Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2008:May:28 Wednesday <Tuesday, Thursday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2008/5/28-31 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:50064 Activity:nil
        John Bolton to be target of citizen's arrest at Hay Festival.
2008/5/28-6/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50065 Activity:nil
        The amusing bit is at the end, where McCain voted against this, and
        Obama voted for.  Extra amusing is how someone deleted this without
        comment.  (Bush vetoed this bill also). -- ilyas
        \_ Change!
2008/5/28-31 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China] UID:50066 Activity:nil
5/28    How come China doesn't ask the US to provide some CH-47 Chinooks to do
        the heavy lifting of personels, aids and machinery up to those disaster
        areas where roads are blocked?  It'd be much better than PLA troops
        carrying tools and supplies to the areas by hiking tens of kilometers.
        \_ Haven't the Chinese stolen plans for the Chinooks by now
           and built their own?
        \_ 1 million Chinese soldiers carrying supplies over the
           mountains >> a few US Chinooks.  remember the Korean war?
           \_ It's hard for 1 million Chinese soldiers to move earth-moving
              machinary that can weight a dozen tons each through mountains.
              (Unless they disassemble and re-assemble it, in which case it's
           \_ China actually has helicopters of their own now.
2008/5/28-30 [Reference/Military] UID:50067 Activity:moderate
5/27    How is Heckler & Koch P2000 compared to say, Beretta PX4 Storm?
        How about the ultra configurable Sig Sauer P250?
        \_ The only time I really wished I had a gun was when we were
           hiking in the middle of nowhere and there were a bunch of
           gangster looking people who kept looking at us and pointing
           as if they wanted to rape the girls and kill the guys or
           something. They could have easily done so if they wanted to.
           Other than that, there's never been a time where
           I wished I had a gun.
        \_ The P250 is a sub compact frame, the PX4 storm is compact. I've
           found I just don't like the grips of the subcompacts, and am going
           to stick with the PX4. -emarkp
           \_ Also P250 is double action (DA) only. I hate DA-only mode.
              Imagine needing accuracy for the second shot. Always get
              DA->SA with de-cocker option.
      Good site
              \_ Agreed, DA/SA is better at least for me.  It's one reason I've
                 rejected a revolver for concealed carry. -emarkp
                 \_ Huh?  Many modern revolvers are DA/SA. -- ilyas
                 \_ Also a revolver is hard to reload and the chamber is
                    so friggin bulky. We're not in the wild wild west anymore
                 \_ I'm a gun newbie and I'm wondering if DA/SA is better
                    for me? I'd like to be able to "cock" the first shot
                    with a single trigger pull, then pull lighter with
                    subsequent pulls. Is that what you call a "DA/SA"
                    gun? What are some autoloading guns that are DA/SA?
                    \_ Yes.  DA = Double Action = hammer not cocked
                             SA = Single Action = hammer is cocked
                       On an automatic handgun, the slide kicks back and ejects
                       a round, then cocks the hammer and loads the new round.
                       Most automatics are DA/SA.  Some are SA only which
                       require manually cocking the hammer before the first
                       round can be fired.
                       \_ HK P2000 has many modes, are they switcheable
                          between the modes? Like DA only, LEM, DA/SA...
                          \_ I honestly don't know.
                             \_ Are your guns switcheable?
                                \_ no, but my penis is
                                \_ ??
        \_ I've always wanted to hide spare guns and clips in houseplants,
        \_ I've always wanted to hide spare guns and magazines in houseplants,
           like Chow Yun Fat.
           \_ Magazines. Not clips.
2008/5/28-31 [Recreation/Computer/Games] UID:50068 Activity:nil
5/28    I got an Xbox 360 a while back, and I didn't have a system last
        generation, so I've been buying old Xbox games from the bargain bin.
        Does anyone have any recommendations?  At $4 a pop, it doesn't have to
        be amazing.
        \_ At $4 per 1/2 box, you can shoot a bunch of 9mm's from
           a nice Beretta and have more fun than being a geek.
2008/5/28-31 [Computer/SW/Languages/Perl, Computer/SW/Languages/Misc] UID:50069 Activity:nil
5/28    dreamhost tells customers to quit complaining about email and just
        use gmail
        \_ search for dreamhost on motd. sucky suck.
2008/5/28-31 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50070 Activity:high
5/28    Former White House press sect comes out with book bashing
        his old boss.  I feel like we're trapped in an alternate
        universe where I read the newspaper and think immediately
        I read the newspaper and that The Onion should give up, since
        their writers will never be able to keep up with the tragic
        humor masters of the Bush administration.
        \_ Uhm... "fired staffer pens bash book" is not exactly news for
        \_ Uhm... "fired Bush staffer pens bash book" is not exactly news for
           any administration.  Is this your first election cycle in this
           \_ Yeah, let's talk about something more important, like WHY
              \_ Nice strawman.
                 Bush bashing is such old hat now isn't it? I mean, how
                 \_ doesn't get old.  consequences of trying to pave Iraq
                    with no viable plan will be with us for decades.
                    old money bluebloods in CT still whine about the
                    New Deal, and that was a long time ago.  Iraq isn't
                    even last week.  Iraq is The Now(tm).
                    \_ Well, Al Qaeda has a part to play in this doesn't it?
                       If it didn't do 9/11 and fight us in Afghanistan and
                       Iraq then a lot fewer innocents would have died.
                       If Saddam wasn't a brutal strongman then we'd have no
                       excuse to go in there. Who is responsible for the
                       terrorism in Iraq? It's not the USA that is blowing up
                       street markets.  Iraq is pretty effed up but it was
                       already effed up.
                       \_ AQ wasn't in Iraq pre-US Invasion. AQ and SH were
                          not BFF. We should have stopped with Afghanistan.
                          We should have brought other pressures against
                          SH. There were no WMD. There was no link to AQ.
                          Stop perpetuating lies told by chickenhawks to
                          sell a war to demonstrate that the Powell
                          Doctrine was bunk.
                          \_ I know there was no link to AQ, but there is now
                             right? So what about that? Should we ignore AQ?
                             AQ is there now and causing deaths.
                             \_ AQI is nowhere near as powerful or popular
                                as the AQ was when the Taliban ruled Afg.
                                We should leave the internal affair of
                                cleaning up AQI to the Iraqis.
                 much more dead can that horse get? Me, I consider myself
                 an independent voter because the reality is that both major
                 parties are full of posturing blowhards. If you really care
                 about change then you should push for instant runoff voting
                 and support real change from status quo American politics.
                 Not Obama populist speechmaking change, actual structural
                 change. Americans are too complacent. We often complain about
                 the choices but then go ahead and vote for one of them anyway
                 instead of making a concerted effort to bring someone else in.
                 I actually think a random selection of people would be better
                 Congresspersons than district-based elected reps from
                 political parties. Proportional representation would be
                 pretty good but political parties in general are somewhat
                 broken. You could have a bunch of people randomly selected
                 from an opt-in pool and then have voters approve some number
                 of those. The usual road to political campaign promotes
                 corruption and actor-style figurehead polticians.
                 change. Americans are too complacent.
                 \_ You really think a Democratic President is going to
                    be exactly like a Republican one? You expect more
                    unprovoked wars and massive transfers of wealth from
                    future taxpayers to well-connected defence contractors?
                    I don't. If you support real change, you should join
                    Common Cause and push for campaign finance reform. I did.
                    \_ You really think a new Republican President is going to
                       be exactly like Bush?
                       Bush couldn't do what he has done without the support
                       of Democrats in Congress. Do you really think Democrats
                       \_ I believe Bush and his advisors were able to
                          brilliantly out maneuver and bully Congress into
                          funding their Iraq plan.  Also in another thread
                          we can all rant about Bush not following laws,
                          interpreting laws only in the way his lawyers
                          say they should be interpretted, just simply not
                          following laws he didnt like because hey its
                          war time, and then we can get into torture and
                          how Bush has thrown away decades of world good
                          will by showing how the US just doesn't care about
                          the Geneva conventions.
                          \_ Laugh. How did they bully Congress? If Bush is
                             not following laws, why don't they impeach him?
                             \_ I DO NOT KNOW!
                                \_ They didn't have the votes.
                             What laws? What world good will exactly? The
                             \_ look up 'signing statements'
                                \_ what material effect has this had?
                             good will was already pretty suspect in most
                             Arab countries; we have been strongly supporting
                             Israel for a long ass time and fucking around
                             protecting or deposing various third world
                             regimes. The Guantanamo dudes were mainly from the
                             Afghanistan thing which everybody seems to think
                             was a fine and jolly war.
                             \_ American popularity has plummeted worldwide,
                                not just in the Middle East.
                                \_ Well, it doesn't seem to matter anywhere but
                                   in the middle east. I don't think this is
                                   a long term thing. Muslims aren't very happy
                                   about Europe either, and China already had
                                   tension for obvious reasons. I don't see any
                                   real long term difference.
                             \_ The majority of the Guantanamites were sold to
                                us by our allies in Pakistan. The Bush Admin
                                encouraged a sloppy attitude toward accepting
                                these guys without research or due process.
                                This same Admin then took a laissez-faire
                                approach to torturing those same people,
                                most of whom have now been released as not
                                having been terrorists to begin with.
                       are corruption-free? Do you think liberals are good
                       and conservatives are evil?
                       Democratic presidents took the USA into WW1, WW2, Korea
                       Vietnam, and Kosovo.
                       \_ WW1 = won
                          WW2 = won
                          Korea = stalemate
                          Vietnam = lost
                          Kosovo = won
                          I think the batting average of a Dem >>> Rep
                          \_ That's nice, pinhead.
                          \_ somalia = lost
                             grenada = won
                             nicaragua = won
                             \_ Somalia: poor planning, no war.
                                Grenada: The entire USMC vs. a minor band of
                                guerillas; if we'd "lost," there would have
                                been hell to pay.
                          \_ Panama '89 = won
                       Democrats are just as cosy with corporate America as
                       Campaign finance reform is mostly meaningless.
                       \_ Bush definitely could not have done what he did
                          without the support of the GOP. If the Dems are
                          collaborators, then GOP are Nazis. I'll take the
                          former over the latter any day.
                          \_ Really. Why? Bush couldn't do what he did without
                             the complacence of the American people. Anyway
                             Iraq isn't fundamentally very different from those
                             \_ So, since we didn't storm the White House or
                                impeach them, we're to blame for his bad
                                behavior? This is like someone killing people
                                then blaming the police for not catching him.
                                \_ Well, yes, because we elected him twice.
                                   I blame the American people and Congress.
                                   What do you want from me? We have only
                                   two stinking parties and they are both
                                   bad in various ways. Last time I voted
                                   for Kerry, but I didn't even like Kerry.
                                   This time I will vote for McCain. What
                                   exactly do you want to impeach Bush on?
                                   \_ Lying. Suppressing intel that didn't
                                      favor his plans. Destroying e-mail.
                                      Outing a CIA operative. What do I
                                      want from you? A realization that no
                                      matter who gets elected, they are
                                      not going to be as fundamentally
                                      bad as the President and Veep; a
                                      statement to the effect that no
                                      matter what anyone else didn't do
                                      stop them, they were responsible
                                      for the evil that they did. I
                                      want you to hold the Bush Admin
                                      responsible for its actions, and I
                                      want you to do so without qualifying
                                      it with excuses or references to the
                                      Dems' behavior.
                                     \_ No, I can't hold ONLY Bush
                                        and Veep responsible because they
                                        did not have the power to do their
                                        thing alone. Congress was complicit,
                                        CIA members were complicit, Britain
                                        went to war and we did not force
                                        it to do that. There was evidence
                                        that SH wanted WMD even if he did
                                        not have them, and there was an
                                        insufficient trail for the WMD
                                        that he was supposed to have had.
                                        It's not useful to fixate only on
                                        Bush and ignore the big picture.
                                        How much was evil and how much was
                                        incompetence I do not know. SH did
                                        sponsor Palestinian terrorism to
                                        some extent.
                                        \_ I want a drug pony, indict me.
                                           The POTUS was in a position to
                                           know that the intel he was
                                           receiving was shaky at best.
                                           He still passed it on like it
                                           was a "slam dunk." I buy that
                                           Congress didn't stop POTUS,
                                           and that some in the CIA wanted
                                           to please the prez. The least
                                           you can do is admit that the
                                           Prez. set the tone and ignored
                                           anything that contradicted.
                                           This inability to accept *any*
                                           blame w/o blaming someone else
                                           at the same time is the key
                                           character flaw of this Admin
                                           and its apologists.
                                         \_ Yes, obviously POTUS wanted war,
                                            and dismissed indications
                                            that were contrary to his aim,
                                            and pumped the dubious stuff and
                                            misportrayed the state of intel.
                                            This was wrong etc. But then it's
                                            not like there was hard evidence
                                            against the WMD thing. We do know
                                            SH had a WMD program of sorts and
                                            it's possible we'd have ended up
                                            in Iraq by now anyway for one
                                            reason or another.
                                            But yes, I do blame the prez for
                                            the war. But I don't transfer this
                                            blame to the entire Republican
                                            Party; or at least not really more
                                            than the D Party. Americans elected
                                            W after the WMD fiasco was known.
                                            At that point I am less concerned
                                            about Mr. Bush personally.
                             other wars in principle. Saddam was a bad guy
                             and we're fighting for freedom. What's the
                             \_ the reasons we invaded Iraq change every
                                day.  i don't think this is like past wars,
                                at all.
                                \_ It's exactly like past wars. The US was
                                   not threatened in any war except WW2, and
                                   that case was after the US already made
                                   offensive moves against Japan.
                                   The difference is that Bush was more
                                   clumsy and hamhanded about it with the
                                   lame justifications. He wasn't able to
                                   make adequate speeches to inspire the
                                   rabble (but it was still enough).
                                   \_ We got involved in the Korean and
                                      Vietnam war to show our muscle and
                                      annoy the local power in that part of
                                      the world, China.  So we invaded Iraq
                                      to annoy Iran?  Piss off Syria?  Huh
                                      I guess you're right the Iraq war
                                      is like every other war!
                                   \_ So your argument is that just because
                                      others talked us into illegal actions
                                      we should let this bungler off the hook
                                      just because he was so bad at it?
                                      What the hell kind of behavior are we
                                      rewarding here?
                                      \_ No that's not my argument. (?)
                             difference? We killed lots and lots of civilians
                             in those other wars too. What's your big problem?
                             Did defense contractors not profit in the past?
                             Let's say we didn't go into Iraq. We'd still be
                             in Afghanistan, right? We'd still maintain the
                             overwhelming power of the US military. We'd still
                             have dot com bubbles and housing bubbles. The D's
                             aren't putting forth anything really different.
                             Guys like Nader and Ron Paul do put forth stuff
                             that is different. In 2000 Gore and Bush sounded
                             very alike and spent the debates mostly agreeing
                             with each other.
                             \_ Clinton significanly cut the military budget
                                and used that money to balance the fed budget.
                                This is not a small thing. A more liberal
                                Democrat might actually get something
                                significant done, like national health care.
                                WWII was different in that we actually
                                attacked the people who bombed us. I will
                                grant you Vietnam.
                                \_ Of course the Republican strategy to
                                   Vietnam would have been so much less
                                \_ Re: national health care
                                   Be careful what you wish for.
                       \_ No, Democrats aren't just as cozy with corporate
                          America as the Republicans, or they wouldn't support
                          things like Unions. Corporate America hates unions.
                          But they are cozy with certain sorts of corporations,
                          ones that do things like educate, build mass transit,
                          entertain and litigate (okay, not so great perhaps).
                          I prefer all of these to bombing civilians for
                          I am kind of nutty that way.
                          \_ You are pretty nutty to believe that Republicans
                             literally bomb civilians for profit, and that
                             they don't educate or do anything other than
                             rape babies. Seriously, take a breath and think
                             about it. Corporations give huge amounts of
                             money to Dem campaigns. Dems have huge investment
                             stakes and other ties large corporations. HRC
                             served on the board of Wal-Mart. But no,
                             Republicans bomb civilians for profit. Yay.
                             \_ Yes, I am very familliar with which special
                             \_ Yes, I am very familiar with which special
                                interest groups give to which candidates.
                                Obviously, you are not. Who does Boeing,
                                Halliburton, Bechtel and the other war
                                profiteers donate to? Do you even know?
                                Most big corporations hedge their bets a
                                little, but Big Oil and the Military Industrial
                                Complex overwhelmingly lean GOP. Can you guess
                                why? Wal-Mart arguably does some things that
                                are in the public interest (I know, so does
                                Big Oil...)
                                \_ Show me the data. And show me where the
                                   money is going in the current election.
                                   Democrats seem to be getting a lot of funds
                                   from defense industry employees now:
                                   Democrats have had power in this country
                                   before and have power in Congress now.
                                   Where's the beef? Where's the utopian
                                   legislation that will lead us to the
                                   promised land? Democrats authorized Bush
                                   to invade Iraq. Democrats do Bad Things
                                   sometimes. National defense is not a
                                   Republican invention and none of the
                                   frontrunning candidates are going to
                                   cut our military meaningfully after 2008.
                                   The only one with that platform was Paul
                                   (a Republican).
                                   \_ and Kucinich, Gravel, Frank Moore.
                                      \_ what about Nader? Point being that
                                         these guys are essentially not in
                                         the Democratic Party.
                                   What's Obama gonna do?
                                   \_ Look at the last eight years. But yes,
                                      everyone can see which way the wind blows
                                      now. A majority of Democrats in Congress
                                      voted against the bill to give Bush the
                                      authority to invade Iraq, no amount of
                                      spin can change that. I think you are
                                      wrong about Obama and defense spending.
                                      Clinton cut it by 1/3 from Reagan. Obama
                                      will do the same. There is no promised
                                      land, but leadership matters and some of
                                      it is clearly better.
                                      \_ Obama would inherit Iraq. He's not
                                         going to be able to cut the military
                                         by 1/3 in a first term, you are nuts.
                                         Clinton did not inherit any wars.
                                         The president doesn't even have that
                                         power, he needs Congress to do it.
                                         As you said, companies try to go where
                                         the wind is blowing and the wind was
                                         blowing for GOP in the last 8 yrs.
                                         \_ Repeatedly questioning my sanity
                                            does not make your arguments any
                                            more pursuasive. I have been shown
                                            to be 100% right about Bush, even
                                            when my position was the extreme
                                            minority. You have not apparently
                                            learned anything at all. Simply
                                            ending the war in Iraq will cut
                                            the military budget by 1/3. I
                                            expect Obama to do thatin the first
                                            expect Obama to do that in the first
                                            two years of his term.
                                            \_ Your position was never in the
                                               extreme minority; that proves
                                               you have a fantasyland inside
                                               your head. What am I supposed
                                               to learn? I didn't vote for
                                               Bush, nor do I like him. I am
                                               just being pragmatic. The
                                               Democrats are not better and
                                               are worse in other ways. The
                                               war in Iraq will play out
                                               similarly with any of the
                                               candidates. Obama will "end"
                                               the war but we will still have
                                               troops there. We already ended
                                               it a long time ago; mission
                                               accomplished etc.
                                               \_ Bush popularity rating was
                                                  91% at one point. Either you
                                                  have a strange definition
                                                  of extreme minority or a very
                                                  selective memory.
                                                 \_ His rating was never 91%.
                                                    Maybe among Republicans.
                                                    \_ Oct '01 according to
                                                       some polls. Check:
                                                       Riding high after 9/11
                                        '01? Bush hadn't done shit by then. _/
                                        But ok I stand corrected. What were
                                        you saying about him in Oct 01 that
                                        you were so right about? In Oct 01
                                        we were inundated with patriotism.
                                        \_ Apologies: stat was posted by
                                           motd fact-checker, not pp. Pls
                             \_ Somebody sure made money from all those bombs
                                dropped on Iraq. They don't build those
                                things for free, you know.
                                \_ You think no Democrats profited from that?
                                   Hell, maybe you have a mutual fund with
                                   defense industry stock and you profited
                                   yourself. I probably profited. Democrats
                                   profited from napalming Vietnamese villages.
                                   This is not a fruitful line of discussion.
                                   \_ "...You are pretty nutty to believe that
                                        Republicans literally bomb civilians
                                        for profit..." Yes, I would imagine
                                        you find it unfruitful.
                                        \_ Yes?
                 \_ Hardly a strawman: Obama was called a Marxist on the motd
                    and the flag pin question was in the PA debate.
                    \_ Wow, that's real serious important discussion there.
                       \_ Exactly my point. The media has spent more time
                          on Obama's non-existent flag pin then on health care.
                          \_ What? No, this is false.
                                Okay, they have pretty much the same
                                amount of entries here. Do you have any
                                evidence to back up your claim that the media
                                has spent more time on health care?
        \_ If only McClellan had said something about books like this...oh.
        \_ You know what?  I think if Gore the Democrat had been elected,
           the new Gore Administration would not have been full of
           hubris filled neocon toadies.  I do not think they would have
           invaded Iraq under false pretenses.  We can debate this all day,
           but I firmly believe this.  I do not think the world would
           appear to be headed towards a gigantic United States led
           clusterfuck if a Democractic, Gore led administration were
           in power right now.  I believe there are significant differences
           between the current Republican Bush administration, and my
           fantasy Gore Democractic administration.  I believe an Obama
           or Hillary (ahem) administration would not blindly invade Iran
           right now.  I haven't heard Obama or Hillary (ahem) casually
           mention that we should prepare to be in Iraq for the next 1000
           \_ While this is most certainly true, I think this has more to
              do with BUSHCO than it has to do with the GOP. I doubt Pres.
              McCain would have blindly invaded Iraq, &c.
              \_ It was hardly blindly. It was very deliberate.
                 \_ yes, in fact it had been suggested by the whole host of
                    GOP chicken hawks as far back as 1997.  See the PNAC.  -tom
                    \_ Which is exactly why a McCain administration will
                       invade Iran, if they can figure out how to talk
                       Congress into it.
                       \_ It depends on which McCain we get after the election.
2008/5/28 [Uncategorized] UID:50071 Activity:nil
5/28    NSFM:
        Anyone have nipples that do this?
2008/5/28 [Uncategorized] UID:50072 Activity:nil
5/28    Why am I downloading "Evil Dead: The Musical" ?
2008/5/28-30 [Uncategorized] UID:50073 Activity:nil
5/28    Anyone use latest Bittorrent.exe?   I don't think it properly picks up
        peer connections.  I'm going back to uTorrent.
2008/5/28 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:50074 Activity:nil 88%like:50077
5/28    Welcome to the world of Green Fascism
2008/5/28-6/1 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:50075 Activity:high
5/28    I just learned that interracial marriage was illegal in 16
        states until 1967. Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida,
        Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri,
        North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,
        Virginia, and West Virginia. GO REPUBLICAN STATES!!! McCain #1!!!
        \_ Two generations from now people will think the whole fear of
           gay marriage is just as bizzare.
           \_ Certainly the labeling people as in "fear" will be.
              \_ Ok, if you want me to call you a bigotted idiot instead
                 I can do that for you.
           \_ Not really. There are religious reasons for the latter and
              not the former. Personally, I think the government should
              stay out of marriage entirely.
              \_ There were religious reasons cited 50 years ago as well.
                 And the government can't stay out of marriage entirely.
                 There are legal rammifications to marriage that you can't
                 magically solve by contract law.
                 \_ 1. There are no religious arguments that any major religion
                       can cite. People can always make sure their own
                       can cite. People can always make up their own
                       religions, but certainly interracial marriage is
                       not prohibited by the major ones.
                       \_ The "Curse of Ham" was used as justification against
                          interracial marriage.  And see below.  But why the
                          hell does it matter what one religion cares about
                          marriage?  We aren't talking about religious marriage
                          we are talking about the state's concept of marriage.
                          You know, the state that isn't supposed to be
                          involved in that whole religion thing.
                          \_ Since there's really not any scriptural
                             evidence for Black people having anything to do
                             with Ham, let alone that you shouldn't marry
                             decendents of Ham, all that proves is that people
                             can make up BS to justify their stupid ideas.
                             That's not even remotely compareable to the actual
                             explicit scriptural prohibition of homosexual
                             \_ You filthy shrimp eater!
                                \_ Despite what you've heard, the New
                                   Testement also forbids homosexual
                                   Testament also forbids homosexual
                                   \_ I haven't heard diddly.  I was lucky
                                      enough to be born to a family that didn't
                                      think some crazy ass book from 2000
                                      years ago should be used as an excuse
                                      to deny other people their rights
                                   \_ "A woman should learn in quietness and\
                                       full submission. I do not permit a woman
                                      \_ Ok, thanks for admitting you're
                                         completely ignorant.  Next time you
                                         have no idea what you're talking about
                                         why not just keep out of the
                                         \_ No, I think your "but my religion
                                            says to keep The Gays second class
                                            citizens" argument is stupid.
                                            Your religion says a lot of shit,
                                            why should it affect me?
                                            \_ You made an invalid comparison
                                               I pointed it out.  Your bluster
                                               does not conceal this.
                                               \_ The fact that The Bible tells
                                                  you that gay marriage is EVIL
                                                  should affect me no more than
                                                  that shrimp are not kosher.
                                                  Why the hell are we basing
                                                  our laws on what The Bible
                                                  says?  There's a word for
                                                  that.  Theocracy.  Last I
                                                  checked our constitution
                                                  specifically prohibits
                                                  theocratic rule.
    \_ "A woman should learn in quietness and
        full submission. I do not permit a woman
        to teach or to have authority over a man;\
       she must be silent..."
                                       That's New Testament, too. Do you support
                                       that one?
        to teach or to have authority over a man;
        she must be silent..."
        That's New Testament, too. Do you support that one?
        \_ All of my elementary school teachers were women.
                                       \_ What if he does? This is a tangent.
                    2. We can avoid #1 entirely if government stays out of
                       it. There is no legal ramification to marriage that
                       cannot be resolved by contract law. Name just one.
                       \_ Immigration.  Visitation rights for prisoners.
                          Health care for people who get it via being the
                          spouse of someone with health care (important if
                          you have a medical condition).  Not to mention all
                          that messy divorce law, especially for people who
                          have children.  Need I go on?
                          \_ Yes. Why can't these be solved by contract
                             law again? I see no unsolvable problems.
                             \_ Marriage provides rights that are granted by
                                non signers of the contract.  I can't create
                                a non marriage contract that lets me file my
                                taxes as a married couple.  I can't create a
                                non marriage contract that forces immigration
                                to treat the other signer the same way they
                                would if we were married.  etc.  That's not
                                contract law.  That's rights the state has
                                decided are inheriant to married couples.
                                \_ You are bogged down in semantics. Just
                                   because it is that way doesn't mean it
                                   has to be that way. Other law could
                                   resolve those issues. There's no reason
                                   it couldn't.
                                   \_ Other law.  Non contract law.  I'm
                                      not sure why you have this hardon for
                                      changing the name of marriage to
                                      something else, but I'd say the
                                      person with a semantic problem is you.
                                      My main point is that marriage has
                                      significant, non religious, non contract
                                      rights assiciated with it, which is
                                      something I think people often forget.
                          \_ for a better list
                          \_ This guy's point is that you could have a
                             "cohabitation contract" which gives all
                             the enumerated rights/responsibilities.  It
                             doesn't have to be a "marriage".  Seriously,
                             suppose I'm a fat lame non-gay geek, and my
                             similarly fat, lame, non-gay geeky roommate
                             and I decide to give up on women and try
                             to forge an economic and social alliance
                             such that we can better take care of each
                             other?  No sex, just, this guy can handle
                             my finances, make medical decisions,
                             visit me in prison, etc.?  Why should that
                             be forbidden simply 'cause we're not
                             romantic partners?  This "marriage" thing
                             under the law needs to be generalized to
                             not just hetero romantic/breeding partners,
                             and not just gay romantic partners, but
                             to anyone who can benefit from having even a
                             non-romantic domestic partner of either sex.
                             The only reason to deny this is religious.
                             \_ If you want to make something that has
                                the exact same legal benefits of marriage
                                in the eyes of the state, and you want to
                                call it something other that marriage and
                                get rid anything called marriage at the state
                                or national level, well, ok.  But it is
                                basically marriage, whatever you want to call
                                it.  I'm not sure what benefit you get by
                                changing the name.
                                changing the name.  And the guy above said
                                there were no rights to marriage that couldn't
                                be solved by contract law.  That's wrong.  To
                                solve them you have to change a hell of a lot
                                of other laws to say "this right is granted
                                to a couple that has signed into a binding
                                whatever-you-want-to-call-it relationship".
                                The fact that someone can ignore such giant
                                benefits as marriage immigration and tax
                                laws means they obviously have never thought
                                just how big of an advantage married couples
                                have in the eyes of the state.
                                have in the legal system.
                                \_ You're not thinking about it the right
                                   way. Reread what you responded to. It's
                                   also *very* important what you call it
                                   because marriage has religious significance
                                   that "cohabitation contract" does not.
                                   You're not thinking ahead of me. You're
                                   actually still behind me.
                                   \_ No, I know exactly what you are saying
                                      I just think you are wrong.  There is
                                      nothing inheriantly religous about
                                      marriage.  Changing the terms will
                                      not change any signifcant group's
                                      minds about the issue.  Domestic
                                      partnerships, cohabitation contracts,
                                      whatever you call it, people still know
                                      it is "marriage".
                                      \_ Well, no. It's not. Even today many
                                         people "get married" twice (once
                                         at the courthouse and once in
                                         church) so the difference must
                                         matter to them. I don't think
                                         anyone has a problem with gay
                                         people willing each other property,
                                         for example. The term 'marriage'
                                         means something in particular to
                                         many religions quite apart from
                                         whatever the law says. This is a
                                         case where the legal definition
                                         reflected the societal norms of a
                                         Christian nation, but it is no
                                         longer appropriate for the law to
                                         be involved in, or recognize,
                                         marriage. I think you would find
                                         a lot less opposition if there
                                         wasn't an insistence of legalizing
                                         wasn't an instistence of legalizing
                                         'gay marriage' which conjures up
                                         images of a gay priest, gay wedding,
                                         gay honeymoon, and adopted gay kids.
                                         If gay people want to 'get married'
                                         the law has no grounds to be involved
                                         in their religion and should not
                                         be able to stop them , but if it
                                         wants to deny them their rights
                                         as human beings that's a problem.
                                         A happy resolution is if the
                                         gov't stays out of the marriage
                                         business (e.g. marriage license)
                                         entirely. It's NOTB.
                                         \_ Saying that over and over won't
                                            make it true.  -tom
                             \_ sex is bad. - motd not getting laid guy
                                            \_ Why am I not surprised that
                                               you want the government
                                               involved in yet another
                                               aspect of our lives - our
                                               love life no less?
                                               \_ Red herring.  You're not
                                                  suggesting less government
                                                  involvement, you're just
                                                  suggesting that the
                                                  government change what
                                                  it's called.  -tom
                                                  \_ Not entirely. I think
                                                     "marriage" as defined
                                                     by the government
                                                     should be dissolved.
                                                     There is no need for
                                                     divorce court, for
                                                     marriage certificates,
                                                     joint income tax
                                                     filings and some other
                                                     constructs. Others
                                                     should be handled
                                                     with power-of-attorney
                                                     and contract law. I
                                                     am not merely
                                                     advocating we keep
                                                     marriage as-is and
                                                     rename it. It should
                                                     be (as a government
                                                     construct) abolished.
                                                     \_ You can go live your
                                                        libritarian fantasy.
                                                        The rest of us actually
                                                        live in the real world
                                                        where some of these
                                                        things matter.  And
                                                        I hope you never fall
                                                        in love with someone
                                                        who isn't a citizen.
                                                        (Or have children.)
                                                        \_ Why? Because
                                                           "being in love"
                                                           grants rights?
                                                           Any rights
                                                           assigned by
                                                           marriage are
                                                           arbitrary and
                                                           be assigned
                                                           without marriage.
                                \_ saying that over and over again makes
                                   it true - !tom
        \_ And ever since this was fixed, racial relations have been perfect!
           \- when i read LOVING v VIRGNIA, it was jaw dropping to
              read stuff like "god put the races on different continents
              because he wanted them apart" ... the fact that that was a
              because he wanted them apart" ... esp the fact that that was a
              virginia judge writing in the 60s and not a 1920s klansman
              in BF, Alabama. The woman n the Lovings case died in the
              last couple of months.
           \_ Don't you think it's an improvement that a black man can walk
              down the street with a white woman and not be killed for it? -tom
              \_ only if you're pro Negro
              \_ Which has precisely nothing to do with the laws changed.
                 \_ An interesting assertion.  Any evidence?  -tom
        \_ In which state did Obama's parents get married?
           \_ Pakistan outer territories i believe.
        \_ "There is no legal ramification to marriage that cannot be solved
            by contract law".  Um, what? Can someone explain how "contract
            law" can give a gay couple the right to inherit unlimited amounts
            of property taxfree from their partner or transfer unlimited
            amounts of property with their partner tax free? Or get the
            social security benefits or federal pensions of the surviving
            \_ You just assign those benefits with a contract other than
               a "marriage contract". Just because some other things (like
               SS) are broken doesn't mean they can't be fixed. "Gay
               marriage" isn't the problem. The problem is that so much of
               our law involves "marriage" to begin with. It's an outdated
               construct not relevant to modern society except for those
               who choose to practice it for religious purposes. Instead
               of "spouse" you can substitute "assignee". You don't have
               to get married at all in theory.
               \_ Please provide some support for the assertion that
                  marriage is "an outdated construct not relevant to modern
                  society."  Extra credit if you can manage to do it without
                  circular argument.   -tom
                  \_ How about the fact that gay people want to do it and
                     that many people are vehemently opposed to allowing
                     them. Clearly marriage means something to many people
                     and means something else to gays. Since it excludes
                     gays, the construct is outdated since gays are people
                     with rights, too. Instead of creating a new construct
                     which includes gays and calling *that* marriage why
                     not eliminate marriage entirely? Marriage is not a modern
                     concept and the increasing number of cohabitating couples
                     who never get married attests to that. I am surprised to
                     find you on the pro-marriage side of the fence. Why are
                     you so adamant about co-opting the term marriage which
                     already has a clear meaning in a well-meaning attempt
                     to extend the rights of marriage to gay couples when
                     there is no real reason to use the term at all
                     anymore except in a religious context? I mean, why
                     should "married couples" have the option to file taxes
                     together or separately, but "unmarried couples"
                     cannot? At least the government is starting to see
                     how stupid *that* is by eliminating the marriage
                     penalty. I can't really think of any non-religious
                     reasons that marriage is still relevant in the modern
                     \_ Effort expenditure: A
                        Argument advancement: F
                        Extra credit: F (circular argument used).
                        The reasons for marriage are mostly non-religious.
                        You've been presented in this very MOTD with numerous
                        examples of non-religious reasons why marriage is
                        still relevant and you've ignored them, as you're
                        sure to ignore any other fact which fails to fit
                        with your absurd notions.  I'm done here.   -tom
                        \_ I think you are ignoring the facts. Cohabitation
                           is 10x more common now than in 1960. The circular
                           reasoning here is yours. The only reason "the
                           reasons for marriage are mostly non-religious"
                           is because the (outdated) law makes it that way.
                           If you subtract religion from the equation then
                           what reason is there to "get married"? If
                           it's not about religion then why do the
                           majority of couples get married both in a
                           church and in a civil ceremony? If the laws were
                           changed to reflect modern society then there
                           would be no non-religious reasons to "get
                           married" but as it stands currently people are
                           *forced* to "get married" which is why gay
                           couples wish to do so. If they DO NOT then they
                           are denied their rights and *THAT* is an issue
                           as we are becoming an increasingly agnostic
                           society instead of the Christian society these
                           laws were based upon decades ago. You should
                           not have to "get married" to enjoy *ALL* of the
                           rights assigned to marriage. Why would you
                           force people to do so?
                           \_ "You're talking a lot, but you're not saying
                               anything."  --David Byrne
                               \_ You're just not listening because it's
                                  not what you want to hear. Answer me
                                  this one question I have asked twice
                                  "Why do most people get married both in
                                  a church and in a civil ceremony if
                                  marriage does not involved religion?"
                                  marriage does not involve religion?"
                                  \_ First of all, I don't think it's clear
                                     that "most" people get married in church
                                     and in a civil ceremony.  Do you have
                                     any evidence of that?
                                     Second, marriage is important
                                     *culturally*; marriage is the transition
                                     from one social status to another, and
                                     in some cultures, it's done in the church
                                     because that's where it's expected to be
                                     done, and often there is a social cost to
                                     pay if you go get married by Elvis and
                                     leave the family out of it.  That being
                                     said, there are plenty of cultures where
                                     getting married in the church is *not*
                                     expected, and people get married in
                                     a redwood grove, or on a ship, or in
                                     their backyards.  You really have no
                                     argument at all here.  -tom
                                     \_ I'm not concerned about what they
                                        do in other cultures. I'm
                                        concerned about the US where most
                                        people are married by a priest
                                        even if it's not in a church. Sure,
                                        not everyone is. Most people are.
                                        Even in non-Christian cultures marriage
                                        is often a religious ceremony. To
                                        play marriage in the US off as a
                                        "social ceremony" and ignore the
                                        religious significance is disingenuous.
                                        Why does CA allow priests (who are
                                        not representatives of the State)
                                        to conduct marriages? Shouldn't it
                                        just be performed by judges and
                                        magistrates if it's a civil affair?
                                        \_ In many cultures *within the US*
                                           it is common to not do a church
                                           wedding.  The Bay Area, for example.
                                           The US also allows ship captains
                                           to perform weddings; does that mean
                                           marriage is a maritime institution
                                           that has no relevance in landlocked
                                           states?  You have no clue.  -tom
                                           \_ The ship's captain thing is
                                              not true and, truthfully,
                                              there is no reason for it either.
                                              BTW, even in the Bay Area,
                                              weddings performed by priests
                                              are the norm. But you are
                                              missing the point, which is
                                              "Why give priests any power
                                              over this at all?" They have
                                              no other legal powers that I
                                              am aware of.
                                              \_ So wait, do Jews not count
                                                 when they married?
2008/5/28-29 [Uncategorized] UID:50076 Activity:moderate
5/28    Rachael Ray wears a scarf, Michelle Malkin says it looks Islamic,
        Rachael Ray takes off the scarf.
        \_ Michelle Malkin is not white. In fact she looks PHILLIPINO
           and non-patriotic. Therefore she should go back to her country.
           \_ Filipino, white man.
        \_ Not quite accurate, but good enough for Olbermann's network.
           The kiffiyeh-as-fashion is abhorrent, like the Che t-shirts, and
           this looks a lot like one, though it isn't one.
           \_ Let me guess, if you wear a suit without a tie you are a
              anti-semitic homophobe?
           \_ are you a fucking moron?  IT'S A SCARF.  GO OUTSIDE.
              SCARF fuckhead.  its not a che shirt.  its not a symbol
              of communist oppresssion.  you are too stupid to live.
              \_ I love how this sputtering monkey thinks HE's the smart one.
           \_ Che shirts are kitschy, not abhorrent. They imply a lack of
              \_ As does the Kaffiyeh.
                 \_ Dude, the Kaffiyeh is not a symbol of terror.  It's a
                    fucking hat.  People wear them all the time without being
                    evil dark skinned terrorists.  And she was wear a fucking
                    SCARF.  If it's around your neck it isn't a Kaffiyeh.
                    \_ This one's around the clueless Ricky Martin's neck
                       \_ as a scarf... and why is it "abhorrent" again?
                          \_ The phrase "Jerusalem is ours" inscribed in Arabic
                             on it.
                             \_ You have good eyes
        \_ I wish I could sue Michelle Malkin for bringing up stupid shit
           and polluting websites this week.  fuck.
        \_ How does Michelle Malkin monetize my wanting to stick a car
           bumper up her ass?
2008/5/28-6/1 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:50077 Activity:nil 88%like:50074
5/28    Welcome to the world of Green Fascism [dailymail]
        \_  -tom
2008/5/28-6/1 [Reference/RealEstate] UID:50078 Activity:moderate
5/28    I've ruled out the possibility of getting a gun when I collect
        rent in shady neighborhoods. Instead, I may get a Taser. What's
        a good Taser to get that I can conceal well? Taser C2 seems a bit
        whimpy, but Taser M18-L is a bit bulky.
        \_ I tell the landlady I got a job, I'm gonna pay the rent.
           She said 'Yeah'?  I said 'Oh yeah'.  And then she was so nice.
           Lord she was lovey-dovey.  So I go in my room, pack up my things
           and go.  I slip on out the back door and down the streets I go.
           She a-howlin' about the front rent, she'll be luck to get any
           She a-howlin' about the front rent, she'll be lucky to get any
           back rent.
           \_ that is illegal. taser should only be used for SELF DEFENSE.
              ditto with guns. baseball bat, golf clubs, fists are ok
              in any situation. at any rate, your land lady can't kick
              you out. it takes like a whole year before they can really
              evict you, physically.
              \_ Not even. The unlawful detainer action can be completed
                 in 30 days and it's not more than another 30 before the
                 sheriff comes to kick you out, depending on the schedule
                 of the court.
                 \_ Non-payment of rent is a 3 Day or Quit kind of eviction.
                    It can go pretty fast, even in a place like San Francisco.
                 \_ Also depends on whether tenant files an Answer; if so,
                    welcome to extended court action.
                    \_ No one got my joke.  sad.
        \_ Why not pepper spray?
        \_ Ever heard of a property manager?
           My godfather is a slumlord and he ended up selling certain
           properties when the tenants didn't pay rent because he was afraid
           to go collect it. He should've used a property manager also.
           It's worth a 10% fee to not get a bullet.
           \_ a 10% decrease in revenue for me is 20% loss a year.   -op
              \_ Sounds like a crappy property to own. Why did you buy it?
                 \_ loooooong story. I lived in it till I moved out  -op
        \_ explain why you haul around your wife draped in expensive
           jewelry while you collect rent?  or is that another guy?
           \_ expensive jewelry = relative. iPod and Nike shoes are
              considered fancy in ghettovilles
              \_ We sure have a lot of ambidextrous landlords with
                 concealed carry permits on the motd.
           \_ I'm pretty certain this is the same troll.
              \_ I am a LA Sodan (Toluca Lake).  My wife shot a Home Invader
                 two years ago (before we were married!) and it was a huge
                 legal hassle.  In fact it might have bankrupted her if she
                 wasn't friends with the cops (she was an Assistant DA then).
                 According to her lawyer, "it was a good thing you killed
                 him, because if he was just injured and around for the trial
                 you probably would have lost the suit."  By the way, I learned
                 about this the day before we were married.  Bay Area Sodans:
                 Do NOT judge people from LA.  LA is Different!  There are
                 dangerous people here.
                 \_ Whoaaa!!! MOST ENTERTAINING RESPOND EVER. Thanks!
                                                        \- ^EVER^EVAR
2008/5/28-31 [Recreation/Food] UID:50079 Activity:nil
5/28    Looking for exotic restaurants that serve stuff like BUGS.
        Recommendations? Thanks.
           Grasshopper tacos.
        \_ . Grasshopper tacos.
        \_ Any new shady Indian restaurant in Berkeley.
        \_ Man, that looks good! Thanks!
2008/5/28-30 [Health] UID:50080 Activity:kinda low
5/28    How it's made: CHICKS!
        \_ but will they blend?
        \_ I'm a carnivore who has no problem killing chickens, but this
           factory-farming shit is just wrong.
           \- I'm not with you. What is 'wrong' about it? What is not
              'wrong' about killing animals for consumption? If you
              kill an animal slowly, is that less 'wrong' than if you
              kill it quickly? I am not getting your point.
              \_ Did you watch the video? That's not the way to raise
                 animals, whether you are going to eat them or not. If you
                 think the best-quality chicken results from
                 factory-farming then more power to you. BTW, yes, killing
                 an animal slowly (e.g. starvation) is much worse.
        \_ This is sad. I can't help but imagein if the chicks are
           human and some super species are farming us. Does "organic"
           chicken/eggs gets better treatment?
           \_ Depends on how organic.  Go real free range.  The eggs taste
              better and the farming is sustainable.  You can get them at
              any bay area farmer's market these days.
2008/5/28-31 [Uncategorized] UID:50081 Activity:nil
        Only in Los An-Heles. Oh, how I love Los An-HELES. ME GUSTA.
        \_ El Pueblo de Nuestra Senora la Reina de los Angeles de Porciuncula.
        \_ Uh, dude.  Graffiti has been the darling of the art scene all
           over the country since at least the 80s.
           \_ Yes but LOS ANHELES is the graffiti MECCA of the world.
            \_ Never been to New York, have you?
2019/04/20 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2008:May:28 Wednesday <Tuesday, Thursday>