5,794 Forum Posts by "IllustriousPotentate"
I think I landed right where I want to be. The hatchet is one of the best ones, I think, with the exception of the superuber ones that I'll never have the time or initiative to deposit to get to.
At 7/18/07 07:01 AM, Corky-D wrote: At least I have a handy tool as an Icon.
It's a multitalent!
Oh no! Anything but the tweezers attachment that always gets lost! I'm so scared!
Unless the word "Fabulous" is printed on a dildo being used in somebody, there is absolutely nothing "gay" about any word or phrase.
After going back through a few old topics, the light bulb was replaced with the guy with sunglasses.
I personally thought the light bulb was cool. It was great when you wanted to indicate topics and posts that you had put exceptional thought and creativity in to.
I consider myself pro-life for the following reasons.
--Unwanted children can be put up for adoption, or be raised in a foster home. Either of the two is better than having no life at all.
--Many abortions are used as an ex post facto contraceptive. If you aren't ready to have a baby, then you need to use a contraceptive, or keep your legs closed. The same goes for any other lifestyle choice. If you don't want to get fat, don't go to McDonald's every day, etc.
--Personally, I feel that, if a woman wants control over her body, then she shouldn't have sex and create other bodies dependent on that body.
--Abortions after the fetus is viable I would consider murder, because the fetus is fully capable of living outside the womb.
However,
--It is not the government's place to mandate who can and can't have abortions.
--If a woman wants to get an abortion, it should be her choice.
In short, I'm a pro-choice pro-lifer. I'm against abortion, and I feel that women that get them as a result of concensual sex are immoral and heartless. However, it has no effect on my personal life, liberty, or property, so there is no reason for me to support any government action or involvement in an abortion.
At 7/18/07 06:17 AM, iscrulz wrote: Oh well people die.
In china previously this year 37 yeah alot smaller number but keep reading on were killed when a pouring ladel full of molten steel broke and fell into a room killing everyone. Think of burning to death by molten steel then compare a common run of the muck plane crash.
True, but many deaths in an airplane crash aren't from the crash itself, but from being burned alive by jet fuel and smoke inhalation.
Those on the ground are worse off--imagine going about your normal, everyday activities, then looking up to see a jumbo jet 100 feet away.
Makes you want to consider locating to a bomb shelter.
Ugh. Such a tragedy. What makes it even more tragic was that there were deaths on the ground. Imagine, walking along or sitting in your house, and all of a sudden, you're dead.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/0 7/18/brazil.plane.crash/index.html
Avril LaVigne.
I always lock my door when I lip sync to Sk8r boy.
I'm currently seeking professional help.
At 7/17/07 08:08 PM, stafffighter wrote: 8 re-design topics up. General hasen't changed.
That's to be expected. The redesign is one of the biggest things to happen to the site in quite sometime, so naturally, everyone's going to be talking about it. Trying to encapsulate it all in one thread would be difficult.
I know one thing, I'd hate to be a mod right now.
At 7/17/07 07:35 PM, JakeHero wrote: Republicans will be in trouble if they can't back on candidate, but I have faith in the end things will work out. It is bad for the republicans because such squabbling among themselves will decrease the momentum for a singular candidate.
True, but in all honesty, primaries are still half a year away. There's plenty of time to weed out the losers and notta-chances. The situation reminds me of the 2004 Democratic primaries, where there was no real clear front-runner either, and the Dems nearly won the 2004 presidential election.
At 7/17/07 07:28 PM, lapis wrote: What pills would you gents recommend to help me beat this horrible affliction?
Several doses of Viagra. The news posts will still be there, of course, but you'll be too horny to notice them.
Whoopsies! It's hard to remember everything, I guess. Thank goodness there's only room for 1 news post at a time on the front page, or otherwise, there'd be really big problems.
Puts new meaning to "Everything, by Everyone", though, doesn't it?
The latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that nearly a quarter of Republicans are unwilling to back top-tier hopefuls Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain or Mitt Romney, and no one candidate has emerged as the clear front-runner among Christian evangelicals. Such dissatisfaction underscores the volatility of the 2008 GOP nomination fight.
In sharp contrast, the Democratic race remains static, with Hillary Clinton holding a sizable lead over Barack Obama. The New York senator, who is white, also outpaces her Illinois counterpart, who is black, among black and Hispanic Democrats, according to a combined sample of two months of polls.
A half year before voting begins, the survey shows the White House race is far more wide open on the Republican side than on the Democratic. The uneven enthusiasm about the fields also is reflected in fundraising in which Democrats outraised Republicans $80 million to $50 million from April through June, continuing a trend from the year's first three months.
Is this a good thing for Republicans? Or will it end up like the 2004 Democratic primaries?
I was all set up to be disappointed by the redesign. But I like what I see so far! I'll be glad when all the traffic dies down, and I can really look around.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/more/07 /15/bc.run.britishgrandprix.ap/index.html?cnn =yes
Oscar Pistorius is a double leg amputee. However, with the help of his carbon-fiber, high tech prosthetics, he's trying to convince officials to allow him to compete in the Olympics, rather than the Paralympics.
Your thoughts? Should he be allowed to compete?
Staying Alive by the Bee Gees
In the Navy by the Village People
Dancing with Myself by Billy Idol
Find some immersive video game you haven't played in a while and play on it.
Here's some sites I like to look at to pass the time:
www.cockeyed.com --Pranks, neat projects, etc.
http://joshreads.com/ --hilarious comics commentary
http://www.ichizen.com/goat/ --Life's little absurdities
http://www.theodoregray.com/PeriodicTable/ind ex2A.html#tabletop --Science made interesting
http://www.pointlesssites.com/ -- A whole bunch of time wasters
Don't eat. It's hard to sleep on an empty, growling stomach.
Go to a nearby park for a stroll, if the weather's nice. Don't over exert yourself.
Stay in a hot area. It's hard to get to sleep when it's hot.
Just a few tricks I've learned, anyway.
At 7/15/07 08:17 PM, Proteas wrote:At 7/15/07 08:05 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: Proteas, I doubt there's many vegetarians that refrain from eating meat to look like starving people to draw sympathy.But isn't that the style anymore? "Starving to be beautful?"
The people that are "starving to be beautiful" are either anorexic or extremely shallow and vain. In either case, it's not to bring attention to starving people in third-world countries.
1. Eating less or no meat is more healthy than the meat-based diet most Americans are raised around.I pointed that out, as evidence by the extremes taken by those who partook/partake in the Atkins diet and the like.
Refraining from meat=/= Atkins diet extremists. Unlike the Atkins diet, it is not only possible, but simple, to create well-balanced, nutritious, healthy meals without meat.
3. They object to how cattle, pigs, etc. are treated and raised, in what they consider to be inhumane conditions.Not every farm animal in the world is treated the way PETA would have you believe, man.
I did not say they were. Nor does it necessary follow that vegetarians equate meat-eating to the holocaust, like PETA does.
For elementary and middle school, absolutely. For high school, when many students are aiming for college and a future career, I'm less inclined, as long as it is available, and there are other physical activities to be had (intramural sports, etc.).
At 7/15/07 07:54 PM, Proteas wrote: To borrow from Sam Kinison and Chris Rock, we live in the land of the free and the home of the brave, where you can eat 24 hours a DAY if you want to while people in other countries starve to death.... and you're going to sit there and try to emulate the figures these starving kids you see on the tv have and play YOURSELF off as the morally superior one by abstaining from eating meat?
Change the channel, eat a big mac, and GO FUCK YOURSELF.
Proteas, I doubt there's many vegetarians that refrain from eating meat to look like starving people to draw sympathy. The vegetarians that I know refrain from meat for three reasons:
1. Eating less or no meat is more healthy than the meat-based diet most Americans are raised around. Moreover, vegetables are usually cheaper than meat, and it often easier and cheaper to make a full, nutritious meal without meat than it is with meat. In addition, there's less worry about food related diseases, such as salmonella.
2. It takes less land and other resources to raise grain, etc. for human consumption than it does to raise it to feed to livestock, then use the livestock for human consumption.
3. They object to how cattle, pigs, etc. are treated and raised, in what they consider to be inhumane conditions.
All three, I think, are valid concerns.
At 7/15/07 10:15 AM, HighlyIllogical wrote: She's too conservative. I'll cry as well, at least, if she gets elected.
Conservative?!?
At 7/15/07 01:45 PM, MonkKing wrote: meat ihas rotted once it gets to the digestive thingy. So if yout a vegitarian you will have less poison in your sistem.
You obviously haven't the slightest clue about the subject. I mean, "digestive thingy?"
At 7/14/07 01:04 PM, SnakeHank wrote: recently dick cheney put a mansized safe in his office and deleted his office from google maps (but there are still directions to it)
does anyone else find this a bit, well, strange and paranoid?
I heard this too, on the Daily Show.
A man-sized safe isn't that unusual. As a high level official, I'm sure he has a lot of sensitive paperwork that needs to be locked up.
As for the Google Earth bit:
It's highly unlikely that Cheney ordered that the Naval Observatory to be censored. The Tappan Zee bridge is also censored too, but I highly doubt Cheney had anything to do with it. More than likely, this is old imagery from the USGS Urban Areas, where government landmarks were obscured.
I think we can all agree that there is absolutely nothing we can all agree on.
At 7/12/07 04:48 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: Besides, shouldn't the government saving money make us nervous by this point? It's so...unnatural.
Again, this is a hypothetical, where we assume that Congress is responsible legislative body, and the members of it care more about the fiscal health of the nation than their reelection.
If we were talking about the current bunch of bozos in Congress saving money, then yes, I would be worried.
At 7/12/07 04:43 PM, Eoewe wrote: A rewrite of our current tax code would be nice. But those who are in power are making far too much money for it to ever happen.
Thanks for not answering the question. You obviously missed the emphasis on "hypothetical" and "very hypothetical".
At 7/12/07 04:45 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: A. Tax cuts are the best. What's the point of keeping money if we don't have a national debt to pay off? Empower the individual, not the government.
To pay off future debts and unforseen expenses--to avoid raising taxes as much in the future?
Think about it. Suppose, for simplicity's sake, that we keep a 1 billion dollar surplus, which, in terms of the budget, is like someone making $30,000 buying a $10 T-shirt.
The federal government can earn interest on this surplus. Let's say, 5% annually, again, for simplicity's sake. In a matter of 13-14 years, that money will have been almost doubled, so funding a $2 billion recovery effort/ pandemic control/whatever fully would have only cost the taxpayers $1 billion.
With a nation as large and powerful as ours, there's always the need for contingency funds. As with your own personal finances, it's better to save a little over time, and let the fund for your rainy day build, rather than have to scurry around looking for funding on the rainy day.
Okay, a very hypothetical question.
Suppose hell freezes over, and we cut and reform spending, reform the tax code, and now have a budget surplus. We then use that surplus to pay off the national debt.
Now what? Would you prefer
a) Reducing the taxes to balance the budget, so there's no budget deficit or surplus
b) Reducing taxes somewhat, while at the same time, keeping a smaller surplus to build up a strict "rainy day fund"
c) Keep taxes the same, and develop new social and scientifical programs with the surplus
d) Other (describe)
Myself, I would choose B. While I consider myself an economic conservative, I think having a small surplus, to be built up over time, would help serve as a contingency fund, which could be used in dire times (disaster relief, emergency aid, etc.). However, it would have to be strictly managed to be used appropriately, not as pork money or for vote buying.
Your thoughts? What would you support, and why?
At 7/12/07 03:48 PM, Eoewe wrote: You people are gullible.
Care to demonstrate why?
At 7/12/07 08:59 AM, Scarab-Stalk33r wrote: I apoligise but I'm slightly confused. Is this serious or satirical like Uncyclopedia or Encyclopedia Dramatica?
It's serious.
Some of their rules:
"# When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis. See CE. "
Oh, and
"Vandalism is punishable up to 10 years in jail per 18 USC § 1030. The IP addresses of vandals will be reported to authorities. That includes your employer and your local prosecutor."
