archenemy

An embodiment, as of a quality or concept; an archetype: the very avatar of evil.

Longest American band still playing with original members? ZZ Top

This is hypno SELF belay. "She describes her use of hypnotic ego-strengthening, mental rehearsal, age progression, and "Inner Strength" as well as active-alert trance states" IOW "I gaze into myself to see what a great mental giant I am at the age of 2" or some crazy shit like that. What I like though, is after you do this, your inner strength becomes Inner Strength. Altered States is a great movie to research this helpful technique. Especially if you drop acid a half hour before starting the movie.

And a biggest pain in the ass dog contest. (one where my dog might have a chance at winning)

I think they should cath him and save him from future embarrassment.

Charlie Pool

Did you shoot? Okay, nuf of that. Anywhere around Ballard with pool tables?

I work at WaMu's Headquarters with the IT dept. PM me and I can answer your questions.

It is the electoral college who decides for you. Except in 2000, in that case it was, ultimately, the very judges who are supposed to be impartial. But doesn't the electoral college vote according to the popular vote on a state by state basis as opposed to a simple national popular majority? In order to somewhat balance the influence of extremely large states over smaller states, the number of electoral votes is equal to the number of senators+congressmen? So your vote goest directly toward determining which candidate recieve the electoral college votes from your own state? Or am I making shit up again? I hate it when I do that Originally, electors were chosen by the state legislature. Now they use the general ticket system, whereby a party needs only a plurality to carry the whole state. In most states a voter casts a ballot for as many electors as the state is entitled to. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires either that the electors be chosen by popular vote or that the general-ticket system be employed.

It is the electoral college who decides for you. Except in 2000, in that case it was, ultimately, the very judges who are supposed to be impartial.

I am interested--especially if it is somewhere with pool tables.

Silly girl Your reading things into my statement that aren't quite there. If a person does absolutely nothing else, they should at the minimum vote. If they want to make a concious choice not to vote, and have some other mechanism of getting their opinions heard, more power too them. That doesn't fullfill their obligation to participate in the process but it's a start. However i'd love to know how many people actively abstained from voting as a political statement, and let their will be known as such, vs how many people didn't vote because they were lazy bastards who couldn't take the time to be informed about whats happening to them. If you in no way participate in the process of running this country I don't want to hear you whine when you don't like the results. Now if you got something constructive and useful to say that's a different story and your welcome to the discussion and i'd love to hear your viewpoint. Now me? I voted so I get to call bush a moron all I want Please don't marginalize me by calling me a silly girl. I doubt that I have misunderstood your post--you have clearly and consistently stated that in order to discuss the current state of our political situation, one must have voted. Your post even ends with a confirmation of this belief. I think that me posting my point of view and my beliefs is not a form of whining, but rather, part of a discussion that we are having online (one which I do not need your invitation to join). I do not need permission to call Bush a moron--I don't post that sentiment because I don't believe it. I also don't believe that casting a vote once every four years can be considered participating in running the country. Do you really think that is what you are doing? Or are you buying your right to complain and to look down on other people for being "too lazy" for voting? And I can't help but be curious how often you have participated in running the country...you don't sound old enough to have voted for a president more than a couple of times. Hell, if you voted in 2000, it may have not even been counted. Oh wait, it never really counts--the electoral college votes count. What we do agree on is that people have an obligation to participate in civil duty. I have stated what I believe is the best way to fulfill this obligation, and I live by those statements. You can believe that it took me a while to get to this stage. Hell, I was in ROTC through college believing that I would serve full time afterwards. It was a painful decision to turn down that position--one that initiated a great deal of thought on this subject. But I know without a doubt that I believe: "Loyalty to the country ALWAYS. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it." This post is the first condescending, arrogant, holier-than-thou post you have directed toward me. I am a little baffled as to what has triggered such a harsh reaction from you. I am going to assume that I just caught you on a bad day. Or maybe we just misunderstood each other.

I say again (without trying to be a schmuck): The mere act of voting may not bring about the change you wish to see.

Thanks. Do you know anyone who may have frequented the place while it was functioning?

Was there anything useful or insightful that you wanted to add to that?

Does anyone know the history of the Index Tavern? What's up with the place?

I don't understand why you didn't just rub the owners' noses in the dogdip--that seems to be a popular method of training against those sorts of accidents.

goats.cx

Good examples. That's why I asked. "The vote with your dollar" is a very good example. Government often works with these organizations and is often influenced by them. I like that example. People often like this example. I think that's because it requires significantly less effort than any of the others.

There are times when choosing not to participate is a powerful form of dissent. The largest threat that American corporations have faced so far was the 60's hippie movement--they simply didn't buy shit from corporations. When men stood up and said that they refused to participate in the Vietnam war by not registering for the draft, demonstrations against the war intensified. By refusing to eat, Ms. Paul (second wave sufferette--I can't remember her first name) brought national attention to her (and 212 others') unlawful imprisonment. Inaction can be a powerful form of action. Refusing to participate sends a powerful message. What would happen if nobody voted? What would happen if nobody went to Iraq? There are more ways to communicate your wishes than the ones I see you posting.

Stephan-- A for effort. Rumr-- You can come up with something better than using the female gender as a put down. Come on, I expect more from you than that. Give it the old college try.

could be. Although many revolutions or civil unrests were fomented by the have-nots. They are the most angry and have the least to lose. To think that only the middle class can start a revolution is a mistake (I realize you didn't say that and probably don't believe that; but one could interpret the post as saying that--as could my post about not paying taxes). And of course, wars are often financed by the wealthy.

The Patriot Act is working. Didn't you hear, the gov't is now bringing the handful of librarians who have refused to hand over reader lists to court. Those librarians should be burned at the stake for protecting people's privacy!!