country with ~4% unemployment.
                 Ask the workers in those countries overseas if they have a
                 "hospitable" working environment.  Get a fucking clue before
                 you start blathering.  --scotsman
                 \_ It always amuses me when people jump to these absurd
                    ideological extremes to validate their viewpoint.  It's
                    something that I see from highschoolers most commonly.
                    It just seems so strange that someone could swallow
                    someone else's specious argument and internalize it so
                    fucking readily without really investing any of their own
                    thought.  Of course, maybe that's one of the
                    reasons the preferred age for new army recruits is in the
                    late teen age range.
2001/1/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:20455 Activity:moderate
1/27    More right wing extremist nonsense and lies about Raygun:
       http://www.nationalreview.com/weekend/books/books-nordlinger012701.shtml
2001/1/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:20453 Activity:kinda low
1/26    http://www.nytimes.com/books/01/01/28/reviews/010128.28brookst.html
        Comments on Ronald Reagan's 1976-1980 days with a few back handed
        Bush compliments but mostly a Reagan article for those too young to
        remember the man while in office.
2001/1/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:20451 Activity:high
1/26    http://www.nytimes.com/books/01/01/28/reviews/010128.28brookst.html
        Comments on Ronald Reagan's 1976-1980 days with a few back handed
        Bush compliments but mostly a Reagan article for those too young to
        remember the man while in office.  [article mentions Ultimate Evil
        in positive light, must censor immediately!  purge now!]  God forbid
        someone should post an article with simple facts in it that few
        people are aware of.  Please keep blasting this because you don't
        like the subject.  You only further reinforce my theory about the
        anti-intellectual pro-censorship rant-only crush-kill-destroy
        politics of so many people from your extreme left end of the
        political spectrum.  Free speech only for people who agree with you.
2000/11/18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:19840 Activity:nil
11/17   For the person who asked about Reagan's one vote in 76:
        http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/16294.htm
2000/11/17 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:19827 Activity:nil
11/16   1976: Carter 297, Ford 240, Reagan 1 (margin of 57)
        Was Reagan an independent candidate?  (the above are electoral votes)
        \_ The electors are able to vote for whomever the choose. In
           76 one vote in Washington (state, not dc) was cast for Reagan.
           Take a look at the following page:
           http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/case/3pt/electoral.html
           The relavent part:

           "Most recently, in 1976, a Republican elector in the state
            of Washington cast his vote for Ronald Reagan instead of
            Gerald Ford, the Republican presidential candidate.
            Earlier, in 1972, a Republican elector in Virginia
            deserted Nixon to vote for the Libertarian party
            candidate.  And in 1968, Nixon lost another Virginia
            elector, who bolted to George Wallace. "
        \_ If you're hoping for (R) electors to switch votes, don't hold
           your breath... broken glass... broken glass.
2000/11/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:19691 Activity:high
11/9    If Bush wins the recount, Gore should have nothing more to say.
        If Gore wins the account, I think we will have a crisis.
        \_ That's what you said 8 years ago about Clinton and we now
           have the best damn economy in the world.
           \_ Thanks to Alan Greenspan, a Republican
              \_ And Ronald Reagan's tax cut in 1981 that allowed
                 businesses to expand and thrive.
                 \_ And Ronald Reagan's victory over Soviet Communism
                    \_ And the Internet Revolution (by Al Gore)
                       \_ Yeah. Al Gore the author of TCP/IP, UDP,
                          FTP, HTTP, BGP, OSPF, RIP, RIPNG and
                          countless RFCs and Internet Standards.
                          Sustanining Member of the IETF!
                          \_ Please post the article where Gore
                             actually says "I invented the Internet".
                             I mean the actual quote. Not where
                             other people says he said he invented
                             the internet but where he actually
                             said it. Oh, of course, you can't
                             find it. BECAUSE IT DOESN'T FUCKING
                             EXIST.
                                \_ Wow.  Then when I saw that on a taped
                                   interview, it was a fabrication of the
                                   VWRC that controls the major media?  Is
                                   there a controlling legal authority to keep
                                   the VWRC from completely taking over the
                                   media?  What's the world coming to?
        \_ If Bush wins the recount, Gore will still demand a revote in 4
           counties.
           \_ And while we're at it, let's cleanup the vote tally and check
              how many non-citizens voted *then* do a revote.  Welcome to
              office, President Bush.
        \_ Thanks prodictivity growth in the service sector for the first
        time since yermama was skinny.  -muchandr

{deleted a few older threads to save space, not to censor them}
2000/10/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:19431 Activity:high
10/7    National Debt culprits:
        Johnson(D)      $51,085 M       3.2%/yr
        \_ guns and butter
        Nixon(R)        $133,604 M      6.7%/yr
        \_ vietnam
        Ford(R)         $171,230 M      14.1%/yr
        \_ WIN = whip inflation now
        Carter(D)       $275,676 M      10.4%/yr
        \_ national malaise
        Reagan(R)       $1,780,214 M    23.6%/yr
        \_ reaganomics / military build-up
        Bush(R)         $1,467,350 M    13.5%/yr
        \_ see above
           \_ sharp increase one year prior to gulf war
        Clinton(D)      $1,496,997 M    4.7%/yr
        \_ what can i say?
           \_ point of inflection 1 year after being sworn into
              office. someone had to undo what bush and reagan did.
                \_ Debt, shmebt.  Now that he finally has a real crisis
                   to deal with, he shows how useless he really is.  -John
                   \_ what's the real crisis? oil prices? if so, ride bike!
2000/10/4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:19404 Activity:very high
10/03   Bush: "I don't care what the vice-president says, he doesn't
        believe in testing our kids" and hold schools accountable.
        <DEAD>www.algore.com/agenda/bluebook/p3.html<DEAD>
        "...we need to test our students"
        \_ Gore - lies about Grandma taking up-the-ass for $120 bucks while
           his dog takes the same up-the-ass for $20 .. turns out his example
           is made up. also, Gore special interest ends only after he gets
           his money from the monks.
           \_ All this is largely irrelavent. All politicans exagerate to
              some extent. What Bush-lick needs to focus on is not these kinds
              of mistakes, but rather the effect of BOREs misguided policies
              on ordinary americans.
        \_ There is only one issue that _clearly_ distinguishes these bozos:
           abortion.  Everything else is muddled.
           \_ Government Regulation. if Bore GR++, if Bush-lick GR--.
              Taxation               if Bore TAXES++, if Bush-lick TAXES--.
           \_ Not quite right.  Gore has a little more clue on the
              debt.  Gore is anti-tart reform, Bush is pro tart reform.
              \_ Bore doesn't have a clue about the debt.
        \_ Look, they are the same guy in different suits (though not even
           that last night at the debate). The only good reason to vote for
           Gore over Bush is because there are a few people in the his party
           who actually do give a shit. Anyway, everyone in the Bay Area
           should vote for Nader since Gore is going to win here by a large
           margin.
              \_ The valley's prosperity is due to the economic policies of
                 great men like Ronald Reagan. Bill C was smart enough to
                 keeps his hands of the economy, Bore isn't that smart and
                 will screw it up.
                 \_ The Great Ronald Reagan almost screwed our country
                    permanently with his insane budget deficits. Clinton
                    put us back on an even course. Tax-and-spend liberals
                    in his party notwithstanding, Gore is far more likely to
                    persue fiscal responsibility.
                       \_ You are completely ignorant. Read the Wall Street
                          Journal some time. The budget deficit that he grew
                          was wartime spending. America has always run budget
                          deficits during wartime. Since we won the cold war
                          (which was possible only because of the zero-sum
                          option of RWR) we can start reducing the deficit
                          just like it was after all wars. BORE won't help
                          with this, he would just like to spend all the
                          money on more government programs.
                          If any of you think that the COLD WAR wasn't a real
                          war, you should try talking to members of the
                          armed forces who served during that time. It was a
                          real war and RWR fought it like a real war and he won.
                          By winning he secured our freedom for generations to
                          come. So it cost some $s. Better to sacrifice a few $s
                          for long term freedom and prosperity.
                          \_ You have obviously been reading the WSJ editorial
                             pages and confusing their fantasy version of the
                             world with reality. The Reagan budget deficits
                             were mostly caused by foolish headed tax breaks for
                             the rich justified as "trickle down economics."
                             And I *did* serve in the armed forces during the
                             cold war, did you?. It is not the same thing
                             as being shot at.
                          \_ yeah, kick  some central american butt!
                             \_ It was russian COMMIE butt that we kicked.
                                Soviet Communism has been consigned to the
                                ash-heap of history, just as RWR predicted.
                                \_ Soviet is gonna fall one way or another.
                                   If you think RWR toppled it, you really
                                   have no clue about why communism or command
                    \_ Regardless of Reagan's "almost" screwing our country
                       and Clinton's cigar wizardry, Greenspan is far more
                       accountable for preventing *possible* recessions
                       and that still says nothing about Gore, his retarded
                       tax policy, his taste for opportunistic lying
                       (campeign funding), and a propensity for
                       irresponsibility and unaccountability. But I'm sure
                       you're right about his likelihood to "pursue"
                       fiscal responsibility better than Bush... after all
                       the pursuit of responsibility
                                   economies fails.
                    \_ Reagan "almost" screwed our country; Clinton "almost"
                       screwed Lewinsky, Lincoln Bedroom, Arlington,
                       Missile Guidance... whatever.
                       Get it straight brainiac.
                       Greenspan put us back on course.
                       And that has NOTHING to do with Gore... who indeed
                       is more likely to pursue any responsibility than Bush
                       who has had more practice being it than pursuing it.
                       Oh, forget I said that... go back to your fantasyland
                       You'd vote democrat regardless of who's running,
                       probably because your parents did you pathetic
                       reasons that companies like Cisco and Sun are able to
                       little snailsniffing automaton for whom thinking-for-
                       onself is a terrifying enemy.  - (fucker)
                       \_ GreenSpan was appointed by Reagan and has shown
                          himself to be a supply-sider.
                 \_ Our prosperity is in spite of the economic and moral
                    policies of mediocre presidents like Ronald Reagan. The
                    Federal Reserve and regulations in banking and stock
                    markets, established long before rr, helped fuel and
                    better sustain recent stock market manias. And the more
                    tangible prosperity is due to the great minds & ideas
                    coming out of universities like UC Berkeley and Stanford
                    and companies like HP, Cisco, Sun and products like
                    Netscape Navigator, Solaris and Yahoo. Not due as much
                    to those punks in washington (dc).
                    \_ RWR's visonary insights into economics, including
                       his choice of Alan G. as FED Chariman, are the sole
                       \_ "sole reason"? You LOSE right here
                       reason that companies like Cisco and Sun are able to
                       prosper. The reduction in Coroprate Taxes and Corporate
                       Regulations that RWR made allowed people to do business
                       more efficiently leading to unprecidented growth and
                          \_ I paid BC + AB salary in taxes this year. I
                       prosperity for all americans including morons like you
                       who would otherwise be panhanlding on the streets of
                       Berzerkely.
                       RWR believed and implemented SSLF principles. His
                       leadership has restored America's Greatness.
                       \_ In that case, why is Greenspan advocating the
                          use of the budget surplus to reduce the national
                          debt instead of cutting taxes?
                          \_ I believe that some of the deficit ought to
                             be repaid, but that is not what Bore will do
                             with the "surplus". He will expand government.
                                \_ Err ... debt and deficit are two very
                                   very different things, even though one
                                   leads to the other.
                       \_ The regulations I refer to were implemented in
                          FDR's time. Plus, I am 95% sure I earn more than
                          you and believe me Reagan did not do that for me,
                          you  rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth fascist hypocrite.
                          America never needed it's Greatness restored
                          because it never lost it. Republicans are all
                          for affirmative action for the rich, like S&L
                          bailouts and pandering to the religious freaks.
                          \_ I paid BC + AB salaries in taxes this year. I
                             will pay more next year. If it was not for
                             RWR, I would never have had the opportunity
                             to earn as much as I do. His vision was an
                             america where everyone could be rich, rather
                             \_ This is fucking hilarious.
                             than an america where no one can ever be rich
                             (socialist democrat ideal).
                             \_ Wow, a republican who is proud of taxes
                                enough to use them to try to justify his point
                       \_ No, it was the other way around: products by
                          Cisco Sun etc. helped improve corporate efficiencies
                          and reduce costs which led to higher profits and
                          greater ambitions (both in small/large and old/new
                          companies which in turn contributed to stock market
                          gains. Not just "lower taxes" which is all that
                          republicans can ever say.
                          \_ The economic environment created by RWR is what
                             what allowed companies like Cisco and Sun to
                             form and succeed Without his leadership in the
                             early 1980s (for those of you not old enough to
                             remember, 1979-1980 were years in which this
                             country experienced the greatest economic down-
                             turn since 1929) these companies and scores of
                             of others could never have been created. Supply
                             Side and Laisse-Faire works, RWR proved it;
                             we are enjoying the fruits of his labor.
                             \_ Wow, i guess RWR created the Internet then.
                             \_ Since 1992, CSCO has gone up like 80000%
                             \_ It's not often that us engineers are given
                                our dues for making America great!  So,
                                please don't take away our credit, asshole!
                                If you want to hero worship RWR, go learn
                                from Monica, ok?

           \_ it's really pretty ridiculous to make this assertion.  Well,
              it's not ridiculous when you have no real knowledge of the
              candidates' positions.  But if you did, you'd know that they
              differ on most issues.  -tom
2000/10/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:19381 Activity:very high
9/30    Perhaps the liberals in the viewing audience can explain something
        to me. Why is it that todays liberals (esp. democrats) have forsaken
        the princples of the founding members of thier party? Consider the
        following quote from Thomas Jefferson (a democrat for those who have
        weak memories):

        ... a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from
        injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate
        their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take
        from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of
        good government ...

        All we hear from democrats these days is that we need more government
        with more spending and more regulation and more taxes and more control
        over the lives of individual.
        \_ blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
        \_ I'll ignore the fact that this is an obvious troll, but, perhaps
           you missed the fact that the parties did a role-reversal.
           Remember, Lincoln was a Republican.  The Republican party today
           looks suspiciously like a special interest group for aging white
           folks.
           \_ There are many republicans who still believe in the ideals that
              Lincoln and Reagan set for our party. Not all of us agree with
              loud mouth show-offs like Limbaugh and Gingrich. I believe
              that the true spokesmen for the Republican party are men like
              George Will, Tom Campbell and Thomas Soddel.
        \_ Ja, die Republikaner sagen "LEBEN UND LEBEN LASSEN"
        \_ Yeah, Jefferson also enslaved men and women. go figure.
        \_ Jefferson founded the first Republican party in America.
           The first three Republican presidents were all wealthy,
           aristocratic Southern planters--Jefferson, Madison and Monroe
           -- rich and privileged folks, much like today's Republicans.
           Later, the Republican party split into the (1) Whig Party
           (pro-expansionists/imperialists) and (2) Democratic-Republican
           party (composed of diverse elements that emphasized local
           and humanitarian concerns, states' rights, agrarian interests,
           and democratic procedures). In keeping with the egalitarian spirit
           of the times, that faction adopted the name Democratic Party.
           In the mid 1800s, the Whigs eventually split up by joining
           Democrats(pro-slavery) and Northern Republicans(anti-slavery).
           This new Republican Party (which is as we know them) had a
           presidential candidate called Abraham Lincoln who said:
               "The legitimate object of government is to do for a
                community of people whatever they need to have done,
                but cannot do at all, or cannot do so well, for
                themselves, in their separate and individual capacities."
           Lincoln won the presidency without winning a single southern state.
           Of course, later, in the 1960s, lots of southerners joined the
           Republican Party because they feared the integrationist and
           pro-civil-rights Democratic Party. So they really are the same.
           Plus, FDR was a Democrat and he saved the country from
           ruin during the Great Depression by using the power of
           the government to assist down-and-out people and provide
           regulation and stability so that economic prosperity
           could flourish.
           \_ FDR introduced social programs (i.e. the institution of
              robbing the successful in favor of the mediocre and unsuccessful).
              The insane pyramid scheme of Social Security which will plague
              this country for many more years is FDR's legacy.  The war
              brought us out of the Great Depression, not FDR.  Did you know,
              btw, that FDR once remarked that all germans should be castrated
              (after the war)?  He was a big fan of civilian bombings also,
              and he believed it was a crucial component of winning the war.
              \_ Uh... FDR died before the end of WWII.
                 \_ And this is relevant to his views or his personality ...
                    how?  Hitler technically died before the end of WWII also.
                    \_ Oh yeah, FDR is just like Hitler, huh?
              \_ Contributing to two world wars does not make them favorites.
                 On his way to meet British Prime Minister Winston Churchill
                 in Quebec, FDR told reporters on August 26, 1944: "We have
                 got to be tough with Germany and I mean the German people
                 not just the Nazis.  We either have to castrate the German
                 people or you have got to treat them in such a manner [so
                 that] they can't go on reproducing people who want to
                 continue the way they have in the past."
1999/2/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:15405 Activity:high
        50-50 for obstruction of justice.
        \_ Now its time for endless debate on censure motions.
                \_ Not.  Thankfully this CYA bullshit is dead.
        \_ I thought it was supposed to be > 50. Oh well.
                \_ No, after the house impeaches him in a majority, the
                   Senate must convict on a 2/3 majority in order to remove
                   the president.
                   \_ Seriously, did anyone think that it could possibly
                      be anything better than 56-44 to get him out of
                      office? what a waste of time.  Good job GOP, you
                      just about guaranteed that you won't be in the
                      White House for a few more terms.
                      \_ Not.  You haven't been in this country long enough
                         to understand that no one but a few crackpots is
                         going to vote against a Rep. candidate because of
                         the impeachment.  Don't be silly.  The so called
                         analysts and newspapers never manage to understand
                         or guess correctly what the American people are
                         thinking or going to do each election.
                      \_ You base this on what?  POLLS!?  Hahahhaha, they
                         don't poll the 'voters'.  They poll the 'people'.
                         Keep in mind that statistically the people they're
                         polling are more left than the average voter.  Voters
                         are more conservative than "The People".
                      \_ Not the way polls are going against Al Gore right
                         now for 2000.
                         \_ When Clinton originally ran people didn't think
                            he had a chance even against his own party
                            adversaries (Paul Tsongas) and look what happened.
                            I think we should pull another Jessie the Body
                            Ventura/Ronald Reagan and vote Bill Bradley into
                            office.
                                \_ Al is a stiff board nobody.  Put him on
                                   stage in a debate against anyone with half
                                   a personality and then see if the voters
                                   choose a person or a 2 dimensional image.
1998/11/4-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:14904 Activity:moderate
11/4    What is this world coming to? Jesse "The Body" Ventura, former
        pro wrestler and co-star of Predator, wins a 3-way race for
        governor in Minnesota.
        \_ How could you miss with this campaign slogan: "Vote for me or I'll
           kill you."
        \_ i'm so proud to be a minnesotan!  -- a proud minnesotan
        \_ Hell, I'm just glad new yorkers finally came to their senses
           gave D'Amato the boot.
        \_ What's wrong with Jesse?  As if a so-called professional politician
           is any better?  What this world is starting to come to is a United
           States where the people are tired of the two party demopublicans.
           I see Jesse as a vote against the republicrats.  I see nothing
           wrong with electing such a man to a governorship.
           \_ And no one criticized Ronald Regan (an x-movie star) for being
              predident.  Although, I don't think what he did to our national
              debt was such a great thing either.
                \_ Might point out that Reagan was once governor of this
                   wonderful state, so there's even precident for the star
                   becoming governor of a state.  And Reagan's term as gov.
                   is debatable on effectiveness.
                        \_ Reagan fired Clark Kerr, widely regarded as one
                           of the best University leaders this century.
                           \_Incorrect.  It was Edmund G. "Pat" Brown who
                             fired Clark Kerr, over the Free Speech
                             Movement.  Reagan was more notorious for calling
                             out the national guard on Berkeley and gassing
                             Sproul Plaza, after Berkeley profs told him not
                             to do it.  Interesting note, Reagan was partially
                             elected because he promised to "clean up that
                             mess in Berkeley."
                   \_ The highway patrol make good secret police
        \_                 BLAIN
                          ...bunch of slack-jawed
                            faggots around here...
                             (holds up plug)
                       ...this stuff will put hair
                         guaranteed...
                          (chewing)
                    ...make you a God-damned
                      sexual ty-ran-toe-sore-ass...
                        just like me.
                                -Jesse "the Body" Ventura in "predator"
1998/9/21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:14643 Activity:nil
9/20    fucking coward.

  Judge Starr, Members of Congress, people of America, I
  banged her. I banged her like a cheap gong. Which is not
  news, folks, because if you think Monica Lewinsky was
  the only skin flute player in my orchestra, you haven't
  been paying attention.

  The only babes in D.C. I haven't tried to do are the
  First Lady, Reno, Albright, and Shalala, mostly because
  they're a little older than I like and they have legs
  that former Houston Oiler Earl Campbell would envy.
  Which isn't to say I don't appreciate Hillary, I do. If
  not for the ice-water coursing through her veins, I'd be
  pumping gas into farm equipment in Hope, Arkansas, and
  she'd be married to the President.

  So, let me set the record straight. I dodged the draft,
  hid FBI files, smoked dope, flipped Whitewater property,
  set up a new Korean wing in the White House, fired the
  travel staff, paid hush money to Hubbell, sold the
  Lincoln bedroom like an upscale Motel 6, and grabbed
  every ass that entered the Oval Office. Got it? Good.

  Six years ago, there's not a man, woman, or child who
  didn't know I was as horny as Woody Allen. But, you
  elected me anyway, which turned out to be a good move on
  your part. Your other choice was Bush, an aging baseball
  player and part-time resident of some place called
  "Kennebunkport" who thought he could bomb his way into
  the White House.

  Before him, it was Reagan, who left the office with the
  same Alzheimer's he came in with. There was Carter
  before him who brought you a 17% prime interest rate,
  smiling the whole time like his lithium drip had just
  kicked in. Nixon before that coined, but never really
  understood, the concept of 'plausible deniability,' and
  almost got a one-way ticket to San Clemente for his
  crackerjack style of governing. Johnson was an inbred,
  power-mad war criminal whose major contribution to
  American society was Agent Orange.

  And John Kennedy, who was a little naughty himself,
  didn't hang around long enough for America to spot that
  curious atavistic tic for "beaver-wrestling" shared by
  at least a dozen former residents of the White House.
  Which brings me back to my point.

  Since I have been strumming the banjo here at the White
  House, government is doing more for less. The budget is
  balanced for the first time since JFK did a one gun
  salute to Marilyn, a fact the press didn't seem to care
  about, evidently. Unemployment is so low today a blind
  felon can get a job as a night-watchman. And the stock
  market is higher than a D-student on a full gram of
  dumb-dust, and anyone with a degree from a junior
  college who can spell 'internet' has enough money to
  ponder the annual maintenance cost of his boat, instead
  of where his or her next meal is coming from.

  Bottom line: I'm running a country here and I'm doing it
  with my pecker showing. What I'm asking for is your
  support, not a date with your daughter, unless, of
  course, she's a hotty with thin ankles, and then I'd
  like to discuss it.

  In the meantime, think about where you are today and
  what kind of life you're living before you get too
  interested in where I'm parking the Presidential
  limousine.

  Thank you, good night and God bless America.
1996/12/18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:32017 Activity:nil
12/17   Jimmy Carter - ex-president, ambassador, statesman, all around nice guy
        will be appearing in Cody's Bookstore tommorrow (12/18) at 7:30pm.
        I think it will be for some kind of book signing, but I didn't catch
        all of it on Classical KDFC 100.7 FM.  Don't miss this
         \_ isn't KDFC around 102FM?  "Your radio concert hall"
        once-in-a-lifetime chance to see THE MAN!
        \_ What a crappy president that guy was.  Im sure he's a better
           author.
           \_ He was a helluva lot better than Reagan, who took office
              through fraud and conspiracy.  Goodbye solar..
              \_ Reagan may have been bad, but Carter was simply horrible.
          For different reasons, of course. I do admire how a complete
          loser (Carter) was able to parlay his utter incompetance into
          some sort of noble elder statseman later in life. Neat-o!!
          \_ Hey, Reagan was the best President we've had since Ike,
             you weenie knee-jerk. Go get pierced or something.
             Friggin' long-hairs.  -John
             \_ So what if he was better than Reagan or not?  On
         his own, Carter was an all-around bad President.  As
         far as Reagan goes, at least he *seemed* like a good
         President at the time and given a choice in 1980
         between the two, thank God, the country chose Reagan.
         As far as elder statemen and all that crap goes,
         Nixon managed to do the same thing.  So what?
                 \_ Dick never quite pulled off elder statesman.
         \_ I don't see how Reagan got elected.  People
            say he's charismatic, but he's a real ugly butt.
            And hella retarded too, what with that swiss cheese
            brain disease.  Man, all of you who supported him
            got whammied.  You must feel real stupid now.  Even
            before Alzheimer's, you could tell he didn't quite
            have all his marbles.  When looks matter most in
            politics.  I bet you guys voted for Clinton or Dole
            too cuz you thought one was cuter than the other.
            Where are the issues man?  --pcjr
            \_ Does anyone know where this recent rash of
        convservative whacko-ism comes from where
        thinking that Reagan *looking* like a good
        president was somehow enough?  Carter started
        some truly visionary energy research programs
        which Ronnie gutted to pay from the idiot SDI
        program --- just before the energy stuff started
        to pay off and put the squeeze on the oil
        companies...how oddly convenient for a
        "conservative"
        \_ Don't forget:  many of you twinks owe your
           jobs/dreams of becoming thousandares via
           stock options, to military spending (if
           only indirectly) :) :)
                       \_ everyone always says Carter was awful as a president,
                          but they can rarely back it up with evidence; Carter
            actually accomplished many positives (CIA cleanup,
            miscellaneous foreign affairs..) I believe most
            people hate him because he didn't appear imperial
            (my god: he carried his own bags!)
            \_ Those weren't his own bags.  They were props
        from his campaign people. Usually, they were
        filled with carved-up baby parts as a twisted
        little joke, but sometimes there was a dwarf
        Secret Service member hiding in each.
        \_ I know... *sob* I was one of them.. the
           humanity!!
           \_ This thread reformatted and cleaned up by
              me, because I actually have that much time
              to waste!!! (yippee) -dbushong
2017/11/18 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
11/18   
Results 1 - 150 of 227   < 1 2 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Domestic:President:Reagan:
.