7/24    Are you a metrosexual? Find out:
        http://www.istrianet.org/istria/people/photos/viskovic/04_metro.htm
        \_ My answers are 1-10:No, 11-12:Yes.  I guess I'm not metrosexual.
         \_ What is this, 2002 all over again?

7/24    http://www.wickedpissahgames.com/games/gravitypods/GravityPods.html
        Pretty fun flash game! What level did you get up to?
        \_ i got to level 14 then clicked on an ad URL.  I lose.
           \_ i thought you win big when you punch the monkey?  ;-)

7/24    My neighbor's busty 20 year old college-student
        daughter came over today to shoot the bull. Even though she's
        dumb as a post, she somehow
        manages to go to Cal Poly. She is incredibly tan and fit and
        somehow I found myself wanting to bang her silly, even though
        she's 15 years younger than I am and it's painful to have a
        conversation with her. WTF is wrong with me? She's practically a kid!
        Am I officially a dirty old man?
        \_ You're officially a healthy, normal, non-gay man.
           Congratulations.
        \_ No, just a man.
        \_ You think she came over to just chat with you?  What's up with that?
           She's an adult, do whatever.  At least you're honest with yourself
           about it.
        \_ See you've been trained by certain people to think that a 20 year
           old is a child. Reality check: she is a completely mature woman.
           She may not have the wisdom of age, but that's irrelevant. Some
           people never have that. And you don't need that to eat, sleep, or
           screw.
           \_ She's a 20 year-old. On average, 20 year-olds are not mature.
              Odds that she's "completely mature" are not high. That said, it's
              also irrelevant. She's an adult. If she's a consenting adult,
              have fun. Oh, and remember not to try borrowing your neighbor's
              power tools for a while.
              \_ "Why not, his daughter has just borrowed my power tool."
              \_ "Why not?  His daughter has just borrowed my power tool."
              \_ Adult = mature, by definition. Too much bullshit out there
                 about this.
                 \_ Give it a rest, paedophile.
                    \_ lol?
        \_ By "painful to have a conversation with her", do you mean she's a
           moron, or do you mean it's hard to hold back you urge and not
           explode in your pants when you talk to her in close range?
           explode in your pants when you talk to her?
           \_ I mean that there's a generation gap that certainly makes
              her sound like a moron. Who said I didn't explode in my pants?
        \_ I really don't know how this thread turned from "man, I want her!"
           to "she really wants you man!" just 'cause she came over to talk
           to this guy.  Maybe he can convert her craving for attention to
           a romp in the hay, but I doubt a 20-year-old college hottie is
           hard-up for sex.
           \_ This is not what the majority of my csua mbox is telling me.
           \_ She doesn't have to be hard-up to want to be schtupped. She
              might want to schtup three guys in one day. Lots of girls
              that age are sluts.
              \_ Can I have their phone numbers?

7/25    i love the colbert report

7/25    "Toyota unveils plug-in hybrid, to test on roads"
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070725/tc_nm/toyota_plugins_dc_2
        This will put EDrive (http://www.edrivesystems.com out of business.

7/25    Hugo Chavez would be funny if he he wasn't running a country
        http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290337,00.html
        \_ Having visited Venezuela, I can safely say it's a prime
           example why commies should never ever ever ever ever be
           put in charge of anything.  Ever.  -John
        \_ Chavez: driving home to modern leftists what Stalin taught our
           philosophical forebearers in the 30s-50s: the enemy of your
           enemy is not your friend.

7/25    http://billoreilly.com being investigated by Secret Service
        http://newsfortheleft.blogspot.com/2007/07/bill-oreilycom-being-investigated-by.html
        \_ Huh, I guess I don't really see that as a direct threat.  Stupid
           thing to say though.
           \_ It's mostly just ironic because Bill is currently on television
              calling certain websites "hate speech sites" because of certain
              stupid comments made by some of their members.
              \_ Such as?

7/25    Guess what I found a really really cool site! Now you can find out
        your dog's sire/dam (assume they're registered) along with their
        genetic diseases (OptiGen test, CERF test, HIP test, etc). From
        this you can [manually] generate a pedigree and find out if your
        dog is from inbreed/linebreed, or inherited disease, etc!
        Here's an example:
        http://www.offa.org/display.html?appnum=1266552#animal

7/25    One way to close the gap between the rich and the poor:
        http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19958752/site/newsweek
        \ "The LAPD’s West Division has put a task force of
          10-plus detectives on the case; plainclothes patrols have joined
          the chase."
          I wonder how many detectives Oakland police would put on the case
          if this was happening at, say, Fruitvale?
          \_ Oakland doesn't have enough officers, so probably no more
             than usual.  Oakland also has an artificial shortage of
             officers, since they all work 4 10 hour shifts, giving them
             3 day weekends.  So on day 5 they get over time.   Oakland
             also has an even more artificial shortage of officers, since
             plenty of Oakland cops fill internal jobs that at other
             depts, are filled by non cops.  The Oakland PD union should be
             destroyed.  I'm sure there are good people in the oakland
             pd but too many of them are fucking stupid or are just riding
             that cushy salary until they retire.
          \_ "Los Angeles Police Department detectives think the crew has
             struck more than 50 times since late last fall."  If the same
             neighborhood in Fruitvale has been struck more than 50 times by
             the same crew, I think Oakland PD would assign quite a few people
             on the case, if not 10-plus.
             \_ Go to http://gismaps.oaklandnet.com/crimewatch.
                Search for burglaries within 1 mile of Fruitvale and
                International within the past 90 days.  -tom
        \_ Why don't these super-rich people buy security cameras with higher
           resolution?  That video screenshot is next to useless.
           \_ Resolution is useless if there's no light to be captured.
              Infrared cameras will help, though.
              \_ Or combination of motion sensor light and cameras.

7/25    He's right.
        "Without going into all the specifics, I think we are now moving into
        a situation where the White House, on various fronts, is openly
        ignoring the constitution, acting as though not just the law but the
        constitution itself, which is the fundamental law from which all the
        statutes gain their force and legitimacy, doesn't apply to them.
        If that is allowed to continue, the defiance will congeal into
        precedent. And the whole structure of our system of government will be
        permanently changed."
        http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/015836.php
        \_ "Without going into all the specifics" is pretty damn stupid.
           Isn't this guy supposed to be a smart dem?
           \_ Did you just arrive from Mars or something? Have you been
              ignoring the news for the last 6 years?
              \_ I have been following the news extremely closely.
                 \_ And none of FISA, Gitmo, Geneva Convention, War Crimes
                    Act, Justice Department firing and ignoring subpeanoas
                    rings a bell? At all?
        \_ Bah, the constitution got thrown out decades ago when courts
           started making their own laws from whole cloth on a long list of
           topics.  We're already and have been for a long time nothing like
           the founder's vision for how government should work.
           \_ ...what exactly do you see as the purpose of the courts?
              \_ Courts apply the law.  In the case of SSC and USSC they are
                 also empowered to overturn laws that violate the State/US
                 constitutions.  They are not to make up laws the legislature
                 has not passed.  What do you think courts are for?
                 \_ Adjudicating grievances between parties; interpreting the
                    law as legislated by the Legislative branch and signed by
                    and/or executed by the Executive branch; determining the
                    constitutionality of those laws and the actions of the
                    other two branches. In the course of determining the
                    constitutionality of certain laws and in the interest of
                    not wasting taxpayer time and money with legislation that
                    is doomed to be deemed unconstitutional, I see no reason
                    why a court could not suggest an example of the sort of
                    legislation that would not be considered unconstitutional.
                    This suggestion is not, in and of itself, legislation.
                    \_ ob more hunting trips with mr. scalia and mr. cheney
                    \_ Ok so we basically agree.  Now then, are you opposed to
                       courts legislating from the bench, even in such cases
                       that you agree with the outcome?
                       \_ Please indicate where you see the courts legislating
                          from the bench?
                          \_ You're kidding, right?  The classic is Roe v Wade.
                             \_ Awesome wingnut logic.  Roe V Wade justifies
                                the current administration's destruction of
                                checks and balances.
                                \_ What?  I said no such thing.  You're also
                                   way over stepping assuming you know my
                                   opinion of if abortion should be il/legal
                                   or not simply because I think RvW was a
                                   bad ruling based on bad law.  I figured you
                                   would get personal if I tried to discuss it
                                   intelligently with the best known example.
                                   I was right.  Thanks for not disappointing.
                                   \_ I am not the guy you were talking to
                                      ealier, but I think that the problem of
                                      judges legislating from the bench pales
                                      in comparison to the problem of the
                                      Executive legislating all the time
                                      when it is not their job to do it.
                                      But they are both problems, imho.
                                      \_ Just because another branch may be
                                         abusing their authority, does not
                                         mean what the courts have been doing
                                         for decades hasn't made a complete
                                         mockery of our constitution.  The
                                         system is supposed to have checks and
                                         balances.  I see none anymore.  I see
                                         courts making laws.  I see the exec
                                         branch (and not just this one, kids)
                                         making laws.  "Stroke of the pen, law
                                         of the land, cool!"  Go look that
                                         quote up.  And congress is sitting on
                                         their collective thumbs apparently
                                         concerned about nothing important
                                         and certainly not doing their jobs.
                             \_ Am rereading Roe v. Wade right now, and while
                                I don't agree with a lot of it, I'm still not
                                seeing the legislating you're referring to.
                                Can you be more specific about this, please?
                                \_ It's conservative dogma that judges are
                                   legislating from the bench, and as such,
                                   cannot be examined or questioned.
                                   \_ Thanks for contributing nothing.  Come
                                      back when you'd like to have a discussion
                                      instead of a smear fest.  Thanks again.
                                \_ Ok, let's get right to it.  What is the
                                   basis underlying RvW?  Once we agree on
                                   that I'll go to the next step.