1,782 Forum Posts by "Christopherr"
At 2/5/09 10:12 PM, SolInvictus wrote:probably, but who gives a damn?At 2/1/09 05:55 PM, Drakim wrote: Do you think they only difference between males and females is the body they grew up with?You just enraged one million feminists.
Not me. My experiences with people and with the medical world combined with numerous studies has led me to believe that men and women are genetically different. It's just that feminists hate that idea beyond rationality.
i'm curious what the western world would be like without a binary gender classifications.
It's unfathomable.
At 2/5/09 09:12 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: Sit at the kiddies table like the rest of us AND BE PROUD
We have paper hats and plastic cups.
Also, I nominate myself for the 2009 Awards in the legal category (if there is one) for my intervention in the Guantanamo thread.
I nominate myself for "most lovable."
Possibly even "cool kid on the block."
I'VE READ LIKE 200 PAGES ON LEGAL DOCUMENTS FOR IT.
The US constitution, its amendments, the Declaration of the rights of man and of citizen, the Universal declaration of human rights, Locke, Boumediene vs Bush, Yickwo vs Hopkins, Murphy v. Ramsey, Johnson v. Eisentrager
You're toeing the line on the Lounge's golden rule, oooooh boy.
At 2/4/09 08:31 PM, Proteas wrote: I don't think the same government that underfunds our police departments, schools, roadways, yet always manages to give itself above-the-rate-of-inflation pay raise every year without my permission should have ANY word in my healthcare.
Big brother's gotta have his cars, Prot.
I never understood why people are so quick to run to socialism without even finding a mixed market solution to the problem.
I'm lazy as shit, and I want to add to the conversation... My idea is located in my signature. Look at it.
This is directed at many a Newgrounder.
I'm not really surprised that a Chicago politician is associated with some corrupt politicians.
At 2/4/09 11:31 PM, Malachy wrote: I'd imagine. That was a great part of the porno to switch to if you ask me. It's like, not even like some dude pounding a chick, it's trying to get the guy's pants off, and then he shakes his cock around, the timing couldn't have been better.
What got me was the cameraman telling her to "slap his dick through his pants."
At 2/4/09 11:07 PM, Taulle wrote: I have a bad feeling about this Stimulus plan. It'll probably lead to inflation, and, well, I don't know.
Generally, when a country comes out of a deflationary period, you have inflation.
At 2/4/09 10:59 PM, Malachy wrote:At 2/4/09 10:56 PM, Christopherr wrote: I forgot to tell you guys. I was watching the Bowl with my family... in Tucson... on Comcast cable. My 89-year-old grandmother and my father saw a half-flaccid pornstar's penis while next to me. Not cool.LOL, that story just made me literally LOL.
Sorry, I know it wasn't cool...but goddamnit I'm laughing.
I could not stop laughing at the time. It was one of those times where things are so strange that you can't help but laugh.
I should get out more, gotta conquer this antisocial behavior. Lately, I've been feeling as if I'm standing still while everything goes on around me. All the people I knew in college are settling down and getting married; I'm not going anywhere at all.
Plus, I'm running out of books to read, and I'm near broke. If you didn't know, I'm a voracious reader. You know how some people call themselves voracious readers? I'm actually one. If I gathered together all of the finished books just in my room, the pile would come near the ceiling.
I forgot to tell you guys. I was watching the Bowl with my family... in Tucson... on Comcast cable. My 89-year-old grandmother and my father saw a half-flaccid pornstar's penis while next to me. Not cool.
At 2/4/09 09:55 PM, slowerthenb4 wrote: i fucking hate that marketing is so vital in the pharma industry. where is the hypocratic oath for those sleeze?
It's a double-edged sword. While the 1997 legalization of direct-to-consumer advertising vastly increased the rates of diagnosis for multiple illnesses (bipolar diagnoses have gone up some 400 percent in children, for example), it also created a 100 percent increase in spending on drug R&D, which benefits those who actually need medications.
At 2/3/09 10:49 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: So seriously, WTF. This isn't like a terrorist attack.
Appearance is important when you're leading the world's most influential country. If your leader doesn't keep his workers in line, then he presents himself as ineffective.
At 2/3/09 02:30 AM, AntiangelicAngel wrote:At 2/3/09 02:06 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Nukes means that you probably can't regime change the placeThe U.S. thought Saddam had WMD's, and we regime changed his ass. Oh snap! But seriously, if we'd take that risk, why not this one?
Saddam didn't have nuclear warheads capable of leveling massive chunks of cities.
Saddam's WMDs compared to N. Korea's is like kittens to tigers.
They're downplaying this like a cutesy game Rahm's playing instead of a lack of authority on Obama's part. It's just disrespect.
Also, that article is calling a man who said "Republicans can go fuck themselves" an ambassador to the Republicans.
It must've been written in topsy-turvy world.
At 2/3/09 08:28 PM, Tancrisism wrote: I honestly don't know, what precedent does it set?
That nudists can go ahead and be nude outside their designated nudism areas. The best approach would be to designate a clothing-optional mountain instead of give free access to any mountains.
But do you know how huge and wide the mountainous areas are? The chances that two people will stumble upon each other are not very high.
I'm going to take the official's word that the mountains are frequented by children over your guess that they aren't.
And like someone said before, will it really hurt a child that much if they see someone's johnson while roaming the woods?
That would be a judgment call for the parents of the children to make, not the government of Sweden or the hordes of nudists.
What a confused society we live in.
At 2/1/09 05:55 PM, Drakim wrote: Do you think they only difference between males and females is the body they grew up with?
You just enraged one million feminists.
At 2/3/09 02:54 PM, ThePretenders wrote: I don't really care. They're nude in the mountain, away from any large settlement. It's hardly going to affect someone.
That's a shortsighted way of looking at it. What precedent does it set that the government allowed nudists to roam around outside the designated areas for nudism?
Besides, the article that reported this even says that children frequent it in the warmer months, if you could be bothered to read what the topic is based on.
"'The point is many children visit our mountains in the summer,' [Melchior Looser, justice minister in the canton in north-eastern Switzerland,] told he Guardian newspaper.
At 2/2/09 06:40 PM, Christopherr wrote:I agree that economics is a good preparation. Bush Sr. was our last president who had an economics background, and by no small coincidence I consider him to be the best American president since Teddy Roosevelt.
I haven't seen someone say that in a long time, why?
I'd argue that it makes you accustomed to looking at issues in a systematic and creative way. I mean, designing a new computer chip requires an appreciation for concepts like safety and redundancy, which probably explains why engineers are less likely than other majors to identify as liberal.
Nevermind the fact that some major policy issues require technical knowledge to understand in a mature way. You're not going to understand education if you don't know anything about statistics and you're not going to understand energy policy if you don't know what energy is. You could argue that they'll appoint people who do understand the issues in depth, but how are they supposed to make logical appointments if they themselves don't understand the issue?
No, don't get me wrong. I was asking you what use it was.
I do like the mindset it gives, but it is equally important that one have the right knowledge to apply the mindset to.
Everyone should have good knowledge of the history of their country, regardless of profession. It's a key to making educated political decisions.
But if I had to pick between the two choices, I would choose history, law, and economics. In order to effectively lead a country, you need to know what previous leaders have done and how things worked out. You also need to know how a massive economy works and what your decisions will do to it.
Aside from that, what use is an engineering degree when you're making policy?
At 2/2/09 04:22 PM, cainine-k9 wrote: As well, quoting An Inconvenient Truth, 100% of the scientific articles they found said that global warming is true. I can provide the actual statistic if you like....
Am I the only one who caught the humor in this statement?
At 1/30/09 03:27 PM, Imperator wrote: Finally got invited to ESP.
Is the invitation in Latin? And do they mind-beam it to you?
It's like the National honors society for college students.....in Classics......
I hated NHS. Nothing about it appealed to me.
Come to think of it, I hated all the school clubs with the exception of chess, because it's the greatest game man ever made. Don't get me wrong, I was (and still am) fairly athletic. I'm pretty introverted, so I stuck to chess, singles tennis, and a little bit of wrestling.
Wait, a state that taxes more has no money? Where does the money go? Why does California elect people who can't be trusted to be fiscally responsible?
I'm bamboozled.
At 1/31/09 03:13 AM, Tancrisism wrote: But this is a mountain. Not a park.
Public trails. Under the jurisdiction of public laws. And according to the article, they are frequented by children.
I submit that the people be allowed to vote on this. Let them choose how to deal with public nudity in places outside of the already-sanctioned nude areas. While the nudists may feel entitled to a right to be nude in public, many, many more mothers and fathers also have a right to protect their children from what they feel is obscenity.
At 1/29/09 01:27 AM, Memorize wrote: I like how when it used to cool, it was rampant Global Cooling that would kill off farm land and vegitation.
I was pretty young, so I vaguely remember that. It was pretty stupid, in retrospect.
The recent trend has been "unstable climate" instead of global cooling or warming. Will the environmentalists ever really know how we're destroying Earth?
Personally, I don't think the world will end like people say. Seriously, we're a little more resilient than global-warmingites make us out to be. After all, humanity (along with the world) somehow survived a crippling ice age. It's also survived multiple periods of global warming, each being very close in temperature to the one we are currently in.
At 1/31/09 12:14 AM, Al6200 wrote:At 1/30/09 10:37 PM, Christopherr wrote:You have your terminology wrong. A government tax on a good such as gasoline isn't called a sales tax, but an excise tax. You've got to get them right if you want people to understand you.The idea behind a stimulus package is that it forces money to flow through the economy, and not get hoarded by rich people. A tax cut isn't a stimulus, as Der Lowe has pointed out time and time again, because people will save most of the money that they get from the government.
The real issue is that while I agree with the idea of a stimulus package, I don't think that Obama is spending the money very efficiently.
Agreed. I don't even understand why you are telling me this... I never said anything about tax cuts, and I even said myself that this was inefficient spending.
At 1/30/09 12:38 AM, Musician wrote: Depends on the state and the product. The feds may very well have their own sales tax on goods. Just look at gasoline for example; that's taxed by the federal government and the state.
You have your terminology wrong. A government tax on a good such as gasoline isn't called a sales tax, but an excise tax. You've got to get them right if you want people to understand you.
Even so, I'm assuming it would free up funds from other sources of revenue.
I was just pointing out that it's pointless to say that the payroll tax is an alternate source of revenue from the income tax, is all.
I haven't seen a break down of Obama's stimulus as of yet, so I don't know what you mean when you say "eco-bullshit". Still, I'm generally opposed to cutting spending or raising taxes until the economy has re-stabilized. Afterwards though, I definitely agree, we have to cut the flab off of our budget.
It's loaded with random costs such as spending a few hundred thousand dollars on making federal buildings more energy-efficient, things almost completely irrelevant to helping the current state of the national economy. You can be sure that this was positively loaded with many wasteful costs, being the federal government.
At 1/30/09 10:05 PM, rainmaker wrote: Everyone has failed to mention how the GOP was pussyfooting around with the media, proclaiming how they felt Obama was a great leader and that the stimulus was a brilliant display of bipartisan work. Sounds like this "rejection" had little to do with fiscal ideology and more to do with party politics.
Party politics have dominated in America since the 1800s. I'm not surprised.
And someone was wondering when government spending ever helped solve a financial crisis? Government spending rarely helps solve anything, if the government is only throwing money at the problem. Government spending ALWAYS works when the government is throwing money into new jobs. Remember WWII? :)
I don't know, that's a shady comparison. FDR's spending policies didn't do much at all before we were dragged into WWII. Then again, that was a totally different time period, not a great comparison to the present day.
At 1/29/09 11:24 PM, Musician wrote: Increased employment generates more income tax, there's also sales tax and payroll tax (both of which would generate higher income with less unemployment).
Uhh, we're talking about the national government's debts. The state sales taxes are state taxes, and the federal government isn't entitled to sales tax revenue.
Also, the payroll tax is the income tax with social security and Medicare taxes tacked on. Can you guess what social security and Medicare taxes are spent on, leaving the income tax money to be spent?
Second, revenue doesn't necessarily need to increase. Spending could be cut in other areas in order to free up funds to put towards paying back debt.
I submit that we cut frivolous spending. The issue is where to define frivolous. For example, the eco-bullshit that keeps getting slung around. Why should a stimulus package even provide for this?
