I'm pretty sure he said he'd be pulling troops out of Iraq and sending more to Afghanistan.

At 11/25/09 12:08 AM, KeithHybrid wrote: Wording of a bill meant to prevent gay marriage in Texas winds up banning ALL marriage in the state.

Only in Texass.

Congress outlawed the export, transport, sale or purchase of wood products last month.
http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/
2009/10/where_were_you_2.html

Surprise, politicians are stupid!

So you'll watch the news. That's what it's there for, to scare you into watching it.

Had h1n1, was slightly ill for like 3 days, then it went away. Big scary virus wOoOoooO!

At 9/3/09 10:32 PM, LaForge wrote: And even if that were the case, it's still a monumentally stupid idea to bring a loaded gun to a presidential rally, where any nut can overpower you and take potshots at our leader.

Why attempt to overpower someone? Clearly it isn't against the rules at the rallies otherwise these people would have been arrested. If they wanted to do that they could just bring their own.

I think it was mostly to get press coverage. Silly perhaps, but since it was legal I don't see how it makes someone stupid. The whole "someone could overpower you and take it" argument is pointless.

I heard that we would run out of oil in 2010, and that all the rainforests would be gone by 2012. Getting pretty close.

Also, snow sucks.

I also thought it was hilarious when she said something along the lines of "My personal opinion shouldn't matter, I just do what the law says." Either completely retarded or thinks we're really that stupid. Probably both.

5 years is a pretty impressive Necro.

Ironically the SO2 decrease was due to flue-gas desulfurizaiton technology, which changes the SO2 into CaSO4 and CO2 (carbon dioxide being the target of this bill) inside the smokestacks so it doesn't get released into the atmosphere, and allows the companies to keep doing their thing. I don't think they've created anything similar for CO2. Also, it only decreased 30%, compared to the 80% reduction they're attempting to impose over time.

They're called "internet service providers" because it's a good. Clearly.

At 6/19/09 07:04 AM, TheMason wrote:

At 6/19/09 06:31 AM, Psycho-Medic wrote: Among the things mentioned above, the language of the bill is terrible. It's very unlikely that it will come anywhere near to passing. It's pretty much a huge joke.

I really think gun control is dead until after the mid-term election of a second Obama administration. I've read where Harry Reid is against reinstating the Assault Weapon Ban (he voted against the 1994 AWB). Also many of the Dems who made it in to give the party its strong majority are from NRA friendly districts.

Oh, I have no doubt they'll push for more gun control. I just don't think it will be through this bill. Anyone with half a brain would realize how poorly this bill is written, even if they are for gun control, and not vote for it, or at least amend the thing to something that isn't filled with loopholes and subjective statements. Although, maybe I am giving congress too much credit.

If anyone would like a link to the bill, here it is.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45 /text

A basic summary is that it would make it illegal to own a firearm unless:
-It is registered
-You are fingerprinted
-You supply a current Driver's License
-You supply your Social Security #
-You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their choosing
-Change or ownership through private or public sale must be reported and costs $25
-Failure to do so you automatically lose the right to own a firearm and are subject up to a year in jail.
-Gun must be locked and inaccessible to any child under 18. (Remember hunting as a kid? Not anymore)
-They would have the right to come and inspect that you are storing your gun safely away from children and is punishable for up to 5 yrs. in prison.

Among the things mentioned above, the language of the bill is terrible. It's very unlikely that it will come anywhere near to passing. It's pretty much a huge joke.

At 6/10/09 03:35 PM, Fim wrote: All this bullshit about defending yourself against potential gun weilding criminals (who I might add can buy guns just as legally as you can) ... just sounds like paranoid excuses with no real basis.

I agree, we must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid. Wait...

What? I was saying that he said he saw no other purpose besides killing people yet he mentioned one in the same post...

At 6/9/09 07:04 PM, RussianGiant wrote:
i would ban all guns. no civilian use except for army or hunting purposes.
i see no purpose in having a gun except for killing somebody, not self defence[sic].

...hunting purposes.

:i see no purpose in having a gun except for killing somebody

Look at that, you rebutted your own argument! If only more people would do that it would make arguing much easier.

So far I have a checkmark next to all of the following arguments (in some form) that have been presented in this thread from the link I posted earlier. I would still like to see 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, 37, 39, 40, added to the list, if you guys don't mind.

1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns.

2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 80.6 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Arlington, VA's high murder rate of 1.6 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

15. We don't need guns against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, but we should ban and seize all guns, thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments to that Constitution.

23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

34. Police officers, who qualify with their duty weapons once or twice a year, have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

If I missed any, I'm sorry, but there's quite a bit of stuff to read in this thread.

I heard about a bank robbery where lome lady used a bow and arrow. "Put the bow and arrow down and come out of the building!" I thought it was a bit funny.

Did you guys forget that California is bankrupt?

At 6/5/09 04:33 AM, TheMason wrote:

At 6/4/09 11:20 AM, fatape wrote: I think the only weapons we should ban are ones which are useless for hunting or self defense ...

Examples? And are you really basing this on anything...or are you just making an unsubstantiated "common sense" assumption?

Obviously just the scary looking ones, they are the most evil.
http://geekpolitics.com/top-40-reasons-t o-support-gun-control/
(Read the link before you post, it's not what you think.)

Don't make me hurt you.

At 6/5/09 05:42 AM, carbonwater wrote: Oh boy more RPGs, just what we need.

Can't wait to grind for 60 hours with no reward at the end.

Oh boy, more <Genre>, just what we need. I can't wait to <a ction Taken In Game> with no reward at the end. It's like people play games for fun or something.

Plus, there wasn't even really any grinding in golden sun, if you played any of those games.

(Not DS games, I don't even have one of those)

I pirate games they don't sell anymore, that's about it.

You already have to pay for the hospital bills of people who do that, and there's no guarantee that a whole shitload of people won't crank up and go on a killing spree right now, so your arguments are pretty weak.

Show some evidence that legalization would lead to a consumption explosion and you might have something.

The killing spree comment was really an exaggeration. What I was really talking about was people harming others or their dependents (indirectly or directly), though I really didn't make that very clear. About the hospital bill thing, I'm up for letting those people die, but most people would consider that immoral or inhumane, and I guess that's not really the subject anyway.

It's kind of ridiculous to insinuate that an increase in supply would not increase the consumption of these drugs. People already pay ridiculous amounts for these drugs (relative to the cost of production), so there's obviously a pretty high demand for them. There's no way (within the amount of time I am willing to waste on this) that I can give evidence of drug use increase after repeal of a ban on hard drugs, but when the price of a good goes down consumption generally goes up.

Honestly it's not my place to tell you what to do with your own body as long as no one depends on you for support (family, kids, ect). There's obviously benefits to legalizing drugs and I'd probably be up for it if taxpayers didn't have to pay for injuries resulting from drug use or from injuries while under the influence of those drugs. That's for people with no dependents.

Also, extended use of LSD can induce Psychosis, whoever that was who was telling me to piss off.

Armor piercing guns...
I seem to hear people say this all the time now and it bothers the hell out of me.

If I don't have to pay for their hospital bills when they fuck themselves up and you can promise me that a whole shitload of people high off their ass on LSD/meth/whatthefuckever won't run around, stoned out of their mind, killing people (which you can't).

I meant how they are making a statement about an entire generation based on the thoughts of ~40 students enrolled in Fresno state. Psychological experiments are usually fine with narrower groups if you're determining the capabilities of the human mind, such as picking out objects or memorization tests. It's not alright though when you start getting into people's beliefs. If you're going to make statements about an entire generation, you need a larger and more diverse group.

The sample ratio of males to females is 1:3.
The sample size is only ~40 students, not enough to make such a grand statement IMO.
All the students are taken from classes at Fresno state, where 97% of the student body is from California.
The vast majority of students going there receive a degree in either Liberal Arts, Agriculture Science, or Management.

Is this sample a good representation of juries (of this generation) across the United States? No.

A new study shows that 33 women (mean age 19.36 years, SD = 3.80) and 11 men (mean age = 20.72 years, SD = 2.28) recruited from freshman psychology classes at California State University, Fresno, after looking at a still photograph for 5 seconds, decided that they should not shoot the subject of the picture.

What a terrible study.

Anyone who would consider Science & Math non-creative hasn't studied much Math & Science. Engineering is creative problem-solving with math and science, and is freaking awesome.

About school ruining peoples creativity... I'm not buying it. The reason that they make you take multiple classes so that you can find something you're interested in. Personally, Art and English, the classes generally considered 'creative' were pretty boring for me. Though I'm sure some other people liked it. Physics was awesome, and I took some engineering classes in high school for my free electives that were pretty good too. I'm currently studying Electrical Engineering. If I had just studied basic algebra and took the minimum 'required for every day life' classes I don't know what I'd be doing.

If DC wants a vote, either:
Make them a state.
Make them part of a state.
Amend the Constitution.

Passing a bill into law is not sufficient.

At 2/20/09 09:50 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote:

At 2/20/09 07:16 PM, Psycho-Medic wrote: That probably depends on how you're opposing it

If the Army is raining down missiles on you and sending tanks to destroy your town, I don't think you can run up to the general and yell, 'I never broke the law!' and have them all scratch their chins and leave.

If you've gotten to that point I'm pretty sure you've (the people rebeling) dismissed the current government as a false one, and probably aren't concerned about breaking the law anymore.