8,352 Forum Posts by "JMHX"
At 5/31/04 12:45 AM, RedSkynk wrote:At 5/31/04 12:38 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: What I meant was, getting the "high" feeling without the cancers and health problems that come from unfiltered street marijuana currently.Oh brother... *bites lip*
different topic, different topic....
Yeah, I didn't mean for it to go off on a pot tangent, just raising the point about how science could affect things in ways no one thinks possible right now.
Any fresh comments?
At 5/31/04 12:12 AM, Jlop985 wrote: Good for you, JMHX. My day is complete now that I know that you have the best woman ever. I feel great for you, and am in no way belittled by your comments.
Now make me a sandwich.
At 5/30/04 11:59 PM, Alejandro1 wrote:At 5/30/04 11:51 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Perhaps there will be a marijuana that provides the same effects as actual marijuana without any of the negative effects.Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose then? I mean, if you're planning on taking marijuana, you're probably going to act like an idiot. Expect it.
What I meant was, getting the "high" feeling without the cancers and health problems that come from unfiltered street marijuana currently.
At 5/30/04 11:19 PM, Jlop985 wrote: I think the saying 'all the good ones are taken' should be modified to 'even all the remotely good-looking ones are taken'.
I hate life sometimes.
If we're talking about the superior sex, I have the greatest woman this side of everywhere.
At 5/30/04 11:18 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote:At 5/30/04 11:15 PM, Reform wrote:The word 'recreation' made me think of something that could keep you entertained for hours.... :) Recreational marijuana usage anyone?
Perhaps there will be a marijuana that provides the same effects as actual marijuana without any of the negative effects. That would certainly knock a leg out from my anti-marijuana debating table.
I've had a deep thought day today - God knows the twelve hours I wasted at the rain delayed and ultimately cancelled Indianapolis 500 gave me ample time to think about things not at all related to left turns.
I really have no idea why I go to that thing - I have no interest in racing at all. But hey, Morgan Freeman was there, and the guy who played Shooter in Happy Gilmore.
Good times.
Look back on the past 100 years, more or less, of American culture. Look at how many things we have contributed to the world in these 100 industrial years - far more than in the 100 before that, or even in the 500 before that. It's quite amazing to see how, around 1880, things began to join up into one mass and speed through the 1900s, through the 50s, and come out where we are now, 2004.
I was inspired to write this as I watched a History Channel show on the Wright Brothers, who, as we know, challenged the laws of gravity and realized a dream of the ages - powered flight. For so very, very long, the idea of flight had been just that, an idea, and a foolish one by most standards. People thought it absolutely mad to attempt flight - a waste of time and, more importantly, money.
However, Orville and Wilbur would not let that get in their way. They took something from nothing, literally. They had nothing to build on - there were no successful prototypes. They took nothing and transformed it into powered flight. As we look at powered flight now, it is impossible, nearly anyway, to see life without it.
Edison, especially, symbolizes this view of taking just a thought, a novelty, an abstract idea, and working to make it happen with no structure to build from but that idea. If you think about it, what marvelous, wonderful things will we have in 2050, when I am 63, that we have not even thought of yet, that we see as being completely impossible by all current scientific standards? What will we be able to see, do, experience then that none of us imagine now?
Man, I hate it when I think deep.
At 5/30/04 02:06 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:At 5/30/04 01:38 AM, -Dr_Feelgood- wrote: Shit, there isn't enough blood and bombs going off as I was hoping (blood as in us killing the sallah mallahs of course).You disgust me. How can you talk about people dying like that?
I stand behind BCC and ask this question as well.
At 5/30/04 12:33 AM, Ignignot-Lies wrote: Meh, that's what happens when you stop posting around here for a while, everything kinda just sneaks up on you.
Man, I need to get back here, then.
Taken from my Useless Knowledge column. As usual, please discuss.
-----
I believe it is high time we decided just what’s going on. With news of Pat Tillman, the all- around hero of the United States and advanced Ranger being slain by friendly fire, I am left to wonder about the state of our War on Terrorism. I completely understand that friendly fire cannot be eliminated from battle, and the fog of war is often a fatal one for troops involved in a heavy firefight. My peeve here is pretending death does not happen in war.
The amount of time the Bush Administration has invested in making sure Americans do not see – or hear – the cost of the War in Iraq, or the War on Terrorism in general. While we have our breakaway news anchors that devote time to listing all of the dead from the War in Iraq, it is largely stifled as to exactly what is going on.
A smart Bush Administration, pardon the oxymoron, would have been the first to jump on to the reading of the war dead. They would have joined the nation in mourning, and through that appeared to care more for the dead than for the preservation of this “bloodless war” the Administration seems to be gunning for. They would have left the liberals nothing to rag them on.
But that, in the most secretive administration since Richard Nixon as many have indeed said, was not the case. Instead, they lobbied to have the show not aired, and when pictures of caskets coming home from Iraq were splashed across newspapers and television screens, the photographer was fired and the White House asked for no more pictures to be shown.
The White House refused to let the casket pictures out publicly because, as they said, it defied the privacy of the families. Now, as the caskets were wrapped in American flags and pictures taken from a distance, how am I supposed to tell that casket 7-A is Bob from Winnipeg? This runs a bit deeper than that.
The Administration realizes the quagmire in Iraq was a bad decision. If they would simply come out and say this, the public would be more than willing to forgive, as we do to those who make mistakes and admit them. However, instead of admit that President Bush may be wrong; the Administration is doing its best to warp the facts in order to prove him right.
Why ban the caskets from the media? Because it shows the American people exactly what the cost of war is. Ten caskets speak more for the anti- war movement than 100 positive progress reports do for the pro-war side. Why? Because, since Vietnam, the visual media has played a massive role in shaping public opinion on American foreign policy and conflict.
“Vietnam” is a word the Administration would love to censor. It’s a thorn in their side on so many, many fronts. However, as they crack down on reading lists of war dead, on showing pictures of those who died so valiantly for the twisted cause of the Bush Administration, that word seems only to reverberate off the walls.
Had President Bush served in a war, he would know that war dead are not taken lightly. Perhaps the next casket photographed will be his re-election attempt.
The thread is 404 pages long.
What a magical internet number, 404.
Hax0r the 404 err0r.
My Aldous Huxley reference was too obscure for NG...
At 5/25/04 06:18 PM, RedSkvnk wrote:At 5/25/04 05:05 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:Every five years? In the US, there's a federal election every 2 years. And state elections? Local elections? Would they be compulsory also, in your pseudo-facist state?
Yes.
At 5/25/04 05:05 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: I think voting should be compusory. You do NOT have a RIGHT to vote, you have the RESPONSIBILITY. I dont think it's a lot to ask people to move from their house to the polling station every 5 years.
Well said.
Iraqis say leave it, we say tear it down.
Guess which side is going to win?
At 5/25/04 01:24 AM, CrassClock wrote:At 5/25/04 01:11 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: If you look hard enough, you will find comparisons in any two things.Well actually all I did was paraphrase chapter 4 of Downsize this!
Oh no, Michael Moore.
If you look hard enough, you will find comparisons in any two things.
At 5/24/04 11:47 PM, CrassClock wrote: Add to that the fact that Democrats and Republicans are nearly identical in all aspects.
Except the Big-3
+ Abortion
+ Gay Rights
+ Stem-Cell
From my latest Useless-Knowledge.com Column
-----
Take a look at the election turnouts for the past four Presidential Elections, starting from 1988: 50.2%, 55.2%, 49%, 54.5%. Always hovering in the low fifties, bouncing back every eight years or so. This should bother people more than it does.
When half of the United States turns out to vote, is that truly an accurate representation of the position our country is headed in? When so many Americans choose simply to ignore Election Day in favor of watching the pretty graphics on the nightly news to see who was chosen, does this speak well for our electoral process?
Voter turnout in my home state of Indiana in 2000 was 49%, less than half. On that same month forty years ago, turnout was 76%. Twenty years ago? 58%. There is no excuse for this rampant desensitization that I like to call “The Huxleyfication of America.”
Politics has been lacking for the past forty years; that is simple to say. It has been edged out of popular opinion by the ever-increasing distractions of television and the internet. During that famous Kennedy and Nixon debate, it is easy to see how television could have worked wonders on inspiring people to get out and vote.
As it turns out, that infernal box has become one of their largest reasons not to. All one needs to do is turn on the television to see John Kerry and President George W. Bush trading jabs at each other, flinging mud and dodging for cover behind their walls of P.R. men.
If that’s not appealing, I don’t know what is.
Nothing draws the attention away from politics quicker than two esteemed political figures acting like children over who gets to sit in the big chair at the end of the day. It could be argued that polling turnouts were higher in 1960 because debates were conducted and the candidates were seen as gentlemen.
2000 proved to all Americans that every single vote matters, that one cannot feel content to sit down and watch The West Wing while the actual department goes up in smoke with the voice of an ever-increasing minority of voters.
I do not say that one side is right and one side is wrong politically. Certainly, the Democrats and Republicans each have their strengths and weaknesses, and the fact that these are being wholly ignored – turnout for 2004 is expected around 50% - for the sake of convenience is nothing short of disgusting.
Go out and vote in November. It is of the utmost necessity that as many voices as possible be heard, that the President of the United States, Governors, Senators, and Representatives not be chosen by a small minority that has found a way to capitalize on the increasing voter apathy.
Huxley feared that entertainment and the media, things we love, would enslave us without Orwellian help. Now I fear he may be right.
-----
I welcome all comments, thoughts, and debate points.
At 5/23/04 11:34 PM, FatherVenom wrote: I'm only worried because they're infiltrating the Regular's Lounge with post counts in the single or low double digits.
Agreed. I passed 4,000 without realizing it.
At 5/23/04 10:37 PM, FatherVenom wrote: Well we don't have to look at it as him trying to cover up evidence as long as we institute better checking measures
Yeah. That's going to happen.
As I've said before, I am the Illuminati. The guy's not crazy, just not a fan of my charitable works.
The best way to stop criticism is to just ban any method of proving those criticisms. Too little too late, Mr. Rumsfeld.
Embryos and fetii. There you go.
At 5/23/04 04:55 PM, darkmage8 wrote: How do you solve a problem with U.S soldiers torturing P.O.W.s? Take away the survalance that proves it ever happened! Thanks Mister Rumsfeld, your ethics concerning the situation continue to astound me.
He's a true American hero.
Does it help now that Iraqis can no longer bring suit against soldiers for war crimes?
At 5/23/04 03:55 PM, Gobo718 wrote:At 5/23/04 03:50 PM, darkmage8 wrote: The bible changed through translations.
*gasp* lies.
MOBILE phones fitted with digital cameras have been banned in US army installations in Iraq on orders from Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, The Business newspaper reported today.
Quoting a Pentagon source, the paper said the US Defence Department believes that some of the damning photos of US soldiers abusing Iraqis at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad were taken with camera phones.
"Digital cameras, camcorders and cellphones with cameras have been prohibited in military compounds in Iraq," it said, adding that a "total ban throughout the US military" is in the works.
Disturbing new photos of Iraqi prisoner abuse, which the US government had reportedly tried to keep hidden, were published on Friday in the Washington Post newspaper.
The photos emerged along with details of testimony from inmates at Abu Ghraib who said they were sexually molested by female soldiers, beaten, sodomised and forced to eat food from toilets.
-----
Now it seems to me that Mr. Rumsfeld, instead of actually working to solve the problem of our barbaric acts, is simply trying to cover up any future or remaining acts. Thoughts?
At 5/23/04 03:33 PM, Izuamoto wrote: it wasn't done for comedic value, at least i don't think so. read the home page, it's a site for satanic literature.
I rest my case.
We've really driven everything into the ground.
