At Home

Way to miss the point.

Coincidentally, all Hindus believe that Nachiketa really had a long discussion with Yama (the god of Death) and learned the secret to life from him! You can really be fucking stupid sometimes.

But that'll never happen, it'll crush their economy. Same goes for a lot of the Middle Eastern countries. As far as I know, their economies are too specialized in energy to even consider risking just cutting off supplies.

My favorite topic! Here we go. I don't buy the opinion that the Japanese wanted to surrender considering that they were training women and children to kill American with bamboo staffs. In short, a land invasion would've been like the strategy of island hopping (which, by definition required waves of men being sent to their death) only ten times more brutal. Someone would've had to have been decimated with a land invasion. Regarding the Red Army in Manchuria, don't forget that we asked them to be there. At Yalta, Roosevelt specifically requested that three months after the war ended (or the conference, I forget), the Red Army needed to be in Japan to secure victory if we hadn't already. This is why, after the decision was handed down to use atomic force, they absolutely rushed to drop the bombs as fast as they could: to prevent Russian excursion into Japan. Concurrently, along with preventing Russian excursion into Japan, a second benefit to atomic force was the ability to show the Russians our nuclear might and send a warning out that surely gave us some bargaining power in the beginning of the Cold War. Also, food for thought: the "unconditional surrender" thing came from WWI Germany. Some historians argued that in order to have successfully dealt with Germany, the winning powers needed to have crushed it completely, or done nothing at all. What ended up was something in the middle, leading to the mess of the Weimar Republic, and, long story short, Hitler. They didn't want easy treatment for Japan (even though they let them keep the Emperor) in case another Hitler propped up in Japan. Smit: I've read that before, and it's interesting, but it's by no means a case-closed kind of thing, just another dimension. Consider the Imperial army: all the crazy shit that happened in China, young, rogue officers invading Manchuria without any sort of approval, the island hopping strategy being predicated off of the belief that Americans were weak soldiers and wouldn't take the losses they did fighting up the islands of Japan. The Imperial Army was some serious shit.

Got a blowjob from a lesbian in a park, then hooked up with my sisters roommate while my sister was sleeping next door.

I'm pretty busy tonight and just wanted to come and check in here, but don't you think this is a little bit naive?

This is going to be a blowout, just exact revenge now.

I don't think that's what they're going for.

Golden

And it's also filled with lessons of love, and harmony. But I'm sure you know that you can pick or choose what you want in order to push whatever opinion you have. Taking those stories literally is also a choice.

I sincerely hope that you actually didn't call someone's opinion "dead wrong." Is it okay to call their opinion "hateful," "bigoted," and "harmful to the progress of a happy, healthy society"? Or is that verboten, too? No, that's fine, but calling opinions wrong or right is a pretty stupid thing to do.

Just because you vote for a banning of gay marriage, does not mean you're forcing others to vote for it.

You're not talking about gay marriage anymore. You don't even recognize the fact that this isn't (primarily) a logical topic, and you certainly don't need logic to back up your opinion. The "problem" that you profess this to be is the name of the voting game. And yes, you do apply your personal opinions to other people when you vote, that's how it works.

EVERY TIME YOU GO VOTE, YOU APPLY YOUR PERSONAL OPINIONS TO OTHER PEOPLE.

There doesn't need to be an argument! If people want to say, "I'm just uncomfortable with two men marrying," I don't need logic to understand their point of view. That's how some opinions work.

Details, Peter. It was on multiple occasions. One time I just punched her hand while it was up, finger went back, snap, one time was a soccer ball, one time was a door, and another time just me punching her. She's now a successful artist.

But a lot of that falls under the proviso of free trade and wanting people to buy American stuff. Had it not been for already-existing political influence, would that exist with the same fervor and prevalence as it would today?

The whole package. It's a pretty broad topic, I know, but we should discuss all the aspects and results of American influence around the globe, good and bad.

I'll try to find the video of this debate, but the topic of it was American hegemony around the world. It's no doubt that America has tons of influence around the world (or does it?), and the term "American Empire" is thrown around a lot where I am. But what are the consequences of American dominance throughout the world, both positive and negative? Was it the motivating factor in consolidating Europe into the EU? Is America the least rapacious empire? Let's discuss.

I've seen everything on the internet. Worst thing I've ever done? I broke a bunch of my sister's fingers, that's probably the worst.

And yet you use the tenets of libertarianism to form your own opinion! That's not different at all.

I sincerely hope that you actually didn't call someone's opinion "dead wrong."

Yeah, it's a whole bunch of stupid bullshit. There's a chance, however, it'll be rendered unconstitutional in court like it was a few times. That's just what I've heard, but it seems like that wouldn't work considering that it's a constitutional amendment itself. It's complicated, but I don't think the existing marriages will be invalidated.

Not true. Look at Thursday's episode, which was 22 minutes of the awkward cringeworthy humour that is one of The Office's hallmarks. Or the week before, with Dwight one-upping Michael. "You're welcome" is funnier than anything on 30 Rock this season. It's worse. I will credit 30 Rock for showing improvement, but I think they think the show is funnier than it really is. Jane Krakowski is just bad, she should've been dumped after Season 1. They need to use the writers more, and not waste Alec Baldwin's time with relationship arcs. This made me laugh. It's like you just wanted to make points and quoted me to make it seem that you were actually responding to something. You even say "22 minutes of the awkward, cringeworthy humour that is one of The Office's hallmarks" (way to plagiarize every review of The Office ever) right before I say that The Office writes every script using Mad Libs. The last response doesn't even address what I said above. "30 Rock can get kind of formulaic at times, but nowhere near The Office." "I don't like the characters on 30 Rock." C'mon man.