SuperJerk

So this is what we're supposed to draw from the show, that our civilization was based off of some magic white people from space. Fuck that shit. The language thing alone doesn't make sense. Guess what, Chinese and English and Swahili did not come from the same base space language. All of that shit about starting farms didn't make any sense either, irrigation systems etc were developed way later on. 150k years ago we were hunter-gatherers. The democracy thing? Guess what, the Greeks spent a long time not being democratic before that developed. So were Apollo and his douchebag descendants just keeping the secret of democracy to themselves before unleashing it in 148000 years later? Hell no. Don't even get me started on math concepts...math concepts!?!??! Argghhhhhhhhhhhhhh Fuck it, I got nothing.

I don't think that's Deadpool. According to IMDB, Deadpool and Weapon XI are played by two different actors, and the character with the optic blasts seems to fit the description of Weapon XI (a villain with his powers pulled from various mutants).

Eh... In one sense, I agree, on the other hand, the double standard bugs me. If the media can spend countless weeks using a private citizen, Rush, as a straw-man boogyman at the behest of the White House and some old Clinton flunkies, they can hold Obama's feet to the fire for more than a day over a remark about the handicap. Besides, Obama is the one who thought it'd be a good idea to go on Leno. Its not anyone but his fault if his comedy is disrespectful. One person, the president, made a joke that effects NOTHING. He wasn't trying to make any comments about policy or future funding of government programs by making the statement, he was making a joke. That is TRIVIA. The media has a right to report it, because of who said it, but it is ultimately meaningless. The other person, a radio commentator who makes lots of jokes and comments that effect nothing (such as calling the president a "Halfrican-America" and a "little black man-child" or comparing the backlash against AIG to the rise of the German Nazi Party), but also uses his show as a platform to try and influence public policy and encourages his audience to pressure elected officials, gets multiple public officials to apologize to him over a number of weeks for publicly disagreeing with him because they know he influences a segment of public opinion. That is NEWS. Rush is exercising his rights as an American to try to influence public policy, and there's nothing wrong with trying to inspire his listeners to action. But if he has the right to use his enourmous platform to the ends he sees fit, the news media has a right and a responsibility to report on the influence he wields over the people in our government.

For me the biggest mystery (and biggest clue, I suppose) was always why Colonial civilization resembled Earth civilization so much. Well, obviously, the colonials shared their gods and God with the different tribes of humans they encountered, as well as elements of language and mathematical concepts. Hell, one civilization was even named after one of our characters (Galen = Gaelic). I suspect Apollo eventually settled in the Greek islands with other colonial survivors, and his ideals of democracy were eventually passed down to them. The monotheists similarly inspired the Hebrew culture.

Hey, cool. I'm part Cylon.

Here's who I think lives and dies: LIVES Lee Starbuck Tigh Ellen Athena Helo Hera DIES Baltar Tori Roslin Cavil Boomer TOSS UP Anders Admiral Adama Tyrol Caprica Six

But we all know that the elected government in Iran isn't calling all the shots.

My friends, if George Bush had said this, you know how the liberal drive-by media would be reacting. But because he is the first black president, they can't let him fail.

His answer is right in the quote you gave from him (though selectively highlighted): "[it is] a clear violation of the categorical imperative not to make a human life (even if only a potential human life) a means rather than an end." It is not giving proper dignity to human life to cultivate human cells for harvest. I don't really see how that's a gray area. (Unless you're okay with other undignified human treatment like slavery, the caste system, etc. Then I think the conversation has warped beyond Mr. Krauthammer's basic argument.) But since it is NOT the same thing as making a human life, then why is it wrong? He's trying to say that the rule to not make a human life covers potential life...but does it really? How is "cultivating human cells for harvest" any different than donating blood or other things that involving people donating cells? I think these questions need to be answered before anyone can prove extracting embryotic stem cells is the moral equivalent of slave---wait...whut? So you'd be fine with creating embryos simply to utilize them in stem cell research, rather than what they're biologically meant for, which is to grow into a human being? It's treating (potential) human beings like they're no different from chicken eggs. We should simply use these things regardless of how we've gotten them and their legitimate functions in growing into human life. Mr. Krauthammer correctly said that this is treating human beings as a means, rather than an end. They are not human beings. They are human beings' cells. I mean, I can see where you are coming from, but I also realize that embryotic cells are only alive in the strictest scientific sense of the word.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090320/ap_on_...mo_wrongly_held Dear George W. Bush, This is why we have a Bill of Rights. Asshole. Love, SuperJerk P.S. You still suck.

Here's part of that "Tonight Show" interview everyone was so fucking worried about...

Mom running for the phone stomped all over Tupac's verse. I hope it was worth it, bitch.

I think it is a state law vs. federal law thing. States would legalize medical marijuana, but the U.S. Department of Justice would go after pot users for violating federal laws.

13 bailed-out companies owe back taxes. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/...ect-back-taxes/ I don't think anyone can deny that the way this bail-out has been handled has been a bipartisan fuck-up all the way around.

Except for the occasional rerun of shows from when I was a kid, the only shows I've ever watched on Sci-Fi were MST3K, Farscape, and the new Battlestar Galactica. Their track record on original programming is pretty horrible.

Oh, thank goodness I'm not the only one who thinks this.

Redford, Eastwood, and Reagan all played cowboys in various movies. To my knowledge, Redford never starred in a movie with a monkey, though.

My email address got auto-filled into the screen name box when I went to change my screen name. Any mods want to help me out?

His answer is right in the quote you gave from him (though selectively highlighted): "[it is] a clear violation of the categorical imperative not to make a human life (even if only a potential human life) a means rather than an end." It is not giving proper dignity to human life to cultivate human cells for harvest. I don't really see how that's a gray area. (Unless you're okay with other undignified human treatment like slavery, the caste system, etc. Then I think the conversation has warped beyond Mr. Krauthammer's basic argument.) But since it is NOT the same thing as making a human life, then why is it wrong? He's trying to say that the rule to not make a human life covers potential life...but does it really? How is "cultivating human cells for harvest" any different than donating blood or other things that involving people donating cells? I think these questions need to be answered before anyone can prove extracting embryotic stem cells is the moral equivalent of slave---wait...whut?

If there's some logical, middle-ground nuance he explained there, I missed it. It really sounds like he is trying to have it both ways. I believe he's objecting to the use of humanity, not necessarily the state that these humans (or potential humans) are in within that same arena of scientific use. He's arguing that developing a human embryo to harvest it for genetic research or whatever other purpose is morally reprehensible, regardless of whether you believe them to be persons or not. Even if he's using a middle-way definition for what the embryos are, that doesn't answer the question WHY it is wrong (or even why it is the equivalent to making a human life).

It can effect consumer confidence, but a lack of consumer confidence isn't what got us into this mess. Speaking of messes: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/18/aig...ress/index.html

This is something I just noticed, but people in NYC would kill someone to get a 3 BR house for $400,000. I just saw something on the news last week which was trying to show what you could get for a "mere" $500,000 these days and it could get you a 2 or 3 BR in Hoboken, NJ (I forget), a smallish 2 BR in Jackson Heights, Queens or a 1 BR condo in Manhattan and all that's AFTER the bubble burst. Just thought I'd provide a little perspective on how absurd the market still is here at least. Isn't there also a large difference the average income in places with high costs of living and the rest of the country?

http://pix.jj.am/gallery/v/Hulkhands/ Plenty more pics of her Bless you, sir.

I was Y2Jerk, but have not gone by the name in like 3 years. People here have a hard time letting go of shit. (Pot, kettle, yeah...I know.)