rob

I was always very careful to not troll that website (at least not with fake accounts or anything) and basically quickly decided to leave them alone. But I ended up getting the blame for it anyway when somebody else did. Oh well, you find out who your friends are, right?

Of course, Romney endorsed this guy. That's cute. I guess Obama's election was God's Intention? LOL! I wonder if he thinks about that.

I've been introducing myself as Tvash to strangers at their doorstep for a few weeks now. Expect some calls.

Boise. Ugh, what a crappot.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/23/richard-mourdock-abortion_n_2007482.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular what a fucktwat SO GLAD i'm not a republican, it's embarrassing enough to share oxygen with this guy, I couldn't imagine sharing a party and platform.

Fucking magnet schools, how do they work?

The more I think about it, the more I'm against this. Public services are public services -- if you don't like them, then pay for them yourselves. If a public service sucks, then we should fix it, not undermine the very public service itself by allowing people to abandon it and take their tax dollars elsewhere. That sounds like an oblique method for achieving privatization in the public sector. But I do think that public school districts should be able to setup schools that are different than others -- for example, maybe there should be a middle school that specializes in math and technology -- to cater to those students. And another one for art. Etc. Are these charter schools, or just a different way of organizing public schools? Do we need legislation for that? I'd pay higher taxes to support something like that -- one-size-fits-all ends up fitting everybody poorly. But I wouldn't want money to leave one school to go to another -- and that's what charter schools sound like, to me.

government itself sounds like an "unaccountable monopoly." I suggest allowing charter governments so that I can find one that suits me better than this one, and all of my taxes can shift over there. Sound OK? Thanks!

So Congress is completely absolved of any responsibility? Wow, you're really generous!

How do you feel about food stamps? Aren't those vouchers? Offering food stamps doesn't take away from a larger pool of money meant for "socialized groceries" or whatever from an official government grocery. They would be similar if everyone got their groceries from the Obama'Mart for free, but you could get food stamps to buy elsewhere. A better analogy to food stamps would be government college grants. They're really good credits, not food vouchers.

Hey Kev, did you know that laws are enacted by congress? [video:youtube]

Whenever I feel like I'm being tricked by clever politicians, one thought exercise I do is to change the subject of the argument and see if it still makes sense. For example, irt vouchers: How about security vouchers? We can let people use security vouchers to purchase private security contractors instead of police. That money will be subtracted from the overall municipal police budget. Sounds like a terrible idea. Right?

functionally equivalent

This is extremely environmentally toxic. But I suppose Ron Paul DOES want to abolish environmental regulations, so....

Romney just flattened Obama. Finally.

Why is that illegal, Bill? because of racism

What's worse, being a muslim or a mormon?

"OOh, someone got hurt? Let's all talk about what "lessons" we can learn!" What a bunch of bullshit. It's neat, cause you can simultaneously pretend to be concerned while rubbernecking the accident from the comfort of your computer AND subtly letting everyone know how much more you know about climbing. Brilliant! If I'm ever hurt in a lead-fall, I hope you drama-hounds never find out about it.

Bias alert!

Prisons and schools -- these seem to become more similar every day

aw, don't be like that, I'm sorry. I shouldn't be such a dick. You gotta admit that straight-up palmer stuff is kinda retarded, though. Are you a "mixer?" I know plenty of people that swear by their chiropractor. Sorry to take over the thread.

I've made peace with the reality of not knowing many, many things.

I'm a total atheist, but I still pray sometimes. It's funny. Almost always during some sort of traumatic event. The last time was during a really technical descent in a bicycle race. I laugh about it afterwards. A friend of mine in that race was catholic, wears a cross and everything. During the descent, I asked him if his god would look out for me even though I don't believe, and he thought about it for a moment and said, "probably not." I loled! Anyway, there was a moment in that race I found myself praying to whoever. It certainly gives you an existential crisis afterwards when you end up surviving Anyway, my point is I think our brains are wired to head that direction.

I can dig why some people are into god. I'm OK with it. Probably, it's human nature. I just can't understand why they're SO SURE. I mean, no room for doubt? At all? Really? Weird. Especially given the subject matter, and how "unprovable" it is, how could you still not harbor any single rational doubt? I don't get it. Seems dangerous.

You're wrong on that. He probably did believe in "god" (really more of a Spinoza's sort of god by most accounts of his private letters, rather than a traditional deist-type personal god) but he certainly never said that E=MC2 was proof of it. And even if he HAD said it, so what? What if he said chocolate was better than vanilla, is it? Citing Einstein seems to be a popular way to avoid independent though. "Well, even Einstein agreed with me...." -- really just another form of religion.