At Home

Good lord that is such bullshit. It's tossed around so often, and so little thought actually goes into that sentiment. You don't need war to achieve peace. In any war which you have a zero sum game-scenario (one winner, one loser), you're setting yourself up for future conflict. War thinking breeds war. EDIT: Yes, I understand that war is an extension of diplomacy. Are there examples where military intervention was necessary? Yes. Several. But I mean, Grenada? Iraq? My argument is that if peace is the absence, in this issue, of military conflict, then military intervention isn't going to be the path to peace.

Evidence enough for me. I suggest a pool until the culprit reveals himself.

Yeah, peace is for pussies.

I don't think you can PM people while you're a Whiny Bitch.

WOAH GOOD ONE

More here!

aka never

My work here is done.

Thank god.

In 2005, the median age for getting married (first marriage) was 27.0 for men. For women, it was 25.0 I think. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GRTTa...p;-format=US-30

But statistically, people are getting married later. It's that mentality of trying to make a living for yourself first before getting married, which ends up for a lot of people to be in their late 20s or 30s.

He's considered a black man in America. It's not like just because his father is from Kenya people see him on the street and decide not to have the same prejudice against him that they have with other blacks. We don't divide the blacks in this country according to where they came from, in Africa. Everyone is the same here. And maybe he hasn't said it, but if you read that crap that Ann Coulter wrote, discussing Obamitler's Mein Kampf, where she took certain excerpts and tried to make some shitty point, you see that it's in the back of his mind. Obamitler's MEIN KAMPF? Yeah, because The Audacity of Hope is a utterly insane foray into explaining how Obama hates the jews, plans to take over Russia and the Sudetenland, and consolidate power under one totalitarian leader.

I think that question is more irrelevant. The burden of proof is on people saying that they're somehow not his people...? Oh, wait. I read Zoo's post. I thought you guys were just referencing political rhetoric and pundits. My bad.

Does he claim that blacks are his people? News to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1bCMWLFKWo

No. Whether Wright is "EVIL and HORRIBLE" is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not I am a racist. I am not arguing "for argument's sake." I am stating that the person whom B.O. Hussein called his mentor, his spiritual advisor, the person who performed the ceremony which married him to his wife, the person who baptized his children and dedicated his house, the person whose church he has attended for the past two decades, is a racist. Whatever I may or may not be, that does not alter these facts. So what does that mean to you? It's irresponsible to assume that Obama is going to go on some racial tirade once in office. It is possible to surround yourself with people of differing opinion and still retain your own beliefs. I mean, Marney, let's face it, America institutionalized (and still does to some degree) racism for a good number of centuries. The Civil Rights Movement was completed forty years ago. I wrote an essay for an IB exam today on this, in fact. Black people may have legally been equals to their white counterparts thanks to legislative successes, but racial equality is something that America has yet to see fulfilled. Not to say that there hasn't been a general movement towards economic equality, but the ultimate goal of that still seems distant. Poverty begets poverty, and it's a well-known fact that Reconstruction essentially directly condemned black people to low-income areas of cities in the south and other areas. I certainly wouldn't be exactly warmed up to a situation like that.

Of all the days I decide to take a 4-hour nap, why, oh why, did it have to be today.

I've accumulated like $75 of this shit, and I want to get some paypal money for it. I'll negotiate the terms, but I only accept paypal for this stuff. If you're looking to buy something off of Amazon, why not pay less for it! Anyways, there's a loop hole. I can't just give you a code or anything, you have to buy it through me. This doesn't really mean anything outside of you have to give me your address. Also, no orders over $75. Send me an IM or PM. AIM's TheSeaTacAirport. Thanks.

I depend on fire fighters, and Ron Paul wants to fire all them. So what does a reduced government mean then? And not "they have less control over our lives," details plz. -Reduce spending (drug war, Iraq, worldwide military presence, bureacracy spending) = actual tax cuts. -Those four examples of reduced government alone would be huge. -Cutting back on surveillance of people and such (this both returns privacy and will save a massive amount of money). Iraq and surveillance have been products of the Bush administration, pretty much. Surveillance maybe less so, but Iraq definitely. And the drug war, that's a moral issue. Is it being poorly run? Yes. It's focused in all the wrong directions, but that can be changed. I think anti-drug efforts are needed on more than an educational level. Bureaucratic reform is also necessary. I think we should rip out a page from France's book, because their bureaucracy is citizen-centric, and not process-centric. Their whole French bureaucracy is one to create the least amount of headaches. Reform is necessary in most areas of our federal government, but for the most part, I believe that it's there to take care of its citizens, ala the social contract theory. For the most part, it's difficult for me to separate a "reduced government" with 21st century-rugged individualism and being an opponent to a welfare state. RE: Clinton. I think it's becoming a little more obvious to me that she's pursuing her campaign on two grounds: the chance that she has is incredibly slim and will only win through undemocratically perverting the superdelegate system, but the chance is still marginally there (and she's a fighter, to be sure); there's a lot of money backing her from party elites, and they don't want to be disappointed.

My parents' good friend is a physics professor at the local university. He came over to the house and did a pretty convincing presentation on how global warming isn't wrong, it's just not the issue. It's gonna happen, and it's a result of the sun, and the planet's cyclical heating and cooling systems. According to all his fancy science, climate change began 50 years before coal started being used. I can't give you specifics until I ask him to come over and give it again, but there it is.

You're not comparing two similar cases here. We know what Snuff believes. When he says something sarcastic, it's regarded as such. Grow a set? Yeah, I really need to grow a pair of balls because I'm defending myself. Okay. I didn't complain, I didn't send any PMs, but I'm just pointing out the mistake. K? K.

Yes, that's what a troll does. Posts bait in order to incite a fight.

I depend on fire fighters, and Ron Paul wants to fire all them. So what does a reduced government mean then? And not "they have less control over our lives," details plz.

NYU, it's not the fact that she's a conservative, it's that she deliberately trolls there. "B.O. Hussein" and all that good stuff.

Come to Hawaii. Wouldn't that be fun, we all going to the beach or something?