Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2008:July:21 Monday <Sunday, Tuesday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2008/7/21-23 [Uncategorized] UID:50642 Activity:nil
7/21    Okay, that had to leave a mark
        http://failblog.org/2008/07/21/biking-fail
2008/7/21-23 [Reference/BayArea] UID:50643 Activity:nil
7/21    San Francisco is a happy happy utopia sanctuary city!
        [ad from the city]
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ANSs04r9io
2008/7/21-23 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50644 Activity:high
7/21    Look at all these corrupt Democrats. But how can this be? Democrats
        are supposed to be noble and good. And getting the Green party off
        the ballot sounds... undemocratic.
        http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08193/896353-454.stm
        \_ They are all HITLER
        \_ Corruption seems to be endemic to the human experience,
           unfortunately. I don't believe anyone (here) has claimed that
           Democrats are all noble and good. Is that a Straw Man you are
           furiously bashing?
        \_ And yet, strangely, they still won't be the party that sold out the
           government to Halliburton, Worldcom, and Enron.
           \_ What exactly does "sold out the government" mean?
              \_ Started a ruinous war to further profits for.
                 \_ Yet, strangely, Democrats voted to authorize that war.
                    An inscrutable contradiction!
                    Could it be that Democrats also profit from Corporate
                    America, Inc.?
                    But that's silly. Corporations are evil and Democrats
                    are axiomatically good.
                    \_ And yet, strangely, they're collaborators, not
                       instigators. Their culpability is still less than that
                       of the GOP, war-profiteering-wise.
                       \_ Strangely, I think you need to justify that.
                          \_ And stranger still, I think the charges need to
                             be justified first.
                    \_ A majority of Democrats in Congress voted against the
                       war, but you already knew that. Don't the facts get
                       in the way of your supposed rhetorical point.
                       \_ A majority of Democrats in the Senate voted for it.
                          Enough in the house to pass the resolution. They
                          are Democrats. A few Republicans also voted against
                          it, so what?
                          \_ An overwhelming majority of Republicans voted
                             for the resolution and an overwhelming majority
                             of Democrats voted against it, even when it
                             took quite a bit of moral and intellectual
                             courage to do so. The resolution would have
                             passed without any Democratic support whatsover,
                             since the GOP was in the majority. Why are you
                             so hellbent on re-writing history? Are you a
                             GOP partisan? Ashamed of your earlier war support?
                             I remember when Bush supporters were smashing
                             courage to do so. Why are you so hellbent
                             on re-writing history? Are you a GOP
                             partisan? Ashamed of your earlier war support?
                             I remember when war supporters were smashing
                             shop windows and beating opponents of the war,
                             where was your outrage then?
                    \_ I am still wondering why the Democrats didn't try to
                       impeach Bush. God, they have no balls at all.
                       Repubs impeach a guy for oral sex while Democrats win
                       control of Congress and proceed to mostly whine
                       about a supposed war criminal.
                       \_ I don't seem them whining about war crimes. Who
                          does that? Not the mainstream ones, anyway. You
                          get guys like Paul, Gravel, + Kucinich but nobody
                          votes for those guys. People vote for the status quo.
                          \_ You mean they are complicit and aren't opposed to
                             the war? That makes it better for them? I was
                             giving them some credit. People voted Dems
                             into office because they were unhappy with
                             the Repub leadership and the Dems turned
                             around and did absolutely nothing. And now
                             morons believe Obama is gonna change that?
                             \_ Better to do nothing than to do something
                                stupid. Stupid.
                                \_ They did do the stupid thing themselves.
                                   They authorized the war, continue to
                                   fund it, and Obama says he'll keep troops
                                   there indefinitely. Yay.
                                   Politics is all about complaining about
                                   whatever bad thing exists. Like gas prices.
                                   Look at the price of gas! Vote for me!
                                   What am I gonna do about it? Who cares,
                                   vote for me. War? War is bad right? Vote
                                   for me!
                                   \_ More lies. Obama said he will bring
                                      the troops home. Do you get your
                                      playbook from Rove?
                                      the troops home.
                                \_ That's why the Dems will never get
                                   anything done. They don't want to make
                                   bad decisions. That never stopped the
                                   Republicans, who beat the Dems like a drum.
                                   Good leaders aren't afraid to stick
                                   their necks out. They worry about being
                                   proven right later. I'm not saying bad
                                   decisions are a good thing, but I'd say
                                   no decisions at all is worse. We don't
                                   need a government if we're not going to
                                   take any actions. Just refund the tax
                                   dollars to the citizens then. I think a
                                   token rumbling about impeaching Bush
                                   would have been a good thing, even if
                                   they didn't actually go through with it.
                                   Instead, they approve everything Bush wants.
                                   \_ Kucinich has repeatedly tried to get
                                      articles of impeachment to the House
                                      floor, but cannot get the votes. This is
                                      the way a Democracy works. There are
                                      other ways to win in politics, other
                                      than beating your opponent like a drum.
                                      That is the Rove playbook. Did FDR ever
                                      beat anyone like a drum? No one would
                                      dispute that he got a lot done.
                                      \_ "Did FDR ever beat anyone like a drum?
                                         YES! Geez, don't you know any history?
                                         \_ Where and when? Maybe you define
                                            beating like a drum differently
                                            than me, but mostly FDR was a good
                                            consensus builder, not a 50% + 1
                                            kind of divisive leader like the
                                            Bush/Rove/Cheney gang.
                             \_ They tried, over and over again, to get a time-
                                table for withdrawal passed, and you know what
                                the GOP did? Filibustered. That's right, the
                                party that threatened the "nukular" option if
                                the Dems filibustered turned around and fili-
                                bustered. Couple that with Bush's veto-frenzy,
                                and the charge that the Dems did nothing
                                quickly becomes: the GOP cock-blocked every
                                way they could. But hey, go ahead and blame the
                                Dems for the GOP's fuckups.
2008/7/21-23 [Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:50645 Activity:nil
7/21    So, is it a civil war?
        \_ Is what a civil war?
2008/7/21-23 [Recreation/Media] UID:50646 Activity:nil
7/21    Classic works of art re-created using a Star Wars theme.
        Beautiful, geeky, and work safe.  -alexb
        http://www.worth1000.com/contest.asp?contest_id=20242&display=photoshop
        \_ There are some nudes, so it depends on your work.
        \_ Superb. Thanks for posting.
2008/7/21-23 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50647 Activity:moderate
7/21    Wouldn't we be better off having an "executive council" of a few people
        (e.g. 3) instead of one single elected leader? It would look more
        democratic. They could hold terms of 6 yrs each, staggered with
        an election every 2 yrs. Majority rule. Plus, watching them bicker with
        each other would be fun. Also we'd eliminate the useless VP role.
        It works for the Supreme Court, right? We don't have one single Supreme
        Judge.
        \_ We could have a Politburo, elected by elected  representatives of
           communes.
        \_ We have three branches of government instead of one single
           elected leader.
           \_ We have one single elected executive, I mean. Besides, the other
              branches don't get nearly as much scrutiny as the POTUS. POTUS
              is responsible for appointing SCOTUS and all this stuff
              that people complain about with Bush.
              \_ POTUS focuses a lot of scrutiny by being the sole Executive.
                 POTUS _nominates_ SCOTUS Justices, but Congress approves or
                 denies; similarly, Congress proposes legislation which POTUS
                 approves or denies. The current system of checks and balances
                 works, if the players are willing to fulfill their roles.
                 \_ Ok how about: put leader 1 in charge of Air Force, leader
                    2 in charge of Army, leader 3 gets the Navy.  They
                    can roll dice each week for who gets supreme command.
                    Ok, just kidding... someone else come up with a motd
                    subject damnit.
        \_ The Triumvarate never worked very well for Rome.
           \_ That's not strictly true. It just didn't work out in the long
              run.
              \_ Neither did Rome. So what? This isn't an argument.
                 \_ ... dum conderet urbem
                    inferretque deos Latio; genus unde
                    Albanique patres atque altae moenia Romae.
                       ...
                    en huius, nate, auspiciis illa incluta Roma
                    imperium terris, animos aequabit Olympo,
                    septemque una sibi muro circumdabit arces,
                    felix prole uirum
                       ...
                    tum pater Anchises lacrimis ingressus obortis:
                    'o gnate, ingentem luctum ne quaere tuorum;
                    ostendent terris hunc tantum fata nec ultra
                    esse sinent. nimium uobis Romana propago
                    uisa potens, superi, propria haec si dona fuissent.
                    quantos ille uirum magnam Mauortis ad urbem
                    campus aget gemitus
                       ...
                 \_ [latin deleted]
                    \_ I'm adding a translation I found on the internet.
                    ... until he founded a city and brought his gods to Latium:
                    from that the Latin people came, the lords of Alba Longa,
                    the walls of noble Rome.
                    ...
                    Behold, my son, under his command glorious Rome will match
                    earth's power and heaven's will, and encircle seven hills
                    with a single wall, happy in her race of men.
                    ...
                    O, do not ask about your people's great sorrow, my son.
                    The fates will only show him to the world, not allow him to
                    stay longer.  The Roman people would seem too powerful to
                    you gods, if this gift were lasting.

                    \_ Ille ego, qui quondam gracili modulatus auena
                       carmen, et egressus silvis uicina coegi
                       ut quamuis auido parerent arua colono
                       gratum opus agricolis, at nunc horrentia Martis
                 \_ The Triumvarate "worked" for Rome in a variety of ways
                    until it didn't. The original statement lacks any rigor.
                    \_ Since both times it was tried, it led to a civil war,
                       no further evidence is needed. Unless you think a
                       civil war every few decades is a good way to run
                       your government.
                       \- one of the "Big Questions" in Roman scholarship is
                          "was the Roman Revolution inevitable" [or more of
                          a contingent outcome]. RSYME is "the standard"
                          and one of the important rebuttals/reconsiderations
                          is by EGRUEN (UCB Dept History...one of the finest
                          lecturers at Berkeley). Anyway, the "it led to civil
                          war" is a little glib, like say "the assassination
                          of Archduke Ferdinand led to WW1".
                       \_ Worked for Thomas Jefferson.
        \- the more appropriate roman analogy would be to the practice of
           dual consuls. and there were two Triumvirates ... the
           first was an alliance, not a formal structure of govt. and
           groups of 3 can be quite unstable because it is open 2:1, so
           that may make one "the decider". anyway, it is silly to go on.
           \_ Why is that more unstable? With 1, that one is the decider.
        \_ See Julius Caesar Act IV, Scene 1
        \_ Brain for world emperor:
                _              _
              /~\\            //~\
              |  \\          //  |
              [   ||        ||   ]
             ) Y  ||        ||  Y (
             |  \_|l,------.l|_/  |
             |   >'          `<   |
             \  (/~`--____--'~\)  /     _____________________________________
              `-_>-__________-<_-'     /                                     \
                  /(_#(__)#_)\       /  By right of superior intelligence,    \
                  \___/__\___/  ____/                                         |
                   /__`--'__\   \___    I am best suited to guide the destiny |
                /\(__,>-~~ __)      \                                         |
             /\//\\(  `--~~ )        \  of this planet.                       |
             '\/  <^\      /^>        \                                      /
                  _\ >-__-< /_         `------------------------------------'
                 (___\    /___)
2008/7/21-23 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:50648 Activity:nil
7/21    One of the original plaintiffs in the DC v Heller gun case, an openly
        gay man's story:
        "One night some years ago in San Jose, he found himself confronting a
        gang of toughs, as many as 20 of them, intent on gay-bashing him.
        Taunted as a "faggot," threatened with death, Palmer (and a friend) ran
        for their lives, only to find the gang in hot pursuit. So Palmer
        stopped, reached into his backpack, and produced a gun. The gang backed
        off."
        http://www.reason.com/news/show/125584.html
2008/7/21-23 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Reference/History/WW2/Germany] UID:50649 Activity:nil
7/21    Ah, Obama's not a flip-flopper, he's just a liar
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHEIi4XKRmM
        \_ No, he's HITLER
           \_ lol @ your inability to handle Obama criticism
              \_ Lol at your weak sauce. !pp
        \_ Jan 10, 2007: surge won't work, will increase violence
           Jan 5, 2008:  I've always said the surge would work
           \_ See, just like HITLER
              \_ You mean Stalin.
                 \_ POL POT!!!!!!1one
2008/7/21-28 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll] UID:50650 Activity:nil
7/21    motd boob guy do i have a video for you
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALl5RYIJuyk
        \_ How does her shirt withstand the strain?
           http://kepfeltoltes.hu/080723/009677802_www.kepfeltoltes.hu_.jpg
           http://kepfeltoltes.hu/080723/009677805_www.kepfeltoltes.hu_.jpg
           http://kepfeltoltes.hu/080723/009677823_www.kepfeltoltes.hu_.jpg
           \_ jesus christ
           \_ It's got a special adamantium-based weave.
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2008:July:21 Monday <Sunday, Tuesday>