Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2008:September:11 Thursday <Wednesday, Friday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2008/9/11-18 [Finance/Investment] UID:51130 Activity:nil
9/11    Thanks Bushies, for nationalizing F&F to bail out China: (WSJ)
        \_ I think it was a bipartisan failure.
           \_ Congress gave Hank the gun, but isn't Hank the one who fired it?
              Guns don't kill people--people do!
2008/9/11-23 [Finance] UID:51131 Activity:nil
9/21    (revived for comment)
        If you are a McCain supporter who is not rich but moderately
        well off, and care about "the future" (have kids), consider it
        is not unlikely he will appoint Phil Gramm Treasury Secretary.
        Gramm will be to the economy what Cheney was (is?) to Foreign Policy;
        he will fuck it up for a generation.
        \- better said by AGOOLSBEE
           Just liek people probably should worry more about Sup Ct
           appoinments than they should, "who will you appoint treasury
           sec" is going to be a big, big, big deal perhaps demanding
           of at least a spefici answer as "what is your iraq plan" and
           presumably harder to say something like "i will forumlate an
           appropriate response to the circumstances in conjuctions with
           our generals in the field". If you do not promise to give the
           secret service to have PGRAMM kept out of line of sight or
           out of electronic communication with you at all times, nobody
           should take you seriously ... not that anybody should after
           picking a vindictve creationist moose woman.
           \_ Is it too hard for you to write English?
2008/9/11-17 [Finance/Investment] UID:51132 Activity:nil
9/10    Guys, have you moved 50% of your 401(k) and IRA out of equities and
        into high quality bonds or Treasury-based money markets?  I'm not
        kidding.  Here you are, arguing about Obama, McCain, and Palin, and
        your money is disappearing.
        \_ What are you talking about? My portfolio looks fine.
           \_ good.  now what about the rest of you?  all the equity-based
              choices in my 401(k) plan are all negative 3-month and 1-year.
              \_ You're an idiot.
                 \_ are you angry about something?
        \_ You don't think the President has influence over the economy?
           \_ I don't either can stop the multi-year move in equities.
           \_ I don't think either can stop the multi-year move in equities.
        \_ No, I have the same allocation I always have, which is 6 mos
           living expenses in CDs, 20% of my total investment portfolio in
           CA Munis (taxable part, of course) about 10% more in high quality
           bonds and 70% in stocks. I am leaning way toward blue chip dividend
           paying stocks though, but I have been in a multi-year move in that
           direction. I saw the financials ready to blow up over a year ago.
           I am down a bit from the top, but not losing any sleep over it.
           Oh, I also am heavily invested overseas and I recommend you do the
           \_ IMO, your equity allocation is too high (assuming you are in
              index funds), and I personally have been shorting emerging
              I do agree that you aren't too far away from what a professional
              financial advisor would suggest; but I'm saying CFPs are wrong.
              \_ I am not in index funds, as I said, I am leaning heavily
                 towards profitable companies with little debt who pay a
                 big dividend and are either located outside the US or do
                 most of their business outside the US. I am starting to doubt
                 the "great decoupling" theory though.
                 \_ ok.  i hope your portfolio does not get pulled down with
                    the rest of the market (even if they are profitable blue
                    chips with little debt).  FYI, China and Japan are going in
                    the toilet.  European, especially UK banks are arguably in
                    more trouble than the U.S. financial system.
                    \_ I hope you are not still sitting out the month the
                       market goes up 20%, which it inevitably will, sooner
                       or later. How are you going to decide to jump back in?
                       \_ when the 50DMA increases past the 200DMA by 1%
2008/9/11-18 [Transportation/Car] UID:51133 Activity:nil
9/11    I once saw a vehicle buyback program that pays maybe $1000 for vehicles
        that fail the smog test?  Does anyone have a link for this?  I found but
        only that's for vehicles that pass the smog test.  Thanks.
           \_ Thanks!
2008/9/11-18 [Computer/SW/Apps/Media] UID:51134 Activity:nil
9/11    "`The Twist' is top song of Billboard Hot 100 era"
        'He compared "The Twist" ...... to the creation of the telephone as a
        groundbreaking moment because he said it was the first time people
        were dancing "apart to the beat."'
        What does "dancing apart to the beat" mean?  Thanks.
        \_ I assume 'apart' means 'without a partner.'
        \_ I think they mean without holding hands or otherwise in contact.
           In ballroom dancing, you are usually touching in some fashion.
2008/9/11-18 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:51135 Activity:kinda low
        \_ Warning, strong libUral slant. I mean, come on:
           "We can explain how Republicans exploit frames, phrases, and fears
            to trick Americans into supporting policies (such as the "war on
            terror" and repeal of the "death tax") that damage the national
            interest for partisan advantage.
        \_ Really good article. "Most Democrats don't understand that politics
           is more like religion than it is like shopping."
           I thought I was a liberal but it turns out that I'm a
           moderate. On the 5 foundations (harm, fairness,
           loyalty, authority, purity), I am consistently in between.
           \_ This is an interesting test. I line up very strongly with
              liberals on fairness, purity and authority scores, but I have
              high loyalty and less concern for harm (like a conservative).
              I always have prefered the moniker "armed liberal" to describe
              myself, though, so this fits.
           \_ "Whether or not someone violated standards of purity and
              How the hell do you answer a question like that without knowing
              what the standards of purity and decency are?
              \_ How *do* you answer it? Don't you think there is a standard?
                 If not, you are probably a liberal.
                 \_ Right, because only conservatives are decent.
                    \_ A conservative certainly wouldn't have to ask what
                       the standards of purity and decency are, would they?
                       \_ Yep, they'd believe in the wrong answer already.
                          c.f. torture.
                 \_ If this is somehow part of your definition of conservative
                    v. liberal, your definition needs some serious
                    \_ No, it is you who needs to do some serious self-
                       examination. Conservatives have a legitimate reason to
                       bash liberals for "moral relativism" and the sooner you
                       understand why, the more you will understand about the
                       debate. And I am a liberal, by the way, but at least
                       I have bothered to take the time to understand what
                       Conservative positions are grounded in.
                       \_ So there's no moral relativism to being gung-ho
                          about torture?  There's no moral relavtivism to
                          to treating terrorists differently if they are
                          white and christian?  You are confusing recationary
                          xenophobia with something else.
                          \_ Are these serious questions or are you just being
                             rhetorical here, it is hard to tell. I see nothing
                             in The Bible that prohibits torture, in fact there
                             are parts that seem to indicate it is permissible.
                             Your claim that conservatism is xenophobic
                             precisely misses the point.
                             \_ What does The Bible have to do with it?
                                Torture being ok for brown and/or poor people
                                but not for good decent folks is a fine example
                                of having relative morals.  Or do you think
                                the republican party is going to start putting
                                people in "stress positions" until they start
                                talking about insider trading?
                                \_ Don't confuse "the republican party" with
                                   conservatism. I know more than one
                                   evangelical in my family would have no
                                   problem with giving the FNM execs a serious
                                   beating. And other Wall Street types. I don't
                                   think their point of view is unusual.
                             \_ The new testament is pretty seriously against
                                torture.  Matthew 5, and 5:39 in particular,
                                Matthew 25:31-46, John 9:7 to take a few
                                obvious verses.  -tom
                                   \_ Almost all of that is in the Old
                                      Testament.  And the New Testament
                                      references don't imply that it's OK
                                      for people to torture other people.  -tom
                       \_ This asinine insistence that "conservatives" have
                          some sort of monopoly on moral certitude has no
                          basis in reality. Some liberals have similarly
                          inflexible morals ("All corporations are evil."
                          "Profits are immoral." "Israel's actions in the
                          occupied territories are war crimes." "The military
                          should be abolished.") "Moral relativism" is a
                          bullshit charge leveled against people who don't
                          share your particularly restrictive morality
                          while deliberately ignoring whatever moral code they
                          might actually have. (Cf. Rick Santorum's assertion
                          that legalizing homosexual marriage will lead to
                          legalization of bestiality and pederasty.) If the
                          question is "whether or not someone violated" MY
                          "standards of purity and decency," then yes, that
                          would be particularly important to me. If the
                          question is "whether or not someone violated" Fred
                          Phelps' "standards of purity and decency," I really
                          couldn't give a fuck.
                          \_ I have all the right to sodomize you as long
                             as I have the power to do so. Yes!
                             \_ See now, if that had been the question, there
                                would have been no ambiguity.
                          \_ Let's see what is the dictionary defintion of the
                             word "liberal":
                             # Not limited to or by established, traditional,
                               orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or
                               dogmas; free from bigotry.
                             # Favoring proposals for reform, open to new
                               ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas
                               and behavior of others; broad-minded.
                             It is not my fault that you have decided that
                             the word "liberal" means something different than
                             what it means to the rest of the English speaking
                             population. The fact that "some (self-identified)
                             liberals" do not fit the definition doesn't mean
                             you get to twist it to suit your own personal
                             agenda. Good luck on your newspeak efforts though.
                             agenda. Good luck on your Newspeak efforts though.
                             Do I really need to pull up the dictionary
                             definition of conservative to make my point?
                             \_ Nothing in those definitions implies moral
                                relativism.  It just implies having an open
                                mind.  Having strong ethics and morals does
                                not mean someone is closeminded or a bigot.
                                I don't think newspeak means what you think
                                it does.
                             \_ Yes, please. And while you're at it, discuss
                                why the Right Wing Conspiracy continues to
                                belittle people with fixed but opposing views
                                as "liberal." *I* didn't decide on this
                                definition or culture-war distinction; I
                                prefer the word "progressive."
2008/9/11-18 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:51136 Activity:nil
9/11    Palin foreign policy: War with Russia!
        \_ If a member state of NATO is invaded by Russia, you are against
           aiding them?  What exactly is NATO's purpose in that case?
           \_ Which says to me we shouldn't be offering NATO membership
              to unstable, belligerent new nation states.
           \_ Not sure.  If Russia invaded Poland or Lithuania or Belarus
              or Latvia, I think we'd have to resort to saying mean things at
              this point.
           \_ Your brain has been classified as: small.
                 \- YMPM5c
              \_ This content-free post has become tiresome.  please come up
                 with a different meme.  maybe lolcats or something.
           \_ The countries under discussion are not NATO members.
              \_ RTFA
        \_ Sadly I think the public will interpret this insanity as "strong
           on Defense."
           \_ No, they won't. Some percentage less than 50% will, Palin is
              just playing to the base here. It is a risky move.
              \_ Fuck risky.  It is proof McCain/Palin are only interested
                 in winning and not interested in sound policy.  Haven't we
                 had enough of "win at any cost"?  That's what gave us the
                 last 8 years of disaster.
2008/9/11-12 [Uncategorized] UID:51137 Activity:nil
9/11    Govt "engineering a sale of LEH through a consortium of private firms".
        Announcement expected this weekend before Asian markets open.  yay!
2008/9/11-18 [Transportation/Car] UID:51138 Activity:nil
9/11    Photojournalism from the Chinese Olympics, err, I mean the RNC
        \_ Why didn't Zombietime cover it, I wonder?
2008/9/11-12 [Uncategorized] UID:51139 Activity:nil
9/11    Happy Nine Eleven Attack Anniversary Day!
2008/9/11 [Uncategorized] UID:51140 Activity:nil
9/11    Wendy 4 is a lot hotter than Palin
2008/9/11-18 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:51141 Activity:nil
9/11    Gibson is such a loser.  He can't even quote Palin and tries to correct
        her on what the quote is.  She said:
        "Pray that our national leaders are sending our troops on a task that
        is from God."
        He leaves out the first 2 words.
        \_ Even Palin is apologizing for this now, you are on the wrong GOP
           talking point.
           \_ don't, know or care much what Palin is doing, but I watched the
              Video, and you have to be an idiot to not realize those first
              two words are rather significant. -voting for Obama
              \_ You have to be an idiot to think that refering to an
                 army in the Middle East as being on a task from God isn't
                 beyond dangerous.  And someone here tried to claim "lipstick
                 on pig" would lead to wars?  Palin proved she has no
                 business being a national figure.
2008/9/11-18 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:51142 Activity:nil
9/11    best lipstip on pig controversy comment
        it is almost getting so bad i want to confront McCain supporters with
        WHAT ARE YOU THINKING????????????????????????????????
        \_ if Obama didnt have an inkling that statement would cause a
           stir especially after the Lipstick and bulldog comment,
           then he is too clueless to be a diplomat and will lead us
           to more wars.
           \_ Bullshit.  This was a total nothing, and if it didn't make
              for an interesting horserace story the press would have
              ignored it like it should have been.  Stop pretending there's
              any story here beyond McCain trying to outdo Bush in sleazy
        \_ I already confront Obama supporters with that question.  You want
           to hire a guy with no clue what he's doing, why?!?
           \_ I think Obama has a clue.  I think McCain is too old, going
              slightly senile, is in danger of dying at any moment, has a
              bizarre world view where the US can simultaneously occupy Iraq
              Iran and Russia.  I think Palin may be a nice enough person
              but she's not ready to be president.  Her interview from last
              night demonstrates this.  She has no clue.  The last couple of
              McCain bits where he infers that Obama was teaching sex ed to
              kindergartners make me a little sad.
              \_ I have yet to see any evidence that Obama has even the tiniest
                 of clues.  Everything he says is pre-scripted to the audience
                 he is talking to.  Which makes him the equivelent of a
                 modivational speaker.
                 \_ Yes but I love moDivational speakers, and so do a bunch
                    of people. McCain is too old to energize and synergize
                    the next generation of hope.
                 \_ Most policy is set by the people the President hires. Who
                    do you think will surround themselves with a better staff?
                 \_ This is a video from the MTV Q&A session in 2007. While
                    not great on too much detail, I thought that Obama did a
                    fair job of presenting the case for Net Neutrality and
                    explaining the issue to an MTV-level audience. His
                    response is not pre-scripted, but you can see that he's
                    thought about the issue:
                 \_ Did you watch any of the debates?
2022/08/19 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2008:September:11 Thursday <Wednesday, Friday>