rob

Isn't it a shame they want to spend some money on domestic welfare programs like mental health for assault victims? That money could all be spent on wars and bailouts for investment banks instead! It's bad enough to spend it on women but now they want to add gays and Mexicans???!!

I never got any death threats People must not take me seriously. I know my kids don't! Badum chssh!

fun conversation The BnD fuze link has a companion leash that acts like a screamer -- it supposedly prevents falls from triggering the fuse, which instead requires constant force to break. The idea is to prevent peak load on the fuse -- a long, elastic leash allows the dynamic and static forces of the falling skier to be absorbed by the snow, allowing the leash to merely absorb the dynamic/static forces of the ski (not the ski + skier). Skis weigh, what, like 5 lbs? Because of this, they actually use an even lighter fuse -- like 40 lbf. I've never bothered to test it. I'm not even using a fuse, I just clip right into the steel loop. Yee-haw! I wonder if your keyring really would break in a burial? Some of those keyrings are super strong, and some of them I can bend with my hands.

You believe that the violence against women act is actually unconstitutional? That sounds preposterous. But I've never actually seen the constitution, so my data is no better than yours. I'd love to hear someone make an argument that it's ineffective, but that doesn't seem to be the case from my short googles. She certainly didn't try to make a case. The law provides many good things -- a rape shield law, protections against eviction, legal aid and funding for community service outreach. Hence, the cost. It doesn't have language in it that would make "annoying your wife" a crime. I don't know why she thinks that. Regarding constitutionality, the supreme court has already heard this case, and already removed parts that were unconstitutional on grounds of federalism, and left in place other parts related to funding. If republicans think this program isn't helpful and costs too much, I'm willing to hear that argument. But it makes me sad that you think her discussion of the issue was noteworthy. From my news feeds, it sounds like the biggest objection republicans have to this is that the renewal of the law adds same-sex couples and illegal immigrants to the funding. None of them are complaining about the money or the law itself, in fact many of them are saying they will vote for it if democrats remove the new language allowing battered illegal-immigrants to get temporary visas, and same-sex couples to get funding protection. Doesn't that make you sad? I don't know where she got all of that stuff she was talking about, it's like she isn't even nominally familiar with the law or its history.

If you think I'm hard on her because of her position, as opposed to her (lack of) reasoning, then you didn't understand a single thing I said other than the word "retard"

Brakes don't help when the ski gets buried in the pow The maurelli fuse links break at 40kgf -- that's like 400 newtons. That's quite a fall, at that point they're probably stuck on something

dude, get a fuse link http://www.bndskigear.com/skileash.html or something similar. Maruelli makes some too

hey, I'm not lazy

Study revels farting on planes is dangerous

OMG THE CONSTITUTION DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY MENTION LAWS AGAINST ESPIONAGE!!!! 10th AMENDMENT VIOLATION!!!! IT SHOULD BE HANDLED BY THE STATES!!! what a fucking tard. I'm going to be angry all night now, and I'm going to think of you, pink, while I rage

So it took her half of the video before she even started making her point. Yeah yeah yeah, sometimes they put pretty names on a bill to make it look bad if you vote against. Is that why you're against this one, cause it has a pretty name? Yawn. Next. So then she gets into her "points": 1) this is just about giving money away to people who voted the congressmen in LOL! She doesn't even back that up. 2) It's against the 10th amendment That is the most retarded interpretation of the 10th amendment I've ever heard. "If something is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, it's not a federal issue." Does she have down syndrome or something? Passing legislation dealing with domestic violence (or any long list of federal crimes) is well within the constitution authority of the legislature. 3) It's a redundant law Um, not it's not. Did she even read the contents of the bill? 4) Simply annoying your spouse is domestic violence, according to the bill Um, again -- did she even fucking read this? 5) 50% of domestic violence is mutual "She had it coming, officer!" 6) If you need the federal government to fix domestic violence, you're doin' it wrong But, if you want to use the federal government to block gay marriage, you're doin' it right Pink, why do you post this stuff? I got fucking dumber just watching it. Are you for real? Jesus christ, it's like watching a cuter, dumber Ayn Rand. All emotion, no substance. It makes me physically angry to see people this dumb. Fuck pink, stop spreading this retarded shit, it's like a virus that makes people stupid.

man, I'd be so embarrassed if I were a republican.

I'd replace them.

how do you even define cloud cover? I don't think it's a binary deterministic function, like "was it a cloudy today or not," -- probably you'd need a method for measuring the density of clouds, as well as their saturation in the visible sky. Are a few thick clouds worse than a small layer of thin clouds? How near does cloud cover have to be to be included in the model? If you use solar cell output to measure UV, would you want an equal distribution of panels oriented to equal aspects? Probably there are already historical UV records for Vancouver that record UV intensity in a standardized way, but I'm not sure that even tells you anything -- perhaps if you selected UV data by season, and then pivot on each season's daily UV acerage to determine outliers in the model you could deduce which days were low UV due to cloud cover and which days were simply low UV due to it being winter. However, theoretically I suppose you could have a really cloudy half-day followed by a cloudless afternoon in winter that would look the same as a medium cloud-cover day with no sun breaks -- but I guess that would just average out, right?

Oh, republicans!

this conversation is making me thirsty

That's not true, I do other stuff, too. I usually offer up a serious opinion on every topic, which is usually quite reasonable (in my opinion, of course). But of course, as you say, it's a bit of a wasted effort, isn't it? Sniping and mocking is better suited to pointless conversation. I'm sure JayB is a reasonable guy -- nearly everyone here is. But even reasonable guys make retarded comments, I'm living proof of that. For the record, I'm not demonizing him, I'm making fun of him. There is a difference, isn't there? The demonizing was when he called "most participants of this forum" communists

Perhaps he feels it's wasted effort. I don't blame him. That's a shame. But I suppose that's how life would feel if you insisted everyone else was "wrong" and felt disappointment at your failure to convert them. Personally, I figure we all have our heads up our asses, so I don't let it bother me, comrade the kind of shit we all come on here and pontificate about?

Thank god we even have Communism, otherwise how would JayB and others like him malign their opponents? I'm really more of a fellow traveler than a full-blown commie, tho. But I definitely hate markets!!!! Oh, hey -- remember when Bush had to abandon free market principles to save the free market? LOL anyway, life is hilarious. I wish JayB would post again, tho

Fuckkn commie, you probably don't even read books.

LOL! You really think "most participants of this forum" are actually communists who think North Korea just didn't "get it right?" Too funny. Nope - just people who have an instinctive hostility to and suspicion of markets and lingering sympathy towards the idea that the vast litany of desolation and suffering under communist regimes doesn't represent a definitive verdict on that mode of collectivism. In your case - I don't actually detect much in the way of an informed understanding of either markets or collectivism, or history, or an interest in any of the above so I suspect that all you'd take away from the book is "LOL," so I'd recommend staying away from it and recycling quips here instead. LOL. We must be on different forums, I haven't seen very much support of communism on this one. And let's not make it about me, I was wondering why you hold "most participants in this forum" in such intellectual disregard as to make such broadly sweeping statements about people whom simply disagree with your political bent towards vaguely Randian economics. It must be because you're such an intellectual. But it *is* hilarious how, despite trying to appear "above it all," you just end up just flinging poo like the rest of us. It's delicious! LOL indeed

Ineffective compared to what? Ineffective as compared to something that would have worked. Or are you saying our policy has actually been efficacious and that I'm slandering it? I question if our strategy has even been better than having just done nothing. I'm sure you can tell me?

LOL! You really think "most participants of this forum" are actually communists who think North Korea just didn't "get it right?" Too funny.