Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2007:July:11 Wednesday <Tuesday, Thursday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2007/7/11 [Uncategorized] UID:47251 Activity:moderate
        Everything Natali Del Conte says about tech is hot. Too bad she went to USC.
        Try not to be distracted by her face, concentrate on the boobs.
        \_ She's cute, but I don't get the point of the video. What are
           you imagining her boobs are doing? I saw nothing of interest.
           You need a girlfriend.
2007/7/11 [Uncategorized] UID:47252 Activity:nil
7/11    Worthy advice (comic)
2007/7/11-16 [Uncategorized] UID:47253 Activity:nil
7/11    The BET being accused of black stereotypes?  Go figure.
2007/7/11 [Uncategorized] UID:47254 Activity:nil
7/11    whoo!
2007/7/11-14 [Science] UID:47255 Activity:nil
7/11    Hey, why was the link to the pretty girl talking about technology\
        deleted? Does that kind of stuff offend some psycho on the motd?
2007/7/11 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:47256 Activity:very high
7/11    Remember all the screaming back in 2005 or so about "up or down votes"
        and "the nuclear option?"  What happened to all that talk now that
        the Rs are effectively filibustering everything in the Senate
        that can't get 60 votes?
        \_ That was about political tests for judicial appointments.  I don't
           think anyone wants to pull that lever for significant legislation.
           \_ Bullshit.  The whining was because the democratic minority
              DIDN'T abuse the fillibuster for ever damn vote ever.  They
              used it for extreme cases as it should be used.  If the minority
              had filibustered every damn vote that had between 50 and 60
              ayes the rebpublican majority would have flipped out.  But they
              didn't do that.  The republican minority however, after whining
              like babies when a fillibuster happened is now fillibustering
              more than any other Senate.  It's called hipocracy, you can't
              defend it.
           \_ That non-existent lever, you mean.  But this is a bullshit
              response.  The reason is that, especially in the Senate, things
              are designed to move achingly slowly unless there's a broad
              consensus.  The R's have whined and moaned about it, sometimes
                  \_ Which explains the massive effort to get amnesty passed in
                     the middle of the night.  Oh wait, no it doesn't.
                     \_ Uh, what?
              to effective ends (read Contract on^Wfor America), for decades.
              The D's can't bring themselves to complain about it in a way
              that will bring any results.  They have, imo, misplaced faith
              in "finding compromise" and "bipartisanship".
2007/7/11-12 [Uncategorized] UID:47257 Activity:nil 66%like:47261
7/11    Fake cop tries to pull over real cop.  Oops!,0,723364,print.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork
2007/7/11-12 [Consumer/CellPhone, Computer/Companies/Apple] UID:47258 Activity:nil
7/11    iPhone: Will it blend?
        \_ It's impressive that the LCD is still lit after the first few
           encounters with the blades.
2007/7/11-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47259 Activity:moderate
7/11    Any hope of GWB's impeachment before 2008? In America the only
        case for impeachment is Watergate (and maybe Sex scandals).
        Why isn't GWB having sex with interns? Is his wife actually
        making him happy? Damnit.
        \_ I don'tthink it can happen.  It's a waste of time. concentrate
           on winning the next election cycle and saving lots of evidence
           to tar the legacy of gwbush when he's out of office.
           if the current fuckfest isntenough to impeach him immediately.
           not gonna happen
        \_ What's the high crime or misdemeanor?
           \_ The two that I am aware of are the violations of FISA
              and the violations of the War Crimes Act. Are there others?
              \_ The FISA thing is a clear struggle between the branches.  War
                 Crimes Act violations?  What the hell are you talking about?
                 \_ The Administration clearly violated the law with regard
                    to FISA and the courts called them on it. Most criminals
                    claim the "right" to break the law. Bush's torture
                    memos were known to be potentially illegal right from
                    the get-go. The whole Gitmo thing is illegal, which is
                    why the Administration wants to shut it down now.
                    \_ Why do you say 'the whole Gitmo thing is illegal?'
                       The only thing I am aware of that was ruled illegal
                       in connection with Gitmo was the recent trials ruling.
                       It's true that this makes Gitmo a lot less useful for
                       the Administration, and perhaps it will cause Gitmo
                       to be shut down and for the inmates to move to US
                       soil somewhere -- but the illegality of the 'whole
                       thing'?  -- ilyas
                        \_ 'the whole gitmo thing' is an incredible thought
                            construct where the administration plants
                            detainees in this imaginary fun land that they
                            claim with a straight face is not on US soil,
                            since.... it's in CUBA.  How do these people
                            manage to function without falling over laughing?
                            \_ Right, the salient difference here is
                               between 'illegal' and 'immoral.' -- ilyas
                               between 'illegal' and 'immoral.'
                               The whole 'soil' thing does have the vibe of
                               a Solzhenitsyan farce. -- ilyas
                       \_ It is a violation of the Geneva Convention. Remember
                          the Bush Administration claimed the "right" to hold
                          people indefinitely, without charges and without a
                          trial. This is a violation of Geneva Convention
                          Article 3 (I can dig up the exact prt if you want),
                          which the United States is a signatory to. The whole
                          "enemy non-combatant" classifcation is utter bullshit
                          that no one but a few loons in the Bush White House
                          claim exists. And it will not and is not holding up
                          in a real court of law, even one (the USSC) that is
                          overwhelming packed with Republicans.

                          \_ Alright, but here's what will have to happen
                             before there's a realistic chance of impeachment.
                             First, the SC will have to strike down the 2006
                             law which was specifically passed to get around
                             the Geneva Convention restrictions (they may well
                             do this).  Then you would have to make an argument
                             that you can try people for crimes retroactively.
                             THEN, the Democrats will have to make the political
                             calculation that it is worth raising the muck on
                             a wildly unpopular President on his way out
                             anyways (remember, 'persecution' tends to raise
                             approval ratings).  Finally, all of this will have
                             to happen before Bush leaves office.  Bush is not
                             getting impeached.  -- ilyas
                             \_ Step 1 has already happened:
                                They broke the law before 2006, since Gitmo
                                was opened in 2003. They passed the law to
                                retroactively try and give themselves legal
                                cover for a law they knew they were breaking.
                                But you are right, the Democrats in Congress
                                are unlikely to find their backbone any time
                                \_ I lack the legal background to evaluate
                                   how likely a conviction is in such a case.
                                   Is there a legal principle (or precedent)
                                   for the situation at hand:
                                   "Action X happens.  Then law Y is passed
                                   which makes X unquestionably legal.  Then Y
                                   is struck down."
                                   At issue here is at the time X happened
                                   the law for X was not settled (as witnessed
                                   by subsequent developments).  So it's
                                   unclear you can prosecute for X until Y
                                   was struck down. -- ilyas
                                   \_ Impeachment isn't a legal event.  It is a
                                      political one.  If the Ds had the balls
                                      and the votes for it they could impeach
                        \_ I have to agree with ilyas.  gwbush has fucked
                           up the US for 5000 years, but he's not going
                           anywhere until his term is up.
                           \_ 5000 years?  *laugh*  I'm just curious, have you
                              been around long enough to vote for a non-Bush,
                              non-Clinton administration?  Before Bush is even
                              out of office no one will care.  They'll be
                              deeply focused on the 08 election.  Life will
                              move on.
                              \_ I think invading Iraq, fucking it up,
                                 continuing to fuck it up, and committing
                                 us to occupy a giant piece of oil laden
                                 shit in the middle east for the next
                                 several decades is a HUGE FUCKUP.
                                 bush has shown the world that our military
                                 is not the unstoppable force everyone
                                 thought it was.  now every pissant guerilla
                                 force knows how to defeat us.  happy now?
        \_ Why would you want an impeachment?  You really want to distract the
           country from the current election cycle with political hatchet BS
           instead of spending that time and political effort on getting into
           office?  I'm sure all your friends in the Bay Area are in favor of
           impeachment and don't understand why it hasn't already happened.
           \_ It's important for the future of the country and for
              our worldwide credibility to hold accountable those who
              commit criminal behavior and war crimes while in office.
              What's wrong with simple justice?
              \_ Also, Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, and a number of others
                 have shown themselves worthy of disqualification (the
                 other bit after removal)
        \_ How do you know GWB isn't having sex with interns?
           \_ 1) why do you think we can keep only one thought in our heads at
              a time?
              2) for those who want impeachment, this is about accountability,
              and being on the record that bush's behavior has been
              unacceptable.  A president who admits to breaking laws, lies
              about war, undermines our national security for the sake of
              politics deserves impeachment and removal for those acts, and
              we have a duty to do so to prevent his actions from becoming
        \_ The correct way to do this is to impeach Cheney first, then Dubya.
2007/7/11 [Uncategorized] UID:47260 Activity:moderate
7/11    It's on.
        \_ I have declared myself deputy leader of Al Queda In CSUA.
           What the hell does that even mean?
           \_ It means that a crack team of Special Forces assassins have
              your name on their list now.
2007/7/11 [Uncategorized] UID:47261 Activity:nil 66%like:47257
7/11    Fake cop tries to pull over real cop.  Oops!
        [+80 col url delete.  use shortener]
2007/7/11 [Computer/SW/OS/Linux] UID:47262 Activity:kinda low
7/11    Politics is for dumb people. Let's talk Linux!
        \_ RIDE BIKE!
        \_ Ok, talk linux.  What do you think of 64 bit linux?  When do you
           think linux will be ready for the desktop?  How does gplv3 hurt or
           help your company?
        \_ It is never the crime that does you in, it is the coverup
           afterwards that gets you.
        \_ I love how a conspiracy to commit a misdeamenor is a felony
2007/7/11-12 [Computer/SW/P2P] UID:47263 Activity:low
7/11    So what p2p systems are there besides bittorrent and soulseek?
        \_ Lots. I like eMule for when I'm looking for something random
           and hard to find. BitTorrent for everything else.
        \_ Lots. eMule is best for things that are random and hard to
           find. BitTorrent for everything else.
2007/7/11-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:47264 Activity:low
7/11    Al Qaida as powerful as it was in summer 2001
        \_ Funny, why do we believe our intel now?
           \_ You know what's wrong with our intel? It's government run
              pork program! They should have privatized CIA and NSA
              long time ago.                            -Republican
              \_ They do call the CIA "The Company".
              \_ No, troll, they should have not relied solely on satellites
                 and not let the human side of the intelligence program
                 whither away to nothing.  This is the fault of many
                 administrations going back.
2007/7/11-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47265 Activity:high
7/11    You want a felony to impeach Bush for?  Here ya go:
        \_ dubya will say this is for a "proper" purpose (stemming from
           executive privilege), therefore there is no felony because this
           is defined for an "improper purpose".  anyways you want
           to impeach cheney first.
           \_ You can't just say "I'm not showing up, executive privilege."
              You have to honor the supeona and then say "I won't answer that
              question, executive privilege."  It's like refusing to even
              o to court because you'll take the 5th.
        \_ At this point, it is like the Gambino family: what aren't they
           guilty of?
           \_ Not guilty of intern sucking dick. THERE I gotcha! Har har
        \_ Get real.  No President is going to get impeached for that.  But
           you could get rich off whatever you're smoking.  Of all the things
           to impeach over that is the most stupid possible.
        \_ Again, this is a separation of powers issue.
           \_ Do you mean "everyone has to obey the law but us" kind of
              seperation of powers? Or are you trying to say something else
              by repeating this phrase? I assume you are the same guy who
              claimed that Bush didn't have to follow the FISA laws like
              everyone else, because of "seperation of powers." Seperation
              of powers doesn't mean that the White House can ignore the
              law of the land.
              \_ No, I mean to what degree does one branch of gov't have the
                 power to tell another branch to do something.
                 \_ You don't quite know what separation of powers is, do you?
                 \_ that's the whole point of having different branches of
                 \_ Thinking about this some more, I decided that I see your
                    point. The FISA law, in particular, was designed to only
                    apply to the Exectutive Branch, and while it was passed
                    by Congress and signed by the (then) President, it has
                    not survived any serious court challanges. It could even
                    be unconstitutional, for all we know. Though the
                    Administration sure hasn't been quick to try and get
                    it in front of the USSC, I can see where they can argue
                    that they think parts of it are invalid.
                    \_ You have made a reasonable statement about a hot button
                       political issue on the motd.  For this gross violation
                       of etiquette your account shall be terminated.
2019/08/22 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2007:July:11 Wednesday <Tuesday, Thursday>