StevenSeagal

Do we get performance reviews here from the mods?

Uh....there bad! Duh! they're

What's wrong with the bad guys? You know, the "good" bad guys- Russians and Muslims. I thought you ruled all of us?

Because helping to goad Russia into becoming a new world bogeyman ensures lots of new defense contracts for installing missile batteries all over eastern Europe. So....its all about the money? Were you just born yesterday?

Hey General Zod, can't you just make laser beams come out of your eyes and zap all the bad guys?

Because helping to goad Russia into becoming a new world bogeyman ensures lots of new defense contracts for installing missile batteries all over eastern Europe.

I propose an addition to this guide: THE STAND OFF This is when you are already in a stall, and someone comes in and ignores all the above rules and takes a seat in an adjoining stall, usually the one closest to you. Your situation is that you're either not quite finished, or haven't even had an opportunity to get started yet. Immediately after the new guy gets seated, follows a long, 5-10 minute awkward silence; each person holding it in and hoping the other guy will give up and leave first. The silence is occasionally broken by a single sniffle, a rustling of the toilet paper dispenser, or a grunting cough. Eventually one person gets fed up and breaks the uncomfortable silence by standing up and immediately leaving the stall, usually flushing despite the obvious fact that they didn't go at all (no TP sounds were heard), but providing the flush as a respectful acknowledgement that the winner of the stand off must have really wanted it more and had to go more urgently, thus allowing them a moment to release any built up pressure. The Stand Off can be avoided by observing the strategy of the Fly By, although the initial stall occupant usually has little or no control over the enactment of a Stand Off. A version of this situation is The Hostage, where a stall occupant is ambushed by someone who sits in the immediately adjacent stall and shamelessly unloads, trapping the first occupant in a world of embarrassment and bad odor, either forcing them to leave early (exposing them to a Walk of Shame that might be erroneously credited to them) or to stay in the stall far longer than they had intended.

Can't get enough of those 16 years olds, eh kev?

Somebody really needs to get laid Good lord. It sounds like the author is the one who needs a cold shower. Is there something inherently sexual about rinsing off?

Goddamit. There's an Uncle Ted in the john right now. I'm in danger of becoming a frequent flyer...

Right. Sorry about that. Let's get back to talking about the important issue of Contards vs. Libturds. Which one really loves America?

Indeed! "Poor" in this country means you have an Ipod shuffle instead of the nano!

Kev, I hate to break it to you but rich Democrats have the same disease of which you speak. This isn't a party issue. It's one of the oldest issues of mankind- power, greed and acquisitiveness. Solving the problem through political channels will not work, ever.

There's nothing bad about those things in and of themselves. Allowing both a collective and personal ignorance of our acquisitiveness to build a society that rewards greed and ruthlessness with institutional control is another matter, however. And excusing it by comparing it unfavorably against equally nefarious attempts at social engineering by those with similar issues of control, misses the point entirely.

Once again, the equation that Stalin was atheist (which has been debatable, but let's assume he was), therefore indicates that his atheism was the source of his immorality. As much as you erroneously assume that I was suggesting Carter, Truman, Kennedy etc. were douchebags because they were Christians, this Stalin example is pure hyperbole. My point was that Christianity doesn't anymore, or less, guarantee morals in one's heart than atheism would suggest inherent "lack of morals". The common wisdom is that lacking religion, one cannot possibly have a shred of moral foundation. Are you saying then, that without religion you personally would kill, steal, lie, and cheat? If your answer is no, of course you would not, then on what basis would you have constructed the moral fiber to reject these actions? Apparently it would come from somewhere, then, but without religion and faith, where?- perhaps it's a combination of one's upbringing and culture combined with a genetic predisposition to goodness or mischief? We clearly have in human society people who are, for no apparent reason, just not good natured, and people who are. My view is that if one needs a system of morals written down for them to follow, that's their prerogative and that should not be interfered with by any state or individual. But if you want to talk about it... name one of the 10 commandments which any group of decent individuals, regardless of culture or upbringing, couldn't agree upon- atheists included. All the rest of the ritual and circumstance and pageantry of religion, beyond a set of exceedingly obvious morals, is a matter of culture, opinion, and in the end, a means to control other people. Certain religions or branches of them, such as radical Islam, have added on more strict "morals" that we in the west see as immoral, yet we fail to grasp that these people truly believe this stuff they preach, but we're not willing to address it on the level of belief because faith and belief are simply not open to discussion in any culture. People should be able to believe whatever they want, including not to "believe" in anything, yet the most vitriolic hatred seems reserved not for religious extremists such as Al Qaida, but the "godless". You can be anything you want in the world, but no matter where you go, don't even think of expressing atheist views. That much is universal, and it has infinitely less to do with specious, circumstantial comparisons of Stalin as the shining example of "atheism in action", than it does to the absolute threat to someone's faith that the mere existence of a being who has no faith, regardless of whether that person otherwise demonstrates "moral" behavior. Faith is the base level expectation that most people have for one another; those lacking it are looked upon as filth. Now, you tell me who should be afraid.

Dude: It is not lawyer's games. When you make a statement like "VA benefits are payment for services rendered, but securing services for anybody else is a transfer payment," it is meaningless if you can't explain what you mean or back it up. It takes faith to understand this.

I'm not doing that till you answer the question I never asked you but thought of cleverly, but lacked the energy to type up. I want you to also answer why I, as a man of incredible intellect, stamina, and other awesome stuff, am without fail the last bastion of truth on CC.com. Unwaiveringly. I just answered your questions telepathically. Did you get it? Wait, I already know you did.

I want all three of you to answer each other's questions WITHOUT the precondition that the other answer your questions first. Do it NOW.

When I'm ready for the truth, you can be sure I'll ask you first. You sound like someone who knows something!

You're certainly as narcissistic, and hopeless as Nero. No sir. Unlike you, I'm just never disappointed. Hey, how's the anger management going?

I'M FIDDLING WHILE ROME BURNS!

See? This man understands!

If you can't see the difference between service in military and its concomitant benefits and simply existing, then you're in the same intellectual bin as kboner. So why don't we abolish the government altogether and just have the military rule us? Apparently that's the one authority (that doesn't require faith, that is) to which you turn and bow to each day.

The bummer would be to have one's last moments clouded by fear and hope. Try emptying your own cup sometime. When it's full there is no room for anything new.

Good idea. Start with Kboner. No I'm thinking you, buddy boy. You haven't really done shit for this country, have you? fuck you asshole What, you forgot to tack that on in the first response? Or did your blood boil over the more you thought about it? Man, you non-atheists sure are an angry lot! Stay away from me.