Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2007:November:29 Thursday <Wednesday, Friday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2007/11/29-12/4 [Recreation/Dating] UID:48709 Activity:nil
11/29   BSD:Razor was pretty dumb
        \_ Do you mean BSG?
           \_ If they mean BSG, I liked it.  I saw it in the advance theater
              screening.  Great date movie if you like smart women,
              screening.  Great date movie if you date cylons
              particularly women with physics PhD's. -dans
              \_ If you're going to edit my posts, please don't introduce
                 punctuation errors. -dans
           \_ I was expecting to hate it because it wasn't a continuation of
              the series, but I liked it.
              \_ It's really dark.  I like that. -dans
2007/11/29-12/4 [Uncategorized] UID:48710 Activity:nil
11/29   what happened to A-Rod?  What's the latest?
2007/11/29-12/6 [Recreation/Travel/LasVegas, Finance/Shopping, Finance/Banking] UID:48711 Activity:nil
11/29   I just found out that I am American Indian.  The White Man took
        away my ancestors' ancestral lands, stuck them in camps, you know,
        the usual.  I am perfectly functional member of society.  What
        are some cool ways I can take advantage of my status?  Can I
        get cheap loans?  Grants?  ok tnx.
        \_ What percentage and what tribe?  I understand that With some tribes
           you can get grants, or casino funds.  I think for most tribes you
           don't get jack.  But, IANAI.
        \_ Become an alcoholic.
        \_ Can you prove it? There are lots of Native Americans who cannot
           prove that they are because of poor documentation. If you can't
           prove it then forget it.
        \_ Live on the Res.
        \_ Tell us what tribe and I might be able to tell you your chances of
           getting anything from this, but: you need to be enrolled, the tribe
           doesn't have to enroll you even if you qualify on paper, most tribes
           with money require that you live on the res and despite what some
           motd posters think, the typical tribe member is not sitting in that
           casino hotel jacuzzi snorting coke with $100 bills.
           \_ Are you crazy? Try $20 bills.
2007/11/29-12/6 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48712 Activity:high
11/29   Michelle Malkin has collected youtube profiles/images of questioners
        from last night's debate.  Several of the questioners are openly
        supporting Democrat candidates.  Don't bother telling me how much you
        hate Malkin.  Look at the evidence presented about how CNN is
        incompetent. (
        \_ I'm confused by the outrage.  Same thing happened with the July
           debate with the Democrats.
        \_ And yet the questions still managed to address significant GOP
           issues. How'd that happen?!? Oh, wait, it's because when you're
           not MM or AC, thinking outside your talking points isn't that
           \_ Not issues for people voting in the R primary.
              \_ I'm voting in the R primary, and they were issues I was
                 interested in.
                 \_ Oh really?  Which issues?
                    The Confederate Flag?
                    Whether they believe in every word in the Bible?
                    What would Jesus do about the death penalty?
                    \_ Gun control, abortion, and taxes. Way to cherrypick.
                       \_ I frankly don't believe you.  When you say you're
                          voting in the R primary, is that because you're a
                          registered R?  Or because you're a D in an open
                          primary state?
                          \_ I'm registered R, and I frankly don't care if
                             you believe me. Also, are gun control, abortion,
                             and taxes not important to people voting in the
                             R primary? They were covered in the questions.
                             \_ Gun control and taxes matter, but abortion
                                doesn't because a president can't affect it.
                                \_ Errr..  sort of.  The Religious Right is
                                   very interested in what the president thinks
                                   of abortion because the prez appoints
                                   to the Supreme Court.  And the SC could
                                   overturn Roe vs Wade.
                                   \_ The RR is a minority part of the R party.
                                      So sure it concerns that segment, but it
                                      does not concern most R at all.
                                      \_ Sure, I'm R and I don't care.  But the
                                         RR exterts disproportinal control over
                                         the primary system.
                                         Addendum: For example, Huckabee is
                                         doing so well in Iowa because RRs
                                         don't trust Romney.  He who wins
        \_ You and MM are right, Democrats should not be allowed to participate
           in the political process anymore. No Free Speech For Democrats!
           \_ Excellent straw man sir!
              \_ Isn't that what you are complaining about? I don't get it,
                 do you really think that Democrats should not be allowed
                 to ask Republicans questions during debates?
                 \_ The people in question aren't simply Dems, they're openly
                    supporting different candidates.  They're not interested in
                    the answer, they're just bomb-throwing.
                    \_ I am pretty sure you don't lose your free speech rights
                       simply because you declare allegiance to a particular
                       candidate. Did these people lie and claim they were
                       undecided, so that they could get permission to ask
                       questions by CNN? Otherwise, I can't imagine what your
                       beef would be. Can I go to a Romney rally and ask him
                       a question, even though I am an Edwards supporter? Why
                       the heck not? I might even change my mind!
                       \_ Wow, are you really this clueless?  I didn't say you
                          lose any "free speech rights".  However, there is a
                          difference between honest questions and
                          \_ Yes, only questions pre-screened and OK'd by the
                             candidates should be allowed near any Republican.
                             \_ Or Hillary
                           \_ I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
                              What you call "bomb-throwing" I call healthy
                              debate and integral to the democratic process.
                              It is pretty funny for a MM reader to complain
                              about bomb-throwing.
                              \_ And it's pretty funny when someone uses "free
                                 speech rights" in this context.  Wow.
        \_ How do you even register to post in that blog?
        \_ The problem was that CNN was deceitful.  If they had put "General
           Bob Smith, (D) Activist" next to the name of the guy they flew in
           and put in the front row, then it would be lame but not piss anyone
           off.  These were supposed to be "undecided (R) voters" which
           several clearly were not.  And this is the same motd crowd that was
           so concerned that Foxnews was going to abuse their position if they
           ran a debate, yet you find this a-ok.  Sheesh.
           \_ Again, same thing happened in the Dem debate.  No one cared
              until CNN released a statement saying there would be no "gotcha
              questions" in the R debate.  The other MM (media matters) noted
              this and pointed out the multiple gotchas they let into the D
              debate.  Now, if Malkin had been complaining about gotchas after
              they said they wouldn't have them, she might have a point.  With
              this post she's just a crybaby.
              \_ I don't read/watch Malkin so I have no idea what she said
                 and don't really care.  In the Dem debate we had Hillary
                 plants there for her.  In the Rep debate we had Hillary,
                 Edards, Obama, and CNN plants.  Neither situation is
                 acceptable to me.  This just further enforces my belief
                 that the US 'main stream media' is biased to such a degree
                 that they should be dismissed entirely as the yellow rag
                 'journalists' they are.  I would like to note that we didn't
                 see Rep plants in either debate but that's another matter.
                 \_ In the Dem CNN/YT debate, there were questions that were
                    most likely from R supporters.  But no one went and tried
                    to pin them down as R supporters, because attacking the
                    questioner rather than answer a valid question is in the
                    R playbook.  Not so much with the D's.  You're showing
                    your bias in trying to determine cnn's.
                    R playbook.  Not so much with the Ds.  Being of the other
                    party does not negate one's right to ask a question in an
                    open debate.  Instead of running from them, or whining
                    about them, why not try and give cogent answers and, y'know
                    try and persuade people...
                    \_ Which questions?  And who do you think did the tracking?
                       Random people on the net who post on (R) blogs.  Nothing
                       is stopping you from tracking down the qusetioners to
                       see if your allegations are even true.  If they are,
                       then let us know, until then you're blowing smoke and
                       tossing out red herrings.  No one said you don't have a
                       right to ask a question.  That's a strawman.  It has
                       been stated quite clearly the issue is they were
                       falsely presented as "undecided (R) voters" or in the
                       case of Hillary plants at the D debate, as "undecided
                       (D) voters" when in fact they were political operatives.
                       And in the case of the (R), they did answer, even though
                       several of the questions were stupid.  That was a good
                       effort at distracting from the real point about dirty
                       politics on the part of CNN and Hillary but no dice.
                       \_ When/where did CNN say the questions came from
                          "undecided (R) voters"?  This is important.  If they
                          did say this, then you have a point.  I don't think
                          they did, though.  And as you've based your entire
                          argument and outrage on this point, I suggest you
                          look carefully.
                          \_ Both debates were choosing people in that context.
                             This is how questioners have been chosen in
                             debates in recent years.  This is nothing new.
                             So, if I'm right and they said these were supposed
                             to be undecided voters in each debate, then what?
                             Do you finally agree the debates were fucked?
                             And frankly, even if that weren't flat out stated,
                             they should still have properly identified the
                             people, but that's a hypothetical.  I don't want
                             to go off on some tangent about that at this
                             \_ You repeat your assertion with no supporting
                                evidence.  Show me where CNN said "This is how
                                we're choosing the questioners".  IMO, these
                                questions were decidedly less offensive than
                                those of Russert or Blitzer (raise your hand?
                                seriously?).  I would love to go back to LWV
                                moderation with decent questions and actual
                                discussion, but these complaints are overblown
                                and really crybabyish.
                             \_ No, this is not generally how questioners are
                                chosen in debates, not in the ones I have
                                watched over the years. You are just blowing
                                smoke at this point and I think you know it.
                                \_ Wow, way to make shit up to cover for lame
                                   debate moderators and slimey tactics from
                                   the (D).  Even the LATimes published a
                                   piece on how shitty CNN did.  When the LAT
                                   not only doesn't support your left wing
                                   agenda but out right bashes you, you have
                                   a problem.  You=CNN in this case.  I notice
                                   you completed ignored my question and just
                                   magically decided with no knowledge that I
                                   and everyone else who has been saying these
                                   were supposed to be normal citizens and not
                                   activists is wrong.  I think I've been
                                   trolled.  You have yet to answer a single
                                   question I've posed in this thread and
                                   instead just keep throwing bombs.
                                   \_ You are talking to more than one person,
                                      btw. Yes, if a questioner signed some
                                      waiver or made a verbal agreement with CNN
                                      that they were an undecided (R) voter,
                                      then it would be immoral to violate that
                                      agreement. Happy? Now, show me your
                                      evidence that this was the case, or
                                      just admit that this is you and MM's
                                      made up rule, not something that
                                      other people agree to, or even would
                                      agree to, unless they were partisan
                                    \_ From your source: "Beside considerations\
                                       like these, CNN's incompetent failure
                                       to weed out Democratically connected
                                    \_ From your source: "Beside considerations
                                       like these, CNN's incompetent failure to
                                       weed out Democratically connected
                                       questioners pales." Even the LA Times
                                       agrees that it is no big deal.
                                   \_  "We were looking for people who were
                                        interested enough in the process to ask\
                                        a question," Sam Feist, CNN's political\
                                        director, said Thursday. "We didn't
                                        inquire about people's ideological\
                                        beliefs, and that wasn't relevant. . . .\
                                        We were looking for questions that
                                        would make for an interesting debate."
                                       interested enough in the process to ask
                                       a question," Sam Feist, CNN's political
                                       director, said Thursday. "We didn't
                                       inquire about people's ideological
                                       beliefs, and that wasn't relevant. . . .
                                       We were looking for questions that would
                                       make for an interesting debate."
           \_ I'm now trying to imagine Fox News running the Dem debate:
              "First question: When did you first start hating America?"
              \_ You'll have to keep imagining since Fox was never given a
                 chance.  Do you think CNN should be allowed to hold further
                 debates after this last performance?  How about the previous
                 one where more Clinton activists were planted in the audience
                 and there was zero followup to her answers from Blitzer?  Was
                 that a well run debate?
2007/11/29-12/6 [Transportation/Car] UID:48713 Activity:low
        The next generation skates on land.
        Skates (50s) -> Rollerblade (80s) -> Landroller (21st century)
        \_ see also
        \_ Looks pretty rough on the ankles.  BTW, in-line skates existed
           before quad skates--they were modeled after ice skates.
           \_ how is this rougher on the ankles than say, rollerblades?
              \_ With the support point off to the side, I'd expect a torque,
                 but maybe the support boot puts that on the leg instead of the
                 \_ The point where the wheels make contact with the ground is
                    below the center of the feet, not to the sides.  So this
                    should be no different from rollerblades as far as torque
                    is concerned.
                    \_ Uh no.  The point that they connect to the foot is on
                       the side, so regardless of where they go after that,
                       it's the side of the foot that's holding you up.
                       \_ Wait, now that I look more closely, it looks like the
                          the support point is in the middle.  My bad.
                          \_ So, does this fact support of dispute the
                             idea that it is better/worse for your ankle
                                -not a skater, no idea what all this means
                             \_ I retract my concerns about ankles.
           \_ I thought so too, but the testimonials page says otherwise:
              "the out-of-line design seems to take the strain offf my ankles
               [no wobbles]..."
           \_ Look at that hot chick in white bikini and white helmet!!
           \_ Look at that hot busty chick in white bikini and white helmet!!
              Er ...... ankle?  What?  What did you say?
2007/11/29-12/6 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:48714 Activity:low
11/29   Global Warming causes everything.  Well, at least 600 things:
        \_ get it strait, its Global Climate Change.
           \_ get it straight, it's straight.
        \_ Global Warming causes liberals to fume and making everyone
           upset and pissed off about everything. Fuck Global Warming.
        \_ If only all those Kyoto signing countries had come even close to
           their goals the world might have pushed GCC back by a few weeks.
2007/11/29-30 [Health] UID:48715 Activity:moderate
11/29   motd gaping bleeding asshole guy here.  the blood didnt come out.
        \_ replace the stained clothes with new ones.  Are they really
           worth this much consternation, or are you just trolling the motd?
        \_ The best way to remove your old blood from clothes is to bleed
           on them again, copiously, and then properly remove the new blood.
2007/11/29-12/6 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:48716 Activity:nil
11/29   Scientists Working to Advance Wilhelm Reich's Sexual Energy-Cosmic
        Life Force Work,2933,308462,00.html
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2007:November:29 Thursday <Wednesday, Friday>