Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2008:April:11 Friday <Thursday, Saturday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2008/4/11 [Uncategorized] UID:49720 Activity:nil 75%like:49715
4/10    Please suck my libertarian balls.                       --Greenspan
2008/4/11-16 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Finance/Investment] UID:49721 Activity:nil
4/11    McCain campaign attacks George Soros for funding third party groups,
        even though Soros has funded McCain's own causes:
        \_ What's the betting pool like for odds on McCain self-destucting
           or having a stroke before the election?
        \_ "I was for George Soros before I was against him"
2008/4/11 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll/Aspolito] UID:49722 Activity:nil
4/11    Hey aspolito, you should read this before engaging in anal:
2008/4/11-12 [Health/Disease/General] UID:49723 Activity:nil 54%like:49740
4/11    Dear lord, I want to sodomize lolita, unless she has anal cancer   -aspolito
        \_ Don't we all?
           \_ uh, no.                                   -gay man
2008/4/11-16 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49724 Activity:moderate
4/11    So ummm.... Why the heck is John Yoo a prof at Boalt?
        \_ Because Berekley is a great academic institution with a wide
           diversity of viewpoints?
        \_ Why do you ask? (I keep hearing stuff about Yoo on the motd
           but I don't see why he's controversial.)
           \_ He is the main author of the "torture is okey-dokey" legal
        \_ Perhaps b/c he is an excellent lawyer, teacher and scholar?
           I am not saying that Prof. Yoo is any of those things b/c I
           do not know him. But he could be an exceptional lawyer and
           teacher even if his politics are completely incompatible w/
           yours. My favorite law school prof and I have quite different
           political views on many things but it does not change the fact
           that he is a superb lawyer and teacher.
           \_ If he such a superb lawyer, why did he produce such a
              wrongheaded legal opinion?
              \_ I do not know why Prof. Yoo wrote the torture memo.
                 My experience suggests that someone asked him to
                 write it.  That he reached a conclusion that you
              \_ I did not say that Prof. Yoo was a superb lawyer.
                 Also, I do not know why Prof. Yoo wrote the torture
                 memo. My experience suggests that someone asked him
                 to write it. That he reached a conclusion that you
                 (and perhaps he also) disagree with, does not mean
                 that he is not a good lawyer.  Clients sometimes
                 (often?) ask one to do support positions one thinks
                 are morally, though not legally, unsupportable.
                 (often?) ask one to find legal support for positions
                 one thinks are morally unsupportable.  Fortunately,
                 sometimes the law does not offer such support. In
                 other situations, the law does offer the support a
                 client seeks. And in those case, one has no choice
                 client seeks. And in those cases, one has no choice
                 but to disclose that fact to the client.
                 Anyway, my point was merely that Prof. Yoo may have
                 qualities that qualify him for the job he holds,
                 abilities that qualify him for the job he holds,
                 desipte his political views.
                 [Update: I think the following blog post is
                 particularly relevant:
        [legal ethics forum]]
                 \_ No, he is a counter-revolutionary and must be sent to the
                    gulags.  There can be no dissent!
                    \_ Do you think torture is something that America should
                       support? Do you think that it is against the law of
                       the land?
                       \_ I personally do not think torture is something
                          America should support. But I do not think that
                          it is against the law of the land in all cases.
                       \_ Anyone who defends a counter-revolutionary is also
                          counter-revolutionary!  We will root out these
                 \_ At a certain point, someone has to be responsible for
                    ass-covering.  "I was only following orders" and all that.
                    \_ Well, he has tenure, which should protect him from
                       being fired for holding unpopular opinions. But since
                       he apparently was primarily responsible for the US
                       violating the Geneva Convention, jail time is not
                       out of the question.
                       \_ I have not followed in detail the USSC's decisions
                          on the GC issue, but as far as I am aware, it is
                          not clear that the GC has been violated by BUSHCO's
                          actions or that a violation of the GC would imply
                          jail time for the principals b/c no applicable
                          privilege exists.
                          Re "following orders" - I agree that someone should
                          be held accountable, but why should it be Prof. Yoo
                          instead of those who commissioned his memo?
                             \_ It remains unclear that any law has been
                                broken wrt Prof. Yoo and/or those who
                                sought his advice and acted upon it.
                                Even if some crime has occured, it is
                                unclear that some form of executive priv.
                                would not apply.
                                \_ Do you believe the executive has the
                                   privilege to break the law with impunity?
                                   The Supreme Court disagrees with that.
                                   \_ As I said, I have not followed the
                                      USSC's decision wrt the GC. Based
                                      on my very brief reading of the
                                      decisions, it is unclear that any
                                      crime has been committed by Prof.
                                      Yoo or those who sought his advice.
                                      It is also unclear that even if a
                                      crime has been committed an exec.
                                      privilege will not apply. The USSC
                                      has not rule on this particular
                                      issue and likely never will
                                      ("John Marshall has issued his
                                        order now let him enforce it").
                                      \_ Google "United States v. Nixon."
                                         \_ It is not clear to me that
                                            Nixon applies to this
                                            situation. There may be
                                            many kinds of executive
                                            privilege and power.
                                            \_ I think US v. Nixon is very
                                               clear - executive priv. exists,
                                               but it is specifically NOT
                                               immune to judicial review,
                                               particularly in the case
                                               where a crime may have been
                                               committed.  I don't think there
                                               are "many kinds" of executive
                                               priv. - there is the kind
                                               recognized by the courts only.
                                               \_ It is not at all clear that
                                                  Nixon applies when the Pres.
                                                  acts in the arena of foreign
                                                  affairs or national defense,
                                                  which is the situation in
                                                  relevant to Prof. Yoo. The
                                                  Pres. inherent power may be
                                                  overriding in those realms.
                                                  [I was not using "privilege"
                                                  in the technical sense]
                                                  \_ I am doubtful of that
                                                     argument, and I believe
                                                     most legal scholars are
                                                     as well.  Note that
                                                     Congress is given the
                                                     power to ratify treaties.
                                                     \_ Congress is also given
                                                        the power to declare
                                                        war, maintain a navy,
                                                        &c. so clearly there is
                                                        shared power over the
                                                        conduct of foreign
                                                        affairs and national
                                                        security. But it is
                                                        still unclear whether
                                                        the Pres. power trumps.
                                                        BUSHCO clearly believes
                                                        it does. I am not sure
                                                        they are correct. But
                                                        the argument exists.
                                                        And I believe that we
                                                        will never have an
        \_ I wonder how many of the Yoo defenders were calling for that
           stupid "A million little Hitler's" prof's head on a platter.
           (Or some such nazi/9-11 reference)
        \_ They hired him fresh out of the administration in 2004. The torture
           memos weren't revealed until after that. If he were brought up on
           charges as a contributor to undermining and violating the Convention
           Against Torture and war crimes, could he lose his tenure then?
           I was very happy to see him on talk show right after he was hired.
           A prominent conservative from Berkeley! Now I'd like to see him in jail.
           \_ Absolutely, COMRADE!  Those who write or speak statements that
              WE the PEOPLES disagree with shall be imprisoned!  The FIRST
              AMENDMENT only protects POPULAR speach WE like!  Excuse me,
              COMRADE, I must now march on our ENEMIES, the TERRORISTS of
              EURASIA.  Up with the REVOLUTION, COMRADE!
              \_ Uh, is the criminal or incompetent practice of law a first amendment
                 issue? Surely there are standards about whether an argument is a good
                 faith effort or a load of legal bullshit, with no evidence or
                 justification in US jurisprudence. Writing legal opinions
                 to justify the use of torture makes you a party to violating our
                 own laws, and treaties against torture and war crimes to which the US
                 is a signatory.
                 That's why he's in the news. Because his classified memos are
                 finally coming out -- those upon which Gitmo and the Padilla
                 confinement are based -- and they are laughable, to the point of
                 \_ 404 Not Found
                 Bush: "We had legal opinions that enabled us to do it."
                 \_ Bush will pardon the whole lot of them.
2008/4/11-12 [Transportation/Airplane] UID:49725 Activity:moderate
4/11    Dear free market people, what do you think about the government's
        involvement in regulating the airline industry?
        \_ Some regulations are a good thing, like minimum safety standards.
           However, crashes are bad for business and I'm sure the free
           market could do the job just as well. There are airlines lots
           of people still won't fly based on incidents that happened
           decades ago.
           \_ and you think that's efficient?
2008/4/11-12 [Uncategorized] UID:49726 Activity:kinda low
4/11    "Spanish Parents Faking Divorce For School Spots"
        \_ Purebred Spanish, non-Mexican women are really hot. Nice
           hair, nice figures, homely face.
           \_ You know "homely" generally implies not hot, right?
              \- depends what country you are in. in indian homely =
                 like to cook and kinda domestic ... as opposed to
                 go out discos ad bars
                 \_ On the motd, we (mostly) speak American English.

                    \_ Daily perusal does not offer evidence in support of
                       this theory.
2008/4/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:49727 Activity:kinda low
4/11    So we now know that Ds not only want a minimum wage, but a maximum as
        well.  Would that apply to the Clintons?
        \_ Well obviously.  What are they doing making over $10 an hour?
        \_ What the hell are you blathering about?  You might want to increase
           the dosage on your medication.
           \_ google 'obama CEO pay'
              \_ I see that he says that shareholders should set CEO pay.
                 Don't you agree?
                 \_ I don't see what leglislators have to do with it, or what
                    requiring publicly traded companies to have shareholders
                    make a nonbinding resolution would accomplish.
                    \_ Legislators are allowed to have opinions, too. In fact,
                       they are often expected to have opinions about
                       controversial topics of the day, like CEO compensation.
                       Repeal the First Amendment if that disturbs you so much.
2008/4/11-16 [Finance/Banking, Computer/HW/Drives] UID:49728 Activity:nil
4/11    Countrywide 12 month CD is 4.25%. But some people tell me they're
        going out of business. Is it actually safe to deposit into
        Countrywide right now? Will FDIC pay me the full amount + interest
        should it ever goes out of business?
        \_ Are you really that concerned about 4.25%? I could see if it
           was 7% or something. How much more is that than the next best
           rate you can find? Anyway, the Countrywide web site says that
           is it is FDIC insured. FDIC will pay principal plus accrued
           interest up to a total of $100,000.
           \_ I'm putting down $20,000. Most rates are 3.00%, so by
              putting into Countrywide I'll gain an extra 1.25% interest
              rate or $250.00/year. That'll get me 2 good Chez Paniz
              meals. I'll take it.                              -op
              \_ Only if you eat by yourself and don't order wine, especially
                 after tax. How long will it take for you to recover your
                 money from Uncle Sam? Is $250 pretax really worth the risk?
              \_ Patelco CU ( ) is having a new member special
                 right now.  6.785% for 12 month CD.  Existing members also
                 have a special rate of 4% 12 month CD for new monies.
                 \_ It says maximum amount of money you can put for 7%
                    is $1000.00. UH DUH.
                    \_ Ah, didn't see that the maximum is also $1000.  Sorry
                       about that.
2008/4/11-16 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:49729 Activity:low
4/11    New UN Human Rights Appointee is a 9/11 truther
        \_ The new UN Human Rights council is worse than the old. They passed
           8 or more resolutions against Israel, and _nothing_ else. Nothing on
           Darfur, nothing on Zimbabwe, nothing on China.
           \_ Yes, because that's what happens when you create an .org like
              the UN that treats dictators, thugs, theocrats and other forms
              of human trash like real people and give them votes on anything.
              Want to do some good in the world?  Shoot all those guys.  If
              their replacements are just as bad, keep shooting.  They'll get
              the message after a few funerals.  Instead we treat them like
              royalty.  As if they were legitimate leaders.
              \_ I'd like to shoot some people that I think suck too.   Let's
                 start with you.  Then the rest of your family!
                 \_ If me and my family were mass murdering butchers then I'd
                    say go ahead.  Since we're not and the people I'm talking
                    about are, how about you try again?  Or better yet, don't
                    bother since your first response was so lame.
                    \_ The UN is all mass murdering butchers? Who, precisely,
                       has the UN murdered?
                       \_ You = reading failure.  We've already covered the
                          UN staff cashing in on the global sex slave trade,
                          but if you had actually read the this thread you'd
                          know it was specifically about the UN HRC.  Try
                          again.  The UN itself is responsible for deaths
                          by inaction, not specifically murder but you don't
                          really care about that either, you just want to
                          play rhetorical gotcha games (and lose).
                          \_ It is not my fault that you are incoherent. The
                             reason your words are so confusing is because your
                             thinking is so muddled. I will give you a second
                             chance to answer the question: who, specifically,
                             do you think is a mass murdering butcher?
                             I assume from some of your rant above that
                             do you think is responsible for mass murdering
                             people? I assume from some of your rant above that
                             you think that these people are on the UN HRC.
                             Who are you talking about? Can you even name one
                             of them?
2008/4/11-16 [Computer/SW/Graphics] UID:49730 Activity:nil
4/11    Anyone here edit home movies? I've started doing that lately
        and am now wondering what to do with all the raw footage (both
        the video tapes and the mpg version of all them). I have
        edited, shorter versions of them showing the key scenes, but
        the pack rat in me wants to keep all the raw footage. Thanks.
2008/4/11-16 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China] UID:49731 Activity:low
4/11    Zombie Time piece on the SF Olympic protests
        This is seriously a great piece.  Even if you usually hate Zombie
        check this one out.
        \_ That was actually reasonable, even though I usually don't like ZT.
        \_ Kind of funny - but isn't a guy who spends so much time photographing
           and obsessing over something he hates and loathes (protesters) kind
           of sad?
        \_ zombie time is not 'one guy'.  it's definitely several people.
           my theory is its former berkeley campus republicans.
           \_ Isn't someone who posts without RTFA kind of sad?
              \_ I did RTFA.  The guy is a mouthbreather and so are his
                 \_ Umm... then you didn't comprehend?  For one thing, this
                    post isn't really funny.  You appear to have missed the
                    entire point of the article.  Who's the mouthbreather?
                    \_ What do you mean? "Stamp out Lou Gehrig's Disease?"
                       "Another Alcoholic for a Free Tibet?"  Shit is funny.
                       The mouthbreathers are Zombie Time and his freeper
                       \_ Wow, it's like you're pround of shooting yourself
                          \_ Wow, it's like you didn't read the article that
                             you posted.
                             \_ Now shoot the other foot!
                                \_ So you don't think the article is in any
                                   way funny?  You think this shit is deadly
                                   serious?  Really?  You never laughed once?
                                   \_ zombietime cracked me up with his
                                      "wild eyed communist" remark, but usually
                                      he is too dogmatic to be really funny.-!pp
                                   \_ zombietime is usually too dogmatic
                                      to be funny, but this is really good
                                      stuff. -!pp
                                      \_ Yeah, it's comedy gold.  I don't know
                                         what "shoot yourself" guy's problem
                                        \_ Uh, did you laugh at *all* of it?
                                           Some of it was funny, some of it was
                                           dead serious.  If you can't see
                                           anything serious about it then
                                           sth is probably wrong with you.
                                           Also, the guy who said
                                           the author "hates and loathes
                                           (protestors)" is flat out wrong
                                           and either did not read the
                                           text or is mentally deficient.
                                           \_ From the text a little more than
                                              halfway down the page:
                                              "Because of this I ended up on
                                              the same side as people whom I
                                              normally loathe."
                                              \_ That referred to anti-
                                                 Israel protesters, not the
                                                 protestors in general.
                                                 \_ Ahhh, excessive parsing!
                                                    I'm amused that you
                                                    accused ME of lacking
                                                    reading comprehension,
                                                    and then willfilly
                                                    ignore a very clear
                                                    sentence in the article.
                                                    When the sentence is
                                                    pointed out to you,
                                                    you try to dodge by
                                                    incorrectly parsing
                                                    the meaning of the
                                                    sentence.  The "guy"
                                                    was used as an example.
                                                    Face it, "Zombie Time"
                                                    is a mouthbreather on
                                                    a site full of
                                                    mouthbreathers.  I'm no
                                                    fan of professional
                                                    protesters either, but
                                                    I'm certainly not going
                                                    to write Homeric photo
                                                    essays about them.
                                                   \_ Are you serious? Go
                                                      look at that paragraph
                                                      again. "for the most
                                                      part sympathized with
                                                      the causes of the
                                                      protesters". Christ.
                                                    Axe-grinders rarely have
                                                    anything really interesting
                                                    to say.
2008/4/11-16 [Computer/SW/Apps] UID:49732 Activity:nil
4/11    Hilarious photoshop disasters.
2008/4/11-16 [Recreation/Pets] UID:49733 Activity:nil
4/11    Women infected with t. gondii toxoplasma spent more money on clothes
        and were consistently rated as more attractive. We found they
        were more easy-going, more warm-hearted, had more friends and
        cared more about how they looked, he said. However, they were
        also less trustworthy and had more relationships with men.
2008/4/11-16 [Uncategorized] UID:49734 Activity:nil
4/11    Video of Paul Volcker's speech:
        \_ He has some good points but he's one of the worst public
           speakers I've seen. I think I'll save the links for times when
           I need to fall asleep quickly.
2008/4/11-16 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49735 Activity:moderate
4/11    Did Obama just shoot himself in the foot? I am an Obama supporter,
        but this statement seems like a political mistake to me. (newsday)
        \_ Oh bullshit.  You are not an Obama supporter and everyone knows it.
           \_ No, I really am an Obama supporter. I even voted for him in
              the primaries.
        \_ The guy is going to make a lot of political mistakes. He is
           incredibly green.
        \_ Holy cow, I guess he just insulted 1/2 of America. I guess
           this is why McCain is going to win.
           \_ I could be wrong, but I don't think 1/2 of America lives in
              rural areas.
        \_ FWIW, Obama's response to the all of the "umbrage"
           \_ He is pretty slick.
              \_ I think what you wanted to say was that he's a SASSY NIGGER,
                 didn't you?
                 \_ Yawn.  How many times are we going to have to see this lame
                    troll this election?  FAIL.
        \_ Sigh.  Modern politics just reminds me of the trial scene in
        \_ I knew enough about McC and HRC to not like either so I was
           looking at Obama back in January/February.  But now that I know
           more about him I think he's the worst of the three for the country
           and I *really* don't like the other two.  This statement shows
           what he really thinks and it is ugly.
           \_ What about his statement do you disagree with so strongly?
              Try the response video on youtube linked above, too.
              \_ It was definitely a political error. Calling a broad swath of
                 people "bitter" and saying they "cling to guns or religion...
                 anti-immigrant or anti-trade" makes it sound like those aren't
                 valid opinions to have; that they are desperate fools. His
                 subsequent response framed it differently: saying that they
                 focus on those things because "they can't count on Washington"
                 for economic or other problems. It's a clever response but
                 it has a different twist than the original statement.
                 Clearly he didn't intend for his remarks to a liberal SF
                 audience to be seen by the "bitter" people themselves.
                 Barack admits mistake:
                 \_ I actually agree with his remark and I was raised in a
                    small town, but I think it was dumb of him to voice it. -op
                 \_ He regrets the remark, but he didn't apologize for it.
           \_ Worse than HRC?  Really?  i don't know if I'd go that far.
              I would say Hillary has the same elitest views, coupled with
              distain for democracy and voters that I find appalling.  See
              her attempts to get the Michigan delegates seated and her
              continuing Bosnia delusions.  What makes you think Obama is
              worse? -Obama is a racist guy
              \_ Yes worse than HRC and I *really* loathe her.  Here's how I
                 see it:
                 HRC: same dysfunctional war room self-induced crisis/fuckup
                 of the week for 4-8 years but that's 99% their internal
                 problems and doesn't truly hurt the country in a real way over
                 the long haul.
                 BHO: true believer in socialism, hates our allies, loves our
                 enemies, no clue at all about half the country's needs/desires
                 and most similar in my mind to Jimmy Carter, worst president
                 Given how the election is going, it looks like BHO gets the
                 party nod and goes up again McC and gets crushed because quite
                 frankly BHO is even more distant from real people than McC
                 and has another 6+ months to say more stupid things.
                 McC: not (R), nor (D), nor (I), he represents the (Selfish)
                 party.  Self aggrandising, nearly as criminal as BHO and HRC
                 in his financial dealings, no guiding philosophy other than
                 getting his name in the paper, the Presidency would just be
                 a huge ego trip.
                 I don't know who I'm voting for in November but it won't be
                 any of these losers.  IMO, no matter who you vote for (of
                 these three), you're voting based on lesser-evil, as none of
                 them has a single good idea in their head.  If anything
                 positive comes from the next President (no matter who) it will
                 be a case of the broken clock being right twice a day.  I
                 guess by my own words, HRC is the least worst and wow does it
                 make me ill to say that.
                 \_ So who is your ideal candidate?
                    \_ My ideal candidate wassn't in the race.  It sure as hell
                       isn't Pat Buchanan.  This whole election cycle is a
                       \_ When wasn't it a wash? Did you think that Dubya would
                          make a good president? How about Kerry? Gore? Clinton?
                    \_ Patrick Buchanan
                       \_ Le sigh.
        \_ So is he an ANGRY SCARY NEGRO or is he an OUT OF TOUCH IVORY TOWER
           LATTE SIPPING ELITIST?  Which is it, please?
           \_ Both.
              \_ Wow, I guess angry and partisan doesn't have to make sense,
                 huh?  Just go with your feelings, Luke.
                 \_ Huh? Which of those things you listed are mutual
                    exclusive? You don't think someone can be and angry scary
                    elitist?  That's how I'd define a lot of people I met in
                    elitist?  That's how I'd describe quite a few people I met in
                    Berkeley. -!pp
                    exclusive? You don't think someone can be an angry scary
                    elitist?  That's how I'd describe quite a few people I met
                    in Berkeley. -!pp
2019/05/19 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2008:April:11 Friday <Thursday, Saturday>