Let's relive the Bush years!

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Let's relive the Bush years!

«‹›12 »

Tommah: Mar 29, 2003

now watch this drive

# ? May 8, 2020 22:31

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 5, 2024 13:24

sitchensis: Mar 4, 2009

Boy and we all thought Bush would go down in history as the dumbest president.

Great thread. 2001 is when I first got an account in SA at the ripe age of 15. Can't believe it's been so long. Looking forward to passively relive the horrors that would eventually consume us all

# ? May 8, 2020 23:30

Falstaff: Apr 27, 2008; I have a kind of alacrity in sinking.

Nuebot posted:

What did Stewart do? I've been out of the loop since he stopped hosting his show, and even then wasn't that aware of him outside of the show.

The scales started to fall from my eyes when he hosted his rally to restore sanity, the message of which was "There's crazy people on both sides, we need compromise and bipartisanship." When people were finally waking up to the fact that wealth inequality was kinda hosed up and reaching emergency levels, he told his followers to just calm down.

Soon after the way he treated his employees came to light. He was incredibly antagonistic toward his writers, to the point of chasing some of them away from the job, and during the writers' strike instead of respecting his writers he returned to the air anyway - and when Seth MacFarlane had the temerity to make a throwaway joke about it, Stewart blasted MacFarlane in an hour-long telephone call. He played at being a pro-union guy on air, but behind the scenes was very anti-union and punished his writers for unionizing.

There's some other stuff related to some racist humour (not the stuff cited by Wyatt Cenac above) but I can't find the links to back them up anymore, so... :shrug:

This is all kind of semi-related to the thread's topic at best, but in the early oughts and during the early parts of the Iraq War TDS was the only television media I consumed on a regular basis, so the disappointment hit me pretty hard around 2010.

# ? May 8, 2020 23:40

Marxalot: Dec 24, 2008; Appropriator of
Dan Crenshaw's Eyepatch

So far this is a very good thread and I am also very glad this post made it to the first page. It's a shame that guy died after he bled out getting his dick caught in a vacuum cleaner.

yellowcar posted:

How long will it take to capture Baghdad? 2 days
Will Saddam be killed? Yes
Total Iraqi civillian casualties: 500 dead
Total military casualties Iraq: 3000 dead
Total military casualties U.S.: 15 dead
Will the Iraqi army regulars hold the lines? No
Will the Republican Guard fight to the end? No
Will chem/bio weapons be used on invading troops?: Yes
Will Saddam launch attacks on the Kurds? Yes
Will Saddam launch attacks on Israel? No
-If yes; will Isreal retaliate harshly? Yes
Will Saddam sacrifice Baghdad (gas/nuke it)? No
Will the Kurds make a grab for independence? Yes
Will Iran do anything silly like try for land? Yes
Will Saddam burn the oil fields? Yes
How long will the US be occupying Iraq? ~15 years
Will the Iraq war catalyze increased terrorism in America?No
In the long run, will this war be good or bad for the world? Good

We have to look at what those civilian casualties are- just because they're civilian doesn't make them innocent! Lets take a look at a few possibilities:

1) A civilian walking down the street to market gets killed by a cruise missile fired at the market.

2) A civilian asleep in their house is killed when their house is targetting by a smart bomb and blown up.

OK, these two are regrettable innocents being killed- but since the US doesn't make a habit of targetting markets or houses, they're very small in number!

3) A civilian working at a chemical weapon factory gets killed when the chemical weapon plant is bombed.

4) A civilian security guard at a weapons depot is killed when the weapons explode.

5) A civilian contractor repairing a tank is killed by a MOAB dropped on the unit.

6) A civilian engineer is killed when the military command center he works at is destroyed.

7) A civilian delivering snackiecakes to the baghdad bunker vending machines eats a 5,000lb bunker buster.

etc, etc. The list goes on. My point is that there are a lot of civilians directly supporting the military that aren't exactly "innocent" and would be mire rightly counted among the military casualties than civilian. I'm a civilian and work for the US military, but I acknowledge I'm also a valid military target because of what I do. And I think the vast majority of civilian casualties in this campaign will not be innocent.

# ? May 8, 2020 23:56

Aztec Galactus: Sep 12, 2002

Its good to know that all these republican candidates for president in 2000 are in agreement that we need to end the influence of special interests and "Big HMO" money on congress. I bet if we elect a republican they'll solve that problem right up

# ? May 8, 2020 23:58

Do not even ask: Apr 8, 2008

Nuebot posted:

What did Stewart do? I've been out of the loop since he stopped hosting his show, and even then wasn't that aware of him outside of the show.

everyone's gone over the well known stuff but there was also this

https://twitter.com/adamjohnsonNYC/status/865055182652100608

just typical lib poo poo

# ? May 9, 2020 00:36

readingatwork: Jan 8, 2009; Hello Fatty!; Fun Shoe

Do not even ask posted:

everyone's gone over the well known stuff but there was also this

https://twitter.com/adamjohnsonNYC/status/865055182652100608

just typical lib poo poo

Woof! That�s a new one.

Just finished watching of the Republican debate. It was long, boring, and deeply psychotic. I�ll have more thoughts up about it in a bit

# ? May 9, 2020 00:55

White Light: Dec 19, 2012

Falstaff posted:

Dude! Spoilers!

Thinking about the moment I had to admit that Stewart was just a lovely, lovely human being still makes me feel

Gonna drop this nuclear take without any sort of follow-up explanation? :cmon:

# ? May 9, 2020 01:35

Nuebot: Feb 18, 2013; The developer of Brigador is a secret chud, don't give him money

readingatwork posted:

The main points of criticism are that his theory of political change sucks (See: The Rally to Restore Sanity which I will cover in detail when it comes up in like a million weeks) and also that he was staunchly anti-union and kind of a dick about it. I'll still defend him on a lot of fronts but on these points his critics are 100% correct.

Falstaff posted:

This is all kind of semi-related to the thread's topic at best, but in the early oughts and during the early parts of the Iraq War TDS was the only television media I consumed on a regular basis, so the disappointment hit me pretty hard around 2010.

Do not even ask posted:

just typical lib poo poo

Ouch, I knew about the Rally but only tangentially I never really looked into it, and the rest of the stuff was new to me. I'll have to keep an eye on this topic, seems like it'll be eye opening since I only moved to america during the middle bush years and still hadn't really become politically aware of anything, and was struggling to just figure out how to live here. I didn't start watching The Daily Show until the end of the Bush era and sweeping into Obama where the guy was mostly talking about his attempt to get aid for the 9/11 responders so that explains why I had no real idea of a lot of this.

# ? May 9, 2020 01:43

Falstaff: Apr 27, 2008; I have a kind of alacrity in sinking.

It's really hard to overstate how confused leftists like myself were about the Rally to Restore Sanity. This was in the wake of Occupy Wall Street, which was basically babby's first class consciousness after decades of being effectively asleep, and despite being just about the most harmless protest you could imagine it was being suppressed and dismantled by the powers-that-be, sometimes pretty brutally. Then Stewart and Colbert get up on the stage with 100,000 people and tell everyone, "Actually, you need to calm down. Be nicer to the people stomping their boot in your face and maybe we can get back to normal."

I don't think anyone was expecting that.

Again, sorry for the tangent.

# ? May 9, 2020 02:15

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

Jon Stewart also defended CHUDs, or at least Trump voters, as merely concerned about the well-being of their communities, not actively bad people.

I knew then, as I know now, that opinion was garbage, and boy howdy has it aged badly!

# ? May 9, 2020 02:25

ANIME AKBAR: Jan 25, 2007; afu~

It first became clear that Stewart was poo poo in 2004 during his slapfight with Tucker Carlson. I mean yeah it's always good to dunk on a fash like Carlson, but Stewart also revealed how utterly irresponsible he was as a political influencer. He still denies that his show had any impact on politics. Politics, to him, is just a thing to make jokes about. He doesn't give a poo poo about it beyond that.

# ? May 9, 2020 02:26

White Light: Dec 19, 2012

ANIME AKBAR posted:

I mean yeah it's always good to dunk on a fash like Carlson, but Stewart also revealed how utterly irresponsible he was as a political influencer. He still denies that his show had any impact on politics.

How can he deny his show had an impact on politics when every single late night talk show on air outside of Fallon is heavily modeled after his TDS days

# ? May 9, 2020 02:41

readingatwork: Jan 8, 2009; Hello Fatty!; Fun Shoe

OK, so here are my thoughts about the Jan 15, 2000 Republican primary.

First off, gently caress these people. Look at this lineup of demonic pedophile (allegedly) freaks:

George W Bush
Governor of Texas
The man himself. Had this expression the whole loving time.

Gary Bauer
Former president of the Family Research Council and Reagan's chief policy advisor
Has the incredible ability to look at that weird face in the mirror every morning and not kill himself.

Steve Forbes
The guy Forbes magazine is named after.
Has incredible Jeb(!) energy

Orrin Hatch
Senator from Utah from about 350BC to 2019
Is completely dead inside

Alan Keyes
Ambassador under Reagan and also an AM radio host or something
Legit psychopath

John McCain
Senator from Arizona
Was captured, so certain people don't like him

LOOK AT THEM!

Second, this was 30 mins longer than the Dem debate and twice as boring. gently caress these people and gently caress America for producing this poo poo.

Here are the observations I made (again, loosely in the order that I had them) while watching. Sorry there are so many but it WAS significantly longer than the Democratic one:

These people look wrong. If you told me you saw Gary Bauer unhinge his jaw and swallow a cat whole I�d believe you.
It's interesting to realize that Bush�s communication style was insufferable even back then. The dude literally always sounds like he's reading from a teleprompter.
Alan Keyes�s opening gambit was to announce he got the FDA to let some kid named Navarro get �the treatment he needs� which I strongly suspect is some sort of religious alternative medicine horseshit. I�ll do some research once this is done to be sure though.
UPDATE: Did the research. It was a 4 year old with cancer and the parents wanted experimental (but not necessarily bullshit) treatments not yet approved by the FDA for use with children. Conservatives got their way and he got the treatment but he died anyways in 2001 at age six and the treatment in question was never proven to be effective. It's a really sad story actually. https://www.mdpolicy.org/policyblog/detail/revisiting-the-thomas-navarro-story
Orren Hatch has the steely eyes of a killer and terrifies me.
All of these freaks were in favor of turning Medicare into a voucher/HSA program to �maximize cost effectiveness�. It�s incredibly gross.
McCain was cool with destroying Medicare but are troops are different and he felt we needed the VA properly funded. Others said similar things which is a testament to how popular the VA is even among old Republicans
Oh that�s right Republicans were super concerned about assisted suicide at the time.
There is SO MUCH time dedicated to senior care issues which speaks volumes about who supports Republicans
At one point McCain came out unprompted against soft money in politics. Which makes sense since I think limiting money in politics is one of the few not-evil things he actually accomplished as a senator.
Bush spoke about �reforming� Medicare and Social Security. After he wins we will learn that what he actually means is privatize them.
Bauer was very mad about china having �most favored nation� status and has brought it up multiple times unprompted.
Bouer also started adding �communist� before China when talking about it despite that not being at all relevant to the question.
Alan Keyes, a black man, was shocked, SHOCKED I TELL YOU that a Republican somewhere would say a racist thing. Bush condemned this person when given the chance, which may surprise you but remember he's a decorum era Republican and at at this time they were all very much still in masks-on mode.
Oooooh! Forgotten Clinton scandal lore! Apparently China sent the administration a bunch of money and then later was sold a bunch of US technology out of the blue. I have no idea how true that is because Republicans are insane and make poo poo up constantly but Clinton was sketchy as gently caress it certainty COULD be true!
Bauer wanted to ban all foreign soft money... but raise the amount an individual could donate. Cute.
More forgotten Clinton scandals: Apparently Clinton went after the travel office (not sure what that is) in an attempt to profit somehow. Also apparently 900 FBI files on political opponents were discovered in the White House basement and the administration couldn�t explain how they got there. Again, no idea how valid these are.
At one point Keyes enthusiastically goes on about �responsibly� drilling in the arctic. Says we should �exploit God�s precious resources for the good of our people�
There are several minutes dedicated to the candidates pretending to be upset about monopolies developing in agribusiness.
Hatch just will not shut the gently caress up about some fireside chat he�s doing on another channel. I'm serious, he mentions it like six times. I�m not researching/watching at this point just out of spite.
At one point Hatch called Clinton the most unethical president in US history. As proof of this he cites the time Clinton took a drag from a joint but "didn't inhale".
Towards the last third of the debate Keyes takes a hard right turn out of nowhere into supporting theocracy and fighting the �radical homosexual agenda�. Says you can�t have liberty and �sexual licentiousness� at the same time.
Forbes at one point uses the word "besmirch" unironically
Keyes wanted to eliminate the Department of Education because freedom. He, a black man, also refers to the income tax as a "slave tax"
At one point Forbes called for displaying the ten commandments in public schools, allowing "voluntary" prayer, and starting every morning off with a non-denominational (but still very religious) moment of silent prayer. All the other candidates agreed with him.
John McCain randomly started talking up charter schools proving once again that the shittiest ideas in America are bipartisan.
Host: Do we need stricter laws to protect the environment? Every Candidate: No.
Global warming actually got brought up towards the end but it was just Forbes saying it's fake. No questions about it were asked by the hosts.
Keyes: The markets will keep the useful species from going extinct so we don�t actually have to do anything!
Keyes�s closing remarks were literally just him doing a prayer for 30 seconds. Absolute psychopath poo poo.

So yeah, that was a weird combination of insanely boring and just plain insane. About 60% of it was dedicated to various tax plans that were all thinly veiled schemes to give money to the rich and the rest was culture war nonsense mixed with legitimately terrifying discussions on the best ways to disband the IRS. One thing I will say is that I believe that these people (except for Keyes and Bauer and maybe Forbes) are actually serious about governing. I mean that in the sense that I think characters like Hatch and McCain see their jobs as politicians as more than *just* a way to grift people on behalf of the wealthy. There's definitely a different texture to this debate compared to 2020, even is a lot of the crazy is still there.

The biggest surprise to me was just how crazy Keyes was. He started off pretty banal but towards the end he pulled out the stops and was overtly calling for America to have a spiritual awakening and return to it's religious roots. Apparently he's pushing bleach as a miracle cure for Covid-19 these days and trying to sell Trump on the idea. I wish I were kidding.

Bush did fairly well all things considered. He's clearly an idiot and sounds scripted as hell but he had the good sense to say the right things when put on the spot. He has a sort of disarming goofy affect that makes him seem harmless. This is both probably why he won in the and and why so many people found it so hard to believe that he was incredibly evil. As much as I hate the trope he really is the candidate you feel like you can sit down and have a beer with. It's a shame he became president and not just some lovely baseball manager like he wanted because he'd probably be somewhat likeable if kept far away from the levers of power.

Winner: Bush

readingatwork fucked around with this message at 03:43 on May 9, 2020

# ? May 9, 2020 03:24

readingatwork: Jan 8, 2009; Hello Fatty!; Fun Shoe

Falstaff posted:

It's really hard to overstate how confused leftists like myself were about the Rally to Restore Sanity. This was in the wake of Occupy Wall Street, which was basically babby's first class consciousness after decades of being effectively asleep, and despite being just about the most harmless protest you could imagine it was being suppressed and dismantled by the powers-that-be, sometimes pretty brutally. Then Stewart and Colbert get up on the stage with 100,000 people and tell everyone, "Actually, you need to calm down. Be nicer to the people stomping their boot in your face and maybe we can get back to normal."

I don't think anyone was expecting that.

Again, sorry for the tangent.

Stewart fundamentally believed that the rot in America was due to stupidity and people not listening to each other. Unfortunately for him it was actually caused by capitalism and the deep corruption of everybody in charge.

But let's hold off on Stewart talk until the actions in question actually come up. Trust me. We'll get there.

In the meantime enjoy more Jan 2000 TDS

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/7oacvx/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-ad-nauseam---political-ads

# ? May 9, 2020 03:30

Gumball Gumption: Jan 7, 2012

ANIME AKBAR posted:

It first became clear that Stewart was poo poo in 2004 during his slapfight with Tucker Carlson. I mean yeah it's always good to dunk on a fash like Carlson, but Stewart also revealed how utterly irresponsible he was as a political influencer. He still denies that his show had any impact on politics. Politics, to him, is just a thing to make jokes about. He doesn't give a poo poo about it beyond that.

I mean, that was the attitude of the time he came up. A lot of people were unhappy in the 90's and 2000's but it was very cynical. Politics was something to be mocked and gawked at but very few people were as angry as they are now. And a lot of it was just an attitude of these things being uncool.

# ? May 9, 2020 06:00

Dreylad: Jun 19, 2001

Tommah posted:

now watch this drive

honestly this thread should just be this quote

# ? May 9, 2020 19:21

readingatwork: Jan 8, 2009; Hello Fatty!; Fun Shoe

Another fun fact about this time: The stonks were doing amazing and were certainly not overvalued:

https://www.nytimes.com/2000/01/08/business/the-markets-stocks-the-3-main-us-stock-gauges-rally-to-end-a-turbulent-week.html

New York Times posted:

Jan 8, 2000: STOCKS; The 3 Main U.S. Stock Gauges Rally to End a Turbulent Week

The stock market rallied across the board yesterday, wiping out most of the losses of a topsy-turvy week that began with interest rates surging and equity investors running for the exits.

The Dow Jones industrial average, after falling 4.3 percent Monday and Tuesday, rallied the last three days to finish the week at a new high, eclipsing the record set New Year's Eve. The Standard & Poor's index of 500 stocks bounced back to just 28 points shy of its record. The Nasdaq composite index, which fell prey to the rush to dump technology stocks, was off 9.8 percent through Thursday. But its 4.2 percent rally yesterday left it down a more modest 6 percent for the first week of the year.

The selling in New York early in the week sent stocks in Europe and Asia tumbling. But those markets also rebounded.

The rally showed that investors, despite a surge in interest rates since mid-November and the threat of more increases by the Federal Reserve, still want stocks -- even if they are ones they had avoided before. The rally also makes one wonder if selloffs will ever unnerve investors.

As all three major stock gauges rose together for the first time this year and trading volume neared record levels, investors bought nontechnology stocks that were shunned last year. At the same time, they picked up some of the technology stocks that had been hammered Tuesday through Thursday.

Staples, the office equipment retailer, which plunged almost 29 percent last year, climbed 1 1/4, to 255/16 , and is up 22 percent this week. Caterpillar, the manufacturer of big machinery, climbed 111/16 , to 535/16 , rising for a third consecutive day.

On the technology side, Qualcomm rallied for the first time in three days, rising 915/16 , to 150. After being one of the top-performing stocks last year, surging 2,616 percent, Qualcomm fell 21.9 percent from Tuesday through Thursday. Yahoo and Cisco Systems also rose yesterday after falling this week. The three stocks led the Nasdaq composite index up 155.49 points, or 4.2 percent, to 3,882.62 -- 248 points below the high it hit Monday.

The Dow Jones industrial average climbed 269.30 points, or 2.4 percent, to 11,522.56 -- 25 points above its previous record. The Standard & Poor's index rose 38.02 points, or 2.7 percent, to 1,441.47.

''I think the market hit a speed bump this week,'' said Thomas M. Galvin, chief investment officer at Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, alluding to the incredible 53.7 percent increase in the Nasdaq index since Oct. 19. ''But the appetite is there to buy stocks. Money doesn't want to leave the stock market so it is searching out safe havens.''

Among these are drugs, consumer staples and old-line industrial companies. Another sign of that shift was the jump in the price of Coca-Cola yesterday, which rose 3 3/4, to 60 3/4, after the company announced some top executive appointments.

The rally in stocks came after the Labor Department announced that 315,000 new nonfarm payroll jobs had been created in December and that the nation's unemployment rate had remained at 4.1 percent, a 30-year low. While the jobs increase was higher than the 240,000 to 250,000 predicted by analysts, it did not seem to worry investors, nor did the jump in average hourly earnings. Treasury bond and note prices fell after the jobs data was announced but rallied later in the day. The yield on the 30-year bond slipped to 6.54 percent, from 6.56 percent on Thursday. The price, which moves in the opposite direction, rose 6/32 , to 9418/32 .

Stephen D. Slifer, chief United States economist at Lehman Brothers, said one reason for the muted response was that the yields of Treasury bonds and notes have already risen sharply in anticipation of interest rate moves by the Federal Reserve, probably beginning with a quarter-point increase at the Feb. 2 policy makers' meeting. He also said that although wages were rising, the rate of increase was below the pace of more than 4 percent of early 1998.

One of the forces driving selling earlier this week was the fear of an increase of at least a half of a percentage point in the Fed's short-term interest rate target as the central bank seeks to slow the economy to an acceptable, noninflationary pace of growth. With the economy growing at a 5 percent rate in the last six months there is no sign of a slowdown yet. That concern sent the yield on the 30-year bond up to 6.62 percent on Monday and again on Wednesday, the highest in more than two years.

Many investors with profits in technology stocks in 1999 seemed to have delayed their move to lock up their gains until the new year so that their due date for capital gains would be put off as long as possible.

The surge in interest rates and some negative earnings announcements from technology and Internet companies, including Amazon.com, Gateway and Lucent Technologies, helped accelerate selling.

But as investors abandoned technology they picked up other stocks, including hard-hit financial shares, helping to turn around the Dow and the S.& P. 500 indexes, which are less heavily weighted in technology than the Nasdaq.

Lucent Technologies, the maker of telecommunications equipment, set a one-day trading volume record with 179 million shares changing hands, including 136.6 million on the New York Stock Exchange and the rest on other trading systems. Lucent plunged 24.7 percent in after-hours trading Thursday, a fall reflected in yesterday's results, with the stock down 15 1/4, at 53 3/4. Lucent announced late Thursday that its first-quarter revenue and earnings would fall well short of analysts' expectations.

This will be relevant soon.

Also let's look at the state of gay rights at the time:

Jan 7 - Officers Riled by Policy on Gays Proposed in Gore-Bradley Debate

The New York Times posted:

When Clinton administration officials interviewed Gen. Charles C. Krulak for the job of commandant of the Marine Corps in 1995, he recalled today, no one asked for his views on any social issue facing the military. And there were certainly many brewing at the time, including women in combat and the integration of the sexes in boot camp.

And so General Krulak said he was dismayed with the way the two Democratic candidates for president, Vice President Al Gore and former Senator Bill Bradley, had so strongly endorsed allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military. Mr. Bradley said he would expect his appointees to the Joint Chiefs of Staff to carry out his policy.

Mr. Gore went further to say it would be a ''litmus test'' for any appointee he selected.

General Krulak, who retired as commandant last year, said presidents had historically selected nominees based on their experience and military expertise, not on their views on political issues -- particularly divisive social ones. To do otherwise, he said, ''is in my opinion wrong.''

''It has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of gays in the military,'' said General Krulak, an opponent of allowing homosexuals to serve openly. ''It has everything to do with how a commander in chief goes about getting the best officers in the land.''

The remarks by Mr. Gore and Mr. Bradley -- which came during Wednesday's debate in New Hampshire when they were asked if they would support a litmus test for nominees on the issue -- have inflamed what is already shaping up as one of the most contentious issues in this year's presidential campaign.

Within the Pentagon, military officers widely and strongly oppose allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the armed services, saying their presence would be disruptive in the close quarters of military life, especially in combat.

While both candidates have previously expressed support for allowing gays to serve, General Krulak and other former chiefs said that Mr. Gore and Mr. Bradley had crossed a boundary between social politics and military policy, which could undermine what they believe should be an apolitical selection process.

''I regard that as a ridiculous assertion, that that should be a qualification for office,'' said Gen. Merrill A. McPeak, who served as chief of the Air Force when Mr. Clinton settled on the current ''don't ask, don't tell'' policy for gays in the military in 1993. ''I suppose winning the nation's wars should be the primary qualification.''

While most officers say they would follow any president's lawful orders, or resign as a matter of principle, the former chiefs said senior officers needed to feel free to offer the best military advice, even if it contradicted the commander in chief's views.

''The job of the chiefs, and particularly the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, is to give the president their best military advice,'' said Gen. John W. Vessey Jr., who served as chairman under President Ronald Reagan from 1982 to 1985. ''To have the president give him the advice beforehand doesn't seem to make a lot of sense -- whatever the issue.''

The question of homosexuals in the military has roiled the Pentagon in the last decade. As a candidate in 1992, Mr. Clinton said he would end the military's ban and allow homosexuals to serve openly.

Once in office, however, he retreated after Gen. Colin L. Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the chiefs of the other services publicly and vehemently opposed the policy.

Later that year Congress voted by a veto-proof margin, as Mr. Clinton noted today, to block a complete lifting of the ban and instead to approve the ''don't ask, don't tell'' policy, which allows homosexuals to serve as long as they do not declare that they are gay or engage in homosexual acts, which remain a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

If elected, Mr. Gore or Mr. Bradley would almost certainly face a renewed political fight over the policy.

Despite the criticism from the former chiefs and from Republican candidates in a debate tonight in New Hampshire, Mr. Gore's aides trumpeted his remarks as a political coup in the fight for the support of the liberal Democrats who often hold sway in primary elections.

Richard Socarides, a former administration official who oversaw gay and lesbian issues for the White House, said Mr. Gore was right to demand future commanders' support and criticized Mr. Bradley's position as ''incredibly naive.''

''In order to make this kind of fundamental change in this kind of very static institution, you need someone at the top who believes in it enough to make it a priority,'' he said. ''If you don't have that, as we have not so far, it will not happen.''

Aides in Mr. Bradley's camp clarified his views somewhat today.

During the debate, Mr. Bradley suggested that he did not expect appointees to agree with him philosophically but that he would expect them to carry out his policies. ''I'm sure that there are people in the military today who don't agree with President Clinton on 50 things,'' he said.

Today, the aides declined to say whether Mr. Bradley would ask prospective appointees in advance whether they agreed with his position.

''He reserves the right to implement the changes as he sees fit,'' a spokeswoman, Kristen Ludecke, said. ''The bottom line is he would abolish 'don't ask, don't tell.' He would certainly consult with the military community, but then he would expect the military to follow his orders as the commander and chief.''

Within the Pentagon, opposition to a loosening of the restrictions on homosexuals remains deeply rooted among junior and senior officers.

General Vessey said that if Mr. Reagan had required a litmus test for candidates for the chiefs in the 1980's, he ''would have had pretty slim pickings.'' General Krulak said Mr. Gore, in particular, could face the same problem today.

''I would say, knowing people who have held the position before and some who serve now, that there are some who would take themselves out of the running rather than submit to such a litmus test,'' General Krulak said.

Officers on active duty are loath to discuss issues like this, but one active general who spoke on the condition of anonymity said Mr. Gore's position could raise legal difficulties. Unless Congress changes the law, the general said, asking a prospective nominee to support a change in the policy would amount to asking him to take a position in violation of current law, something all officers take an oath not to do.

''If this goes through, I think the country would be surprised by the number of officers who would walk,'' the general said.

When asked today, Mr. Clinton declined to discuss whether a litmus test would be appropriate.

''I'm going to leave the appointment process to the next president,'' he said.

Jan 15 - Supreme Court To Review Ban On Gay Scout

The New York Times posted:

The Supreme Court agreed today to decide, in a closely watched case from New Jersey, whether the Boy Scouts have a constitutional right to exclude gay youths and adults from positions of leadership.

The case is an appeal brought by Boy Scouts of America and its Monmouth Council of a ruling in August by the New Jersey Supreme Court. That court ruled unanimously that the Scouts were not a private organization, but a ''public accommodation'' bound by the state's civil rights law. As such, the state court said, the Monmouth Council could not adhere to the national organization's policy against accepting homosexual members, a policy the court said was ''based on little more than prejudice.''

On the basis of its policy, the Monmouth Council in 1990 revoked the registration of James Dale, who was serving as a volunteer adult leader in a troop where he had reached the rank of Eagle Scout as a teenager. He was dismissed after identifying himself as gay in a local newspaper interview. Mr. Dale filed suit under the state civil rights law, which bars discrimination on the basis of ''affectional or sexual orientation.''

The Scouts' appeal to the United States Supreme Court did not take issue with New Jersey's application of its civil rights law, over which the justices have no jurisdiction. Rather, the appeal made the broad constitutional argument that as a matter of free speech and freedom of association, the organization must be able to define its own values and ''expressive character.''

In effect, the troop is contending that its First Amendment rights supersede the public accommodations law of New Jersey. If the court agrees, its decision would prevent any state from applying its public accommodations law to require that the Scouts accept gay members.

''If a Boy Scout Troop in Monmouth County, New Jersey, could be required to accept a leader whose avowed conduct and opinions contradict the stated mission and message of the organization, it is difficult to see what is left of freedom of association,'' the Scouts' brief told the justices. A lawyer for the Scouts, George A. Davidson of Manhattan, expressed confidence that the Supreme Court would overturn the New Jersey ruling, which is on hold pending the outcome of the appeal. ''I've always thought from the outset the court would agree to hear this case and reverse, and so far we're on track,'' Mr. Davidson said.

Mr. Dale's lawyer, Evan Wolfson of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, expressed hope that the Supreme Court would not overturn the New Jersey court's ruling. In several decisions in the 1970's and 80's, Mr. Wolfson said, the high court held that the First Amendment could not be used as a shield by groups trying to circumvent state civil rights laws. In addition, he said, the New Jersey ruling rejected the Scouts' argument that Mr. Dale's ouster was protected by First Amendment rights of association. The ruling said the Scouts' bylaws and charter were silent on the issue of homosexuality and did not permit exclusion of any boy.

The question before the justices is framed as one involving leadership, but the Boy Scouts' policy against homosexuality also applies to members. Mr. Davidson said today that for purposes of carrying out the policy, there is no real distinction between members and ''leaders'' because older boys assume leadership positions as they rise in the ranks.

While the Supreme Court's decision will be about associational rights, rather than gay rights as such, the ruling could have a broad impact on the ability of openly gay people to participate in organizations that want to exclude them.

Five years ago, the court ruled that organizers of the St. Patrick's Day parade in Boston could not be required under the Massachusetts civil rights law to accept a group of gay marchers. The court found that the gay marchers were seeking to carry a message that the parade organizers, with a message of their own that disapproved of the gay group's claiming open identity as descendants of Irish immigrants, were free to exclude.

In this case, Mr. Dale's lawyers at the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund are arguing that the Boy Scouts' First Amendment argument is misconceived because ''there is no core expressive purpose of anti-gay ideology in scouting'' and consequently no expressive burden in allowing gay men to serve.

''The Boy Scouts do not come together to promote bigotry and anti-gay bias,'' Mr. Wolfson, the Lambda lawyer, said today, adding: ''The court now has a chance to hear that scouting is about honesty, community service, self-reliance, and respect for others -- not discrimination.''

Until its loss in the New Jersey Supreme Court, the Boy Scouts had been successful in defending its policy in state courts around the country by arguing that various state public accommodation laws could not be properly read as applying to the organization. The constitutional issue that the Scouts have posed to the justices has not been addressed by any other court. The Boy Scouts have also been sued by atheists and agnostics who have been unwilling to adhere to ''duty to God'' as described in the Scout oath. The oath also requires members to be ''morally straight,'' the phrase that is cited in barring gay members.

Mr. Dale, who is now 29, spent 12 years in scouting, earning 30 merit badges. He has said he would like to return to scouting.

Jan 21st - THE 2000 CAMPAIGN: THE VICE PRESIDENT; Gore Meets With Gay Leaders Before Homestretch in Iowa

The New York Times posted:

Vice President Al Gore opened his final four-day push for the Iowa vote at a rally here today by countering Bill Bradley's efforts to cast him as the candidate of entrenched power, but he began his day with a private meeting with 20 gay leaders at his residence in Washington.

The gay men and lesbians, leaders of the National Stonewall Democratic Federation, said Mr. Gore had invited them last month to discuss civil rights and other policy issues.

Mr. Gore and Mr. Bradley, his lone rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, have been fiercely competing for the gay vote, which accounts for about 9 percent of the primary vote in both New York and California. Both states vote on March 7.

Mr. Bradley is to meet with the Stonewall federation's leaders next month.

The group, which has about 10,000 members across the country, was formed two years ago principally at the urging of Representative Barney Frank, an openly gay Democrat from Massachusetts, to counter the efforts of the more visible Log Cabin Republicans, another gay group.

The Stonewall Democrats, like other major gay groups, have yet to endorse a candidate for president. But the Gore campaign is working hard to capture the endorsement and plans to release soon an extensive list of endorsements from gay men and lesbians, mainly in New York and California.

The active competition for the gay vote on the Democratic side is not being replicated by Republicans.

In fact, the Republican National Committee said today that it was paying for a television commercial to begin on Monday to showcase Mr. Gore's comments about gays in the military.

Both Mr. Gore and Mr. Bradley support allowing gays to serve openly in the military, but Mr. Gore went a step further and said he would require his appointees to the Joint Chiefs of Staff to support such a policy. A few days later, he backpedaled on that statement.[LMAO of course he did!]

Republicans say it is that reversal, not Mr. Gore's support for gays in the military, that they want to highlight. Jim Nicholson, chairman of the Republican National Committee, said Mr. Gore was ''pandering to the far left while at the same time trying to hide from the general public the fact that he would compromise U.S. security to socially engineer the military.''

Meanwhile on the campaign trail, Mr. Gore held a rally here at Iowa Western Community College. With Mr. Gore, who has the backing of organized labor, leading in the polls here, Mr. Bradley had said that Iowa was a state ''that rewards entrenched power.'' Mr. Gore tried to turn that statement to his advantage.

''Fighting for people is what the Iowa caucuses is all about,'' Mr. Gore growled to a crowd of about 300 people. ''Fighting to reduce the high cost of pharmaceuticals, fighting to save Medicare, that's not entrenched power, that is fighting for people! Fighting to save the family farm is not entrenched power, that's about fighting for people.''

Counting down the minutes to the Monday night caucuses, which begin the nation's election season, Mr. Gore added, ''This fight is going to take place right here in Iowa 99 hours and 7 minutes from now.''

Finally: Oh poo poo you guys, remember Ellian Gonzallez!?

New York Times Opinion posted:

A Decision on Elian Gonzalez

The United States Immigration and Naturalization Service made a reasonable decision yesterday in ruling that Elian Gonzalez, the 6-year-old boy who survived an ill-fated migrant smuggling trip across the Florida Straits, should be reunited with his father back in Cuba. The decision will inflame anti-Castro Cubans in Miami, but Doris Meissner, the I.N.S. commissioner, made it clear that the service had followed established policy in the case. Moreover, by setting a Jan. 14 return date, the immigration service allowed Elian's American relatives time to test the ruling in court.

Elian was one of 13 Cubans who were trying to cross from Cuba to Florida six weeks ago on a 17-foot aluminum powerboat when it capsized. Ten of those on board drowned, including his mother and stepfather. The boy clung to an inner tube for two days and was plucked from the Atlantic on Thanksgiving Day and brought ashore. He was immediately released into the custody of relatives in Miami -- and just as quickly embraced as a pawn in the poisonous estrangement between Fidel Castro's regime and its opponents in exile.

This page has argued from the start that Elian not be denied due process because of his youth, and the I.N.S. appears to have moved carefully. Elian's great-uncle and other American relatives were allowed to make their case that he should have a life in Miami. The boy's divorced father, Juan Miguel Gonzalez, was also interviewed and satisfied the agency that he had a close and involved relationship with his son. The mother's parents also argued for a return to Cuba. The I.N.S. decided that under their prevailing policies, Mr. Gonzalez met the test that calls for custody reverting to the sole surviving parent in such cases.

''This little boy, who has been through so much, belongs with his father,'' Commissioner Meissner said yesterday, adding that ''the unique relationship between parent and child and family reunification has long been a cornerstone of both immigration law and I.N.S. practice.'' The White House quickly announced support for the decision.

It is unclear how the political side of this affair will play out. Elian's relatives in Miami have indicated they plan to appeal, as is their right. Some of their more militant supporters in Miami, decrying the prospect that the boy will be used as a ''trophy'' by Mr. Castro, have indicated they may try to disrupt efforts to reunite Elian with his father. That would be treating the boy as a trophy in a diplomatic struggle that predates his birth by decades.

Thinking about moving on to Feb 2000 tomorrow unless there�s more about this month people want to discuss. I can keep posting stuff from Jan but it will be more stuff about the day-to-day news at the time

readingatwork fucked around with this message at 23:59 on May 9, 2020

# ? May 9, 2020 23:52

Tommah: Mar 29, 2003

readingatwork posted:

Finally: Oh poo poo you guys, remember Ellian Gonzallez!?

# ? May 10, 2020 03:06

Code Jockey: Jan 24, 2006; 69420 basic bytes free

I can't recall if this fell out of favor by the 2000s, but you know what dogshit term I remembered the other day?

"Alternative lifestyles" as a way to refer to LGBT people

# ? May 10, 2020 05:40

Improper Umlaut: Jun 8, 2009

I was 21 on January 1st, 2000, and turned 30 a few months before Obama's inauguration. The Bush years encompass my entire 20's (and they were lovely), I'm super excited for this thread.

Code Jockey posted:

I can't recall if this fell out of favor by the 2000s, but you know what dogshit term I remembered the other day?

"Alternative lifestyles" as a way to refer to LGBT people

It was still in use in the early 2000s and if I remember correctly was considered the politically correct term at the time. This is not surprising considering this is the time the term "African-American" came out as the politically correct way to refer to all black people everywhere.

# ? May 10, 2020 09:37

V. Illych L.: Apr 11, 2008; ASK ME ABOUT LUMBER

oh my god the iraq war was my political awakening the concept for this thread owns

# ? May 10, 2020 15:19

Ringo Star Get: Sep 18, 2006; JUST FUCKING TAKE OFF ALREADY, SHIT

I turned 18 just after 9/11 and I remember all the batshit insane gymnastics the Bush presidency did to go to war in Afghanistan AND Iraq at nearly the same time, whilst military recruiters went hard core on getting people to sign up.

I actually fell for it and enlisted as part of a �Delayed Entry Program� that would allow me to complete two years of college and enter the military at a higher rank. Was supposed to have my college paid for up front (it wasn�t) and eventually I ended up leaving the program due to health issues.

# ? May 10, 2020 18:21

readingatwork: Jan 8, 2009; Hello Fatty!; Fun Shoe

We are now in February of 2000 :siren:

That said I won�t be too mad if you post anything jucy I missed from January.

OK, so this is an even slower month than January. The primaries for both parties were continuing with Gore winning New Hampshire, Delaware and Washington. Meanwhile on the Republican side of things were more complicated. Here�s the breakdown:

Bush:
Delaware
South Carolina
Puerto Rico
Virginia
Washington
North Dakota

McCain:
New Hampshire
Arizona
Michigan

It looks like McCain was hoping to leverage New Hampshire into a larger set of wins but that just didn�t pan out in the end:

Feb 1, 2000 - THE 2000 CAMPAIGN: THE MAVERICK; Fate of McCain Campaign Rests on Today's Vote

The New York Times posted:

By Alison Mitchell

With his entire candidacy hinging on victory in New Hampshire's primary on Tuesday, Senator John McCain was running his insurgency by cell phone today.

As his campaign bus crawled through a snowstorm just after dawn, Mr. McCain talked and talked, dialing up radio show after radio show to promote his candidacy and matching the radio jocks for irreverence.

The senator from Arizona told a Boston radio station of his theory of the rise and fall of Western civilization: ''Ever since we've seen the invention of the talk show, we've been on a steady decline.''

On the air with ''Morning Attitude'' on WSMN in Nashua, he said: ''It's amazing, Arnie. They say we've upset the establishment. I've been told they're in a state of panic.''

On yet another call he proclaimed the actor Leonardo DiCaprio ''an androgynous wimp,'' then laughed, and said, ''there goes the 13-year old vote.'' [LMAO what the hell, dude!?]As he carried on, his four youngest children, just in from Arizona, slept in the back of the bus.

For all of his joking, this is John McCain's moment of truth. One of his opponents, Gov. George W. Bush of Texas, has the money and organization to weather a loss in the nation's first primary and is already preparing backup plans. Steve Forbes has his personal fortune to keep him going.

But Mr. McCain is gambling his entire candidacy on the hope that the contrarian, maverick-loving state of New Hampshire will give him a victory that will bring another wave of media attention and propel him like a rocket into South Carolina, which votes on Feb. 19.

''He's got to win,'' said Representative Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who was at Mr. McCain's side today. ''The bigger the better.''

It was more than 18 months ago that Mr. McCain's friend, former Senator Warren B. Rudman of New Hampshire, told him that he had the right, plain-speaking rebel personality to win his home state, ''if you work like no one ever had before.'' So Mr. McCain decided to skip the Iowa caucuses and put his time and money into New Hampshire.

He did everything but move in for good. His campaign bus, with ''Straight Talk Express'' emblazoned across its side, became a fixture of New Hampshire's back roads and highways[Wow he was doing that poo poo even back in 2000?]. And on Sunday he held his 114th New Hampshire town hall meeting.

The screaming, clapping crowds of 1,000 or more who turned out this weekend could not have been more of a contrast to the early days when the senator would walk into a restaurant and disturb the breakfast of the seven people who were eating there. He was, Mr. McCain says, ''at three percent in a poll with a five percent margin of error.''

Now on the eve of the primary, most polls show him leading Mr. Bush by a slim margin. But in recent days the Bush campaign has made an all-out effort to stop Mr. McCain right here. Over the weekend, Mr. Bush's parents and most of his siblings appeared for a rally here, and the campaign has 4,000 volunteers making phone calls and canvassing neighborhoods.

According to Mr. McCain's blueprint, a victory in New Hampshire will produce a domino effect: a victory in South Carolina followed by one in his home state of Arizona. Then, he hopes, there will be a victory in Michigan, and Mr. Bush will suddenly seem a lot more vulnerable.

Mr. Graham and another South Carolina politician, Representative Mark Sanford, showed up today to fly with Mr. McCain to a predawn rally in South Carolina sometime on Wednesday and begin a drive to thwart Mr. Bush. South Carolina polls show Mr. Bush with a substantial lead.

Mr. McCain also needs money if he is to make it to the Super Tuesday primaries in March when the presidential campaign is run simultaneously coast to coast. To capitalize fast on an upset, his finance team began arriving in New Hampshire tonight to begin a nationwide call-a-thon for cash starting on Wednesday.

Mr. McCain has a string of fund-raisers planned, in Los Angeles on Friday, San Francisco on Saturday, and New York, New Jersey and Washington the next week. The campaign is planning to try a fund-raiser on the Internet, $100 per person for audio and video access to the site.

Today as it snowed and drizzled, the senator raced across New Hampshire one last time, from Keene in the west, to Dartmouth College in the north, to the capital of Concord, to Portsmouth on the coast and finally to Bedford in the heavily populated southern tier.

On his bus, where he long ago gave up any kind of privacy in order to pile in the reporters who he hopes will amplify his every word, his wife, Cindy, brushed his white hair and doused it with hair spray against the weather. (His broken bones from his days as a prisoner of war leave him unable to lift his arms above shoulder level.)

At rally after rally he thundered: ''It was said there was no room in the Republican Party for reform. My friends, we've made room in the Republican Party for a candidate for reform.''

''When we win tomorrow night,'' he said from a snow-covered gazebo in Keene, ''the message is going to be sent from New Hampshire to America and the world that we are going to give the government back to the people of the United States, take it out of the hands of the special interests and the big money, and give it back to you.''

At times Mr. McCain's risky campaign style of constant access has led to gaffes. Just last week he drowned out his theme of using the growing federal surplus[see below] for Social Security and debt reduction, with some musings that left the depth of his anti-abortion commitment somewhat in question.

But it has not made him more cautious. At one point this morning, he confided to reporters the secret to his get-out-the-vote effort. ''Death threats,'' the senator said with a chortle. ''If you don't go out and vote for McCain, don't start your car for the next week.''

But mostly he pressed his message of campaign reform. Outside the Alpha Delta fraternity house at Dartmouth -- the one that inspired the ''Animal House'' movie -- he even retooled it slightly for the college crowd. ''We're going to take those big money and fat cats and establishment people and knock them on their'' -- he paused -- ''ear.''

For the second day in a row the senator was shadowed by volunteers for former Senator Bill Bradley. They are trying to attract independents who can vote in either primary to their candidate and away from Mr. McCain.[More evidence that Bradley was actually to the right of Gore]

Outside the Capitol, Mr. McCain stopped and shook hands with a group of them. ''He wished us luck and said he hoped Bradley wins,'' said Anna Benvenutti, 21.

Mr. McCain said he considered the idea that he and Mr. Bradley were competing for independents to be overblown and his closing rhetoric was intended to nail down his Republican support. All day long he hammered away at Vice President Al Gore.

For one quiet moment, he reflected on the weirdness of the months spent in the cocoon of his campaign bus. ''It reminds one of the 'Twilight Zone,' '' he said. ''You're just on the bus.''

So fun fact. We actually had a budget surplus at this time because we weren�t in twelve wars at once and still actually made rich people pay ~some~ taxes. In fact, while there were still conflicts in various other countries (Russia was invading Chechnia or something at the time. I�ll research it more later) the US itself was pretty hands off for the first time in ages. Talks of a �peace dividend� abounded and everybody was salivating at the opportunity to use all this new cash for various pet projects,strengthening Social Security being one of the most popular options. Sadly, for obvious reasons this would not last.

Anyways, here�s an interesting piece on how voters felt about the election at the time:

Feb 1, 2000 - THE 2000 CAMPAIGN: THE VOTERS; Contented Electorate Is Also Happy With Campaign

The New York Times posted:

By Richard L. Berke and Adam Nagourney

Vivian Poirier, a 44-year-old massage therapist, smiled broadly today when asked at the post office in Portsmouth, on the eastern edge of the state, to judge how this year's primary campaign for president had been conducted. ''There doesn't seem to be as much -- what's the word I'm looking for? -- viciousness,'' she responded. ''They aren't as vicious, which is nice.''

In Derry, to the southwest, Grant Benson, 71, a hardware store owner, said after years of being forced to chose the lesser of two evils, he has never been as pleased with the candidates this time. ''I think it may even be better today than it was 30 years ago,'' he said.

And here in this tiny enclave farther south, Joanne Tramontozzi, 52, a sales clerk, said she could not remember as detailed -- if perhaps at times dry -- an examination of the issues by the candidates. ''It's been a nicer campaign,'' she said. ''They're sticking more to issues. In the past, it was all personal.''

Indeed, in a marked break from the tenor of presidential campaigns over the past two decades, New Hampshirites -- in dozens of interviews across the state on the eve of the nation's first primary -- said today they were pleased with the choice of candidates and heartened by what they described as an unexpectedly uplifting discourse by candidates of both parties, at least until this past weekend, when Al Gore and Bill Bradley, the two Democrats, began squabbling.

They also described themselves as largely pleased with the state of the nation, and, most important, the economy, in a part of the United States that has long suffered[this is actually quite accurate as I remember it]. The almost single-minded focus on economic decline that for so long dominated interviews here with voters -- and shaped the appeals of presidential candidates from both parties -- has been replaced with a broad new set of issues, including health care, education and campaign finance reform.

The voters' comments came on a day when this tiny state's fascination with politics, as well as its arguably disproportionate influence on the presidential selection process, was on display.

Caravans of candidates barreled along the state's highways, while on street corners, young volunteers, many of them bused from New York and Boston, hoisted placards bearing the names of their candidates and waving to motorists driving by, some honking in support. And more than ever, voters here, voicing a parochial pride, said they were confident that this state serves a valuable role in inspecting, even educating, the Democrats and Republicans who have put themselves forward to be president of the United States.

''What do you people in New York City think? Those country bumpkins up there, right?'' said Ernest Desjardins, a clinical neuropsychiatrist from Rye. ''But in some ways, we make or break a candidate.''

The upbeat politicking reflected a campaign season that voter after voter today described as ''nice,'' and the candidates as ''substantive.'' It offered a particularly striking contrast to presidential campaigns in the past decade, when voters, here and elsewhere, always seemed unhappy with the candidates before them -- and often blamed them for their own discontent.

An important reason for the collective smiles among the electorate here may be that voters also said they were not consumed by any single looming issue and were relatively pleased with their own lives. ''There aren't any that stand out,'' said John Prendergast, 36, a landscaper from Portsmouth. ''There's nothing broken specifically.''

As a result, voters said, they were not searching for candidates eager to change things in Washington. ''This is the most prosperity we've ever had,'' Dr. Desjardins said. ''I don't think anyone is anxious to have any change. It would be nice to keep this going for a while.''

Andy Bouley, 51, the owner of Shute's Corner Country Store near here, said that although he was concerned about the nation's health care system, he mostly wanted things to stay the way they are. Thus, he said, he is voting for Mr. Gore. ''I'd like the economy to stay the way it is,'' he said. ''I wouldn't want to gamble with it.''

The issues raised by voters today reflected, for the most part, what is being discussed by candidates from both parties. ''Campaign finance is a big one for me,'' said Jeff Burton, a 29-year-old computer programmer from Dover, and a supporter of Mr. Bradley. ''There's too much money in the system.''

Megan Hall, 21, a student at University of New Hampshire, said she was concerned about the viability of Social Security, a topic that has been debated by both Democrats and Republicans. ''I want it to be there when I'm ready to retire,'' she said.

And then there is taxes: an evergreen issue here in New Hampshire. ''The government takes too much from us,'' Ms. Hall, and her sister, Amanda, 20, joined her in chanting the second part of a common refrain in a state that is known for anti-tax sentiment.

Yet it was the tone of the debate that drew the most remarks from voters today.

''This is the cleanest campaign I can remember -- it has been nothing like in the past,'' said Kelly Taaffee, 42, a legal assistant as she chatted over lunch in Keene. ''The candidates have stuck to the issues for the most part. It's been a gentleman's race so far -- really.'' A clerk at the camera store up the street, Robert Hale, 21, said: ''In general, politics are too bitter. But all the candidates have handled themselves well this year. I'm happy to see it.''

Michael Donah, 55, who is retired and lives in Portsmouth, said he watched both presidential debates, and was impressed by what he described as the candidates' demeanor and depth. ''We have had some intelligent debates,'' he said. ''The consistency of the debate was pretty good. I felt they were both civil. I felt they were both civil. We did not get into a contest of stupidity.''

And among voters who expressed concern with the attacks that have marked the closing days of the campaign, the blame was mostly affixed to Mr. Bradley, who stepped up his attacks on the final weekend. ''It does bother me that Bradley had started to become negative in the last few days,'' said Mary Ann Kristiansen, 36, and a Democrat who said she had been leaning toward voting for Mr. Bradley. ''It only hurts the Democratic Party. I thought he'd stay away from it.''

Unlike past years, voters offered relatively little criticism of other candidates in expressing their choice. Again and again, they said they would be satisfied with a number of choices. ''McCain, Bradley and Gore -- they all would make good candidates,'' said Al Souma, 68, a local retired manufacturing manager.

Irving Sheppard, who was having breakfast at Mary Ann's Diner, said he was voting for Senator John McCain, but added: ''I feel quite good about my candidate, and not that he's the best of a bad bunch.''

Finally, as politicians in other states question New Hampshire's oversized influence in the political process, most voters said they were not about to abdicate their position -- and pointed to the events taking place outside their windows in explaining why.

''In the Washington area, you never see the candidates, you just get stuck in traffic behind them,'' said Mike Ward, 53, an administrator at Keene State College, who moved here from Virginia last year. ''The access here is phenomenal.''

''Live free or die,'' declared Charles Butterfield, 83, a retired postmaster who lives near here as he repeated the state slogan. ''In New Hampshire, you don't push us around.''

Brenda Canada, a violence mediator from Portsmouth, said: ''We are an eclectic people. We are highly intelligent. We are highly educated.''

For all their satisfaction over how the run-up to the primary has played out, many voters here said they were ready for it all to end on Tuesday.

''I like it -- as long as it doesn't go on too much longer,'' said Al Dimmock, 62, a retired truck driver from Derry. ''After a while it gets pretty boring.''

Ms. Tramontozzi said she was eager for the politicking to end. ''It seems like the only thing you see on television is campaign, campaign, campaign,'' she said.

Doug Crooker, 54, a machinist who is on disability and lives near Peppermint Corner, said he had been besieged for weeks by mailings and telephone calls from campaigns. As a mail carrier tried to jam more literature into his mailbox this afternoon, Mr. Crooker, who was shoveling the snow from his sidewalk, waved him off: ''No political mail. Please.''

The mail carrier commiserated with an understanding chuckle. ''I don't blame you,'' he said.

Correction: Feb. 4, 2000

Picture captions on Tuesday with an article about the mood of voters in New Hampshire on the eve of the presidential primaries misspelled the name of a city in New Hampshire. It is Windham, not Wyndam.

Here�s audio of Noam Chompsky talking about Gobalization, which was still relatively new at the time:

https://www.democracynow.org/2000/2/3/noam_chomsky_globalization_the_new_face

And here�s a Democracy now piece on money in politics and the election.

https://www.democracynow.org/2000/2/3/candidates_trail_of_money

(Democracy Now has it�s whole archives up for free and that makes me very happy.)

I want to keep these posts manageable so I'll stop here for now. While I prepare more stuff have a mildly problematic TDS clip where a comfortable white guy pokes fun at cultures he doesn�t understand:

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/atqs6l/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-back-in-black---february

More stuff will be posted as the week goes on. As always feel free to post your own news stories or even just neat cultural artifacts of the time.

# ? May 10, 2020 18:47

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

readingatwork posted:

I want to keep these posts manageable so I'll stop here for now. While I prepare more stuff have a mildly problematic TDS clip where a comfortable white guy pokes fun at cultures he doesn�t understand:

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/atqs6l/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-back-in-black---february

lmao this is the kind of poo poo people would use as proof of Trump's white supremacy if he said it*.

* and they wouldn't be wrong, but most liberals over the age of like ~40 still feel this same way

Falstaff posted:

It's really hard to overstate how confused leftists like myself were about the Rally to Restore Sanity. This was in the wake of Occupy Wall Street, which was basically babby's first class consciousness after decades of being effectively asleep, and despite being just about the most harmless protest you could imagine it was being suppressed and dismantled by the powers-that-be, sometimes pretty brutally. Then Stewart and Colbert get up on the stage with 100,000 people and tell everyone, "Actually, you need to calm down. Be nicer to the people stomping their boot in your face and maybe we can get back to normal."

In hindsight I think that may have been one of the key moments that caused me to stop being a liberal. It might be the earliest time I can think of where I genuinely felt like whatever these liberals believed was deeply different from my own views.

Another was the media response (particularly in places like NPR) to Occupy Wallstreet and seeing how quickly and successfully they silenced all references to it after the major camps were shut down.

ANIME AKBAR posted:

It first became clear that Stewart was poo poo in 2004 during his slapfight with Tucker Carlson. I mean yeah it's always good to dunk on a fash like Carlson, but Stewart also revealed how utterly irresponsible he was as a political influencer. He still denies that his show had any impact on politics. Politics, to him, is just a thing to make jokes about. He doesn't give a poo poo about it beyond that.

I embarrassingly remember thinking that Stewart came off good in that exchange at the time it happened. IIRC the video was linked a lot as an example of a conservative being owned.

Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 19:08 on May 10, 2020

# ? May 10, 2020 19:00

V. Illych L.: Apr 11, 2008; ASK ME ABOUT LUMBER

the discourse changes a lot in twenty years, and a startling amount of stuff has happened since then - for example, the extreme tabooisation of the n-word wasn't even there yet - chris rock in particular has whole routines where he riffs on white people's discomfort with it, and while chris rock is not an intellectual, as mega-popular comedian at the time he's a pretty good indicator of where the mainstream discourse is

# ? May 10, 2020 20:33

V. Illych L.: Apr 11, 2008; ASK ME ABOUT LUMBER

stewart vs carlson is not a discussion about left vs right, it's stewart bemoaning that the level of discourse on a flagship political show is entirely comparable to that of a news-based comedy show and quite often lower. he's unable to articulate it beyond jokes because he is, after all, a comedian first and foremost (unlike e.g. john oliver today who clearly tries to use his show as a comedy-tinged news vehicle) and he's 100% a nineties left-liberal

basically stewart is assuming that politics is and ought to be a rational discussion of principles that he, a comedian, can turn into comedy, but that it really shouldn't be comical in itself. all political history since then has served to prove him wrong, but that is a very fundamental part of the liberalism that stewart represents

# ? May 10, 2020 20:40

readingatwork: Jan 8, 2009; Hello Fatty!; Fun Shoe

LMAO holy poo poo you guys I didn't realize that the first version of Biden's infamous bankruptcy bill passed the senate this month. Not THE one people keep talking about mind you. That one happened in 2005. This was a first, but ultimately unsuccessful attempt that would later be tried again in 2001 (it failed that time as well).

Feb 3 - SENATE APPROVES A BILL TO TOUGHEN BANKRUPTCY RULES

The New York Times posted:

By Eric Schmitt

The Senate approved a sweeping overhaul of the nation's bankruptcy laws today, decisively passing a measure that would make it harder for people to seek legal protection from payment of their debts.

But in a move that could complicate final passage of the legislation, it also included in the measure a $1 increase over three years in the minimum wage to $6.15 per hour.

Major differences still exist in the details of the bankruptcy overhaul passed today and a rival House version approved last year. But lawmakers from both parties and Clinton administration officials expressed confidence today that Congress could produce a compromise bankruptcy bill that Mr. Clinton could sign into law this year.

Less certain is how Democrats and Republicans will resolve their differences over the minimum wage. Democrats had wanted the $1 increase be phased in over two years.

The Senate vote today passing the Bankruptcy Reform Act came after Democrats summoned Vice President Al Gore from the campaign trail in Manhattan to break a possible tie vote on a contentious abortion rights amendment to the bill. The measure would bar people convicted of crimes against abortion clinics from using bankruptcy protection to avoid paying civil judgments.

Republicans, who had vigorously opposed the amendment, abandoned their opposition once Mr. Gore took his seat as president of the Senate, letting the measure pass handily. [Page A20.]

Senators later voted 83 to 14 to approve the overarching legislation that was proposed by the nation's largest banks and credit-card companies, but opposed by consumer and civil rights groups. One reason the outcome was so lopsided was that the campaign contributions and lobbying muscle come mainly from the politically powerful financial community, concentrated in New York.

The banking industry has grown increasingly concerned that too many people with money are taking advantage of the bankruptcy laws and skipping out on mountains of debt. ''Despite their ability to pay, wealthier filers walk away from an estimated $3 billion per year in debt,'' said Edward L. Yingling, chief lobbyist for the American Bankers Association.

The measure imposes new income requirements on people seeking a fresh start by using the nation's debt-forgiveness laws and limits a loophole used by the wealthy to shield their homes. And the bill requires credit-card companies to disclose interest rates and fees more prominently on monthly statements.

''It was time for Congress to close the loopholes that let big spenders walk away from debts and update the code to achieve a healthier balance between consumers and creditors,'' said Senator Charles E. Grassley, an Iowa Republican who sponsored the bill.

Negotiators from the Senate will now meet with their counterparts from the House to reconcile competing bills. Last year, the House approved, 313 to 108, a bill with even stricter provisions on debtors. The White House said both versions are unacceptable, calling the House version too harsh and inflexible and the tax breaks attached to the minimum-wage provision in the Senate measure unacceptable.

A spokeswoman for Hillary Rodham Clinton, who in her campaign for the Senate in New York has criticized the bankruptcy legislation for being unfair to women and children, declined to comment today on the Senate's action.[Of course she loving did ]

Under the Senate bill, the minimum wage would increase to $6.15 from $5.15 over three years, instead of over two years as Democrats want. Senate Democrats also object to $76 billion in tax breaks over 10 years that Republicans say would help small businesses adjust to the rising minimum wage. Democrats had proposed $29 billion package over 10 years. The House bill does not have a minimum-wage provision.

''The amendment in the bill includes a poorly targeted tax package with tax breaks that are skewed disproportionately to upper income people,'' said a letter signed by all 45 Senate Democrats to the lawmakers who will negotiate the House-Senate compromise.

The thrust of both House and Senate bills is to make it more difficult for people to discharge their debts. Both measures try to make debtors accept more responsibility by making it more difficult to file Chapter 7 bankruptcies, which allows consumers to discharge unsecured debts that remain after assets are liquidated. Lawmakers aim to make Chapter 13, which requires reorganization of debt under a repayment plan, the bankruptcy of choice.

With Americans filing a record 1.4 million bankruptcies in 1998, Senator Jeff Sessions, an Alabama Republican, said the bill ''closes loopholes and ends unfairness in provisions that are totally being abused and making a mockery out of legitimate bankruptcy law.''

But critics of the measure, like Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, said today ''the industry's cure is worse than the disease.'' Bankruptcy filings dropped by 112,000 in 1999 from 1998, Mr. Kennedy said, and the bill's provisions make it more difficult for thousands of debtors who file for bankruptcy because of corporate layoffs and downsizing because of mergers.

At issue in several days of floor debate and outside Capitol Hill today, was whether it is the banks or their customers who are responsible for the growth in bankruptcy filings.

The chairman of the Consumer Federation of America, Howard M. Metzenbaum, a former Democratic senator from Ohio, said the Senate bill ''will deny many families in financial crisis a fresh start while spurring more reckless and irresponsible lending by credit-card issuers.''

House and Senate negotiators have a tough road ahead. There are several crucial differences between the two bills. Both measures impose a new income requirement. The Senate bill generally says that anyone with the ability to make at least $15,000 in payments over five years would not be able to have their debts forgiven. Under the House bill, the threshold is $6,000 over five years[Jesus Christ this is insane.].

The Senate bill is more generous than the House in shielding, or creating ''safe harbors'' for debtors who make less than the median income in their state or regions.

For Chapter 7 bankruptcy filers, the Senate puts a $100,000 cap on housing equity they can exempt from creditors' motions. The House bill has a cap of $250,000, but allows states to opt out, an important distinction for wealthy bankruptcy filers in Texas and Florida.

Finally, the Senate bill provides new consumer protections, like the disclosures on credit cards. The House protection is more limited and more generic.

Senator Robert G. Torricelli, Democrat of New Jersey, said of the bill, ''The proverbial small type that hides fees and interest costs will be converted to large font so that consumers can make informed purchases, determine the best repayment schedule and manage family expenses.''

While adopting the abortion rights amendment, senators rejected several others, including one offered by Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, that would have prohibited gun makers and dealers from using bankruptcy to escape debts incurred in civil lawsuits.

Oh right. Hillary was running for the Senate at this point as well

Feb 10 - A user's guide to New York Senate race

CNN posted:

By Frank Buckley

SOMEWHERE UPSTATE, New York (CNN) -- I write to you from the front seat of Press Van 2 in a convoy of sky-blue Econolines, cars and a boxy white satellite truck with the letters "CNN America" emblazoned upon its doors.

My companions in Press Van 2 are reporters for New York and Washington newspapers, producers for network and cable television, and a driver hired by the campaign who doesn't get the hint that when I jam my foot into the imaginary brake on my side while loudly grabbing at the dashboard (my other hand clutching my laptop) that we're not as fond of driving at the speeds and imprecision he apparently is.

We sprint along State Highway 98 passing beautiful farmland, all covered in sun-sparkled snow.

It is winter. We are nine months away from Election Day. But we are covering Hillary Rodham Clinton as if the election were only days away. The amount of coverage rivals some presidential campaigns.

Why?

Clinton is making history. She is the first first lady ever to run for elective office. And she is not a native of the state she hopes to represent.

The campaign promises to be the most expensive Senate race ever, with both sides expected to raise and spend upwards of a combined $50 million.

And the opponent Clinton likely faces -- New York City's Republican mayor, Rudy Giuliani -- is among the most colorful politicians in the country.

In short, the race will be interesting and complex. And close.

Serious listening

It all began in November 1998.

Shortly after the election of Democrat Charles Schumer to the U.S. Senate from New York, the state's esteemed senior senator, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, announced he was retiring.

New York Democrats wondered who they would run. "How about Hillary Clinton?" some began to wonder aloud.

"They were all tremendously excited about this idea last January," says Michael Tomasky, political writer for New York magazine, whose cover story on the speculation in January 1999 gave the story legs.

"It sounded like a great idea as long as it was in the realm of fantasy," Tomasky says.

But Democrats were serious. And early public opinion polls suggested that New York voters statewide were excited about the idea.

In January 1999, registered voters told the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion that they favored Clinton in a hypothetical match-up against Giuliani 52 percent to 42 percent.

New York Democratic Party leaders prevailed upon Clinton to seriously consider a run. And by July, when Clinton began her so-called "listening tour," it was a virtual certainty that she would do it.

Slicing a New York pie

What is not a certainty now is who will win.

The Marist poll that had Clinton beating Giuliani by 10 points a year ago? In the February 2000 version, Clinton trails Giuliani 47 percent to 40 percent.

But the numbers can be deceiving because New York politics can be quirky.

It is a state in which registered Democrats represent 47 percent of the electorate to the Republicans' 29 percent. Yet the governor is a Republican.

It is a place where voters in the state's largest city, New York, are registered roughly 5-1 Democrat. Yet the mayor is a Republican.

Candidates running for office here are not just Democrats or just Republicans.

A candidate running as a Republican might also be listed on the ballot as the candidate of the Right to Life line, the Conservative Party line and the Independence Party line (the Reform Party in New York). A Democrat might also garner the Liberal line and the Independence line. That means mainstream party candidates can pick up a few more votes from outside the mainstream parties.

The Conservative, Liberal and Independence parties together represent only about 4 percent of the electorate. But these tiny pieces of the pie can add up in a close election.

For Giuliani or Clinton, those voters could be the difference between victory or defeat in November.

Where do things stand now?

Clinton has declared as the Democrat. Giuliani has not formally declared but has said he is running; he is expected to be the Republican. The third parties have not yet chosen their candidates.

The Conservative Party's chairman, Michael Long, said this week that it had no plans at the moment to support Giuliani.

"I think I would rather that he didn't run," Long said.

Giuliani, you see, ran for mayor as a Republican-Liberal. His views on issues such as abortion, gun control and gay rights are more in line with those of voters who might label themselves liberal.

On the other hand, it's possible that Clinton, whom critics are quick to call a liberal, may not get the Liberal Party line because its leader is a strong supporter of Rudy Giuliani.

Miles to go

There is also the issue of geography in this race.

New York is a state of 49,576 square miles. It can take more than an hour to fly from one end of the state to the other.

The people who live in upstate New York have a Midwestern sensibility that is in stark contrast to the no-nonsense attitude of New York City residents downstate.

Upstate tends to go Republican in the rural areas. But upstate cities such as Buffalo, Rochester and Albany voted for Democrat Chuck Schumer in 1998.

Downstate -- chiefly considered New York City with its nearly 8 million residents -- is dominated by registered Democrats. The New York City suburbs can be a battleground won by either party.

But all of the what-ifs are a bit early. After all, it's not November 2000. It is winter, with spring, summer and fall to go. Fasten your seatbelts and grab hold of your laptops. Press Van 2 is just starting to roll.

# ? May 10, 2020 21:33

pthighs: Jun 21, 2013; Pillbug

readingatwork posted:

Anyways, here’s an interesting piece on how voters felt about the election at the time:

Feb 1, 2000 - THE 2000 CAMPAIGN: THE VOTERS; Contented Electorate Is Also Happy With Campaign

This type of thing was why I was quite surprised when Bush won. For many Americans, the 90s was a time of massive prosperity and few worries; why would you switch away from what seemed to be working?

pthighs fucked around with this message at 22:15 on May 10, 2020

# ? May 10, 2020 22:11

Freakazoid_: Jul 5, 2013; Buglord

V. Illych L. posted:

oh my god the iraq war was my political awakening the concept for this thread owns

# ? May 10, 2020 22:37

tigersklaw: May 8, 2008

pthighs posted:

This type of thing was why I was quite surprised when Bush won. For many Americans, the 90s was a time of massive prosperity and few worries; why would you switch away from what seemed to be working?

Because both sides deserve a chance or some bullshit. Also Gore sighed during a debate and old people in Florida should never be allowed to do anything, much less vote

# ? May 10, 2020 23:03

Falstaff: Apr 27, 2008; I have a kind of alacrity in sinking.

Ytlaya posted:

Another was the media response (particularly in places like NPR) to Occupy Wallstreet and seeing how quickly and successfully they silenced all references to it after the major camps were shut down.

I remember this, too... Very vividly. I'm going to hold off commenting on it until we get closer to it in the timeline, though. Maybe as part of a coda after we're done with the Bush years, if readingatwork wants to stop there.

pthighs posted:

This type of thing was why I was quite surprised when Bush won. For many Americans, the 90s was a time of massive prosperity and few worries; why would you switch away from what seemed to be working?

tigersklaw posted:

Because both sides deserve a chance or some bullshit. Also Gore sighed during a debate and old people in Florida should never be allowed to do anything, much less vote

Don't fool yourselves - there was a powerful undercurrent of discontent during the Clinton years due to the Dems' continued slide rightward. It was just largely invisible because the media kept it invisible, and the internet was in its infancy (and not accessible by most people outside of $3-5/hour "internet cafes") so that avenue for communication wasn't really feasible.

There's a reason the 90's saw such incredibly successful third party runs, and why everyone and their dog laughed about how the two main parties had almost no daylight between them.

The Clinton years were only successful for a very particular set of demographics. Looked great on paper, though.

Falstaff fucked around with this message at 23:26 on May 10, 2020

# ? May 10, 2020 23:15

V. Illych L.: Apr 11, 2008; ASK ME ABOUT LUMBER

pthighs posted:

This type of thing was why I was quite surprised when Bush won. For many Americans, the 90s was a time of massive prosperity and few worries; why would you switch away from what seemed to be working?

they also literally stole the election for bush by what amounts to a judicial coup, one of the most outrageous maneuvers in the history of american presidential politics

# ? May 10, 2020 23:26

readingatwork: Jan 8, 2009; Hello Fatty!; Fun Shoe

pthighs posted:

This type of thing was why I was quite surprised when Bush won. For many Americans, the 90s was a time of massive prosperity and few worries; why would you switch away from what seemed to be working?

There are a few reasons Gore lost I think.

First off, Gore was an incredibly awkward communicator. He had an in incredibly nervous nerd energy to him that could be alienating to the casual viewer. He�s the guy that got A�s in school and reminded the teacher when she forgot to assign homework, not the kind of person you could get shitfaced with after work. Bush, on the other hand, absolutely WAS that guy. Literally. He was a party animal in college and actually struggled with alcoholism, an experience far more normal people could relate to.

I don�t think that explains everything tough. The reality is that there actually WAS a decent amount of dissatisfaction with life in the 90s in certain circled (circles often ignored by newspapers like NYT). Capitalism was still very much a thing and even those who were successful had to dedicate most of their life to a job that they hated and a boss that exploited them. Not only that but in certain respects life actually got worse for people over the decades. Yes, people were technically making more but their paychecks didn�t go as far as they once did. People who�s parents supported a family on one income soon found themselves going into debt to provide that same lifestyle with two. Factories were threatening to close and move overseas while illegal immigration was (theoretically) on the rise and threatening what little stability you still had. And while you were dealing with this those drat lefties were adding even more stress by telling you that your religion was bad or that you can�t make jokes about the gays anymore.

This could have fueled a shift leftward but the internet wasn�t a thing yet, and as we�re seeing the liberal left wasn�t willing to discuss any sort of systemic change. As a result the right found itself able to channel much of that frustration through things like AM radio into right wing social fights like abortion and illegal immigration. Liberals offered dry facts and being 30% better than the Republicans, but Republicans offered you a righteous cause and the blood of your enemies which was incredibly tempting if you were already angry and didn�t understand why.

So yeah, Gore lost because the people who were content with life weren�t really invested in politics and those that had a bone to pick with the neoliberal world order really had nowhere to go to express their anger but the Republicans. Even so Gore still would have won if not for a particularly SCOTUS ruling, but we can discuss that part when we get to it.

E: Damnit, beaten.

readingatwork fucked around with this message at 23:52 on May 10, 2020

# ? May 10, 2020 23:48

V. Illych L.: Apr 11, 2008; ASK ME ABOUT LUMBER

the 2000 election was the end of history election, and gore the ultimate end of history liberal candidate - smart, technocratic, completely dogmatic, unambitious policy-wise and *boring*. he went public with a work of the philosophy of science as being his favourite book, a book vanishingly few people have even heard of, much less read, while bush went with probably the all-time most read book which is monumentally more influential culturally. america decided that history wasn't over.

# ? May 11, 2020 00:06

SwimmingSpider: Jan 3, 2008; Jön, jön, jön a vizipók.
Várják már a tólakók.
Ez a kis pók ügyes búvár.
Sok új kaland is még rá vár.

I was ten years old in 2000, so the Bush years were my entire teenage life. I thought I had a handle on what made Bush so awful abck then, but since ive been blindsided by so many things he did that I only learned about alter. excited to see how much worse he was with this thread.

readingatwork posted:

Jan 4: The Daily Show with John Stewart was incredibly important at the time so expect me to talk about it a lot. Here�s what it looked like at the beginning of the millennium.

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/0pzlo8/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-headlines---2000

He�s still funny. Fight me.

there's a lot to unpack from early Daily Show clips, but Jon Stewart calling Seattle "pussies" for worrying about terrorism in the 21st century sure hits different,

# ? May 11, 2020 00:15

ToxicAcne: May 25, 2014

As someone who became an adult after Bush was gone, I'm curious as to how Democrats justified going to war in Iraq?

# ? May 11, 2020 01:25

readingatwork: Jan 8, 2009; Hello Fatty!; Fun Shoe

A post in another thread reminded me that Bill Maher was a thing at this point and probably worth following since he will later get booted from his show for political reasons.

https://youtu.be/onyFxcQFA70

# ? May 11, 2020 02:05

Improper Umlaut: Jun 8, 2009

ToxicAcne posted:

As someone who became an adult after Bush was gone, I'm curious as to how Democrats justified going to war in Iraq?

The country was still in post 9/11 fear mode and the administration made the case that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons. He didn�t but there were quite a few trusted administration officials who were making the case complete with �evidence� (see, vials of anthrax).

# ? May 11, 2020 02:08

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 5, 2024 13:24

Clouseau: Aug 3, 2003; My theories appall you, my heresies outrage you, I never answer letters, and you don't like my tie.

ToxicAcne posted:

As someone who became an adult after Bush was gone, I'm curious as to how Democrats justified going to war in Iraq?

An argument I remember hearing at the time was, well, whatever the case may be with weapons of mass destruction, the fact is that Saddam is a bad person and everyone will be much happier when he's gone.

# ? May 11, 2020 03:03

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Let's relive the Bush years!

«‹›12 »