tvashtarkatena

PENIS! The Russian's friend, a woman, told me recently that all my art pieces look like penises. So I tried to make one that looked like a vagina. It came out looking like a penis. Breasts. I do breasts and ballz, too, but there does invariably seem to be a penis in the mix. Ah, well. Those are the four basic shapes of things. You can build anything with them cleaved or combined. Need an ass? Squeeze two breasts together.

Not that homegrown wheat isn't an important issue, mind you.

Was that your attempt at 'stream of consciousness'? Look, you've got your strawman (get it?). What do you need me for?

Sub height basement + giantism = remain seated.

At one time I had the smallest wheat field in WA. 1' x 1' of Black Knight Winter. I was going to make a shot of vodka out of it at the time.

Let me just finished this particular sub-thread by stating that your opinions here have been well thought out, cogent, and compelling. If I could get you into my tiki bar, I'll bet I'd have your signature on I-502 by the end of the evening. The mai tai is stronger than the kro bar. Hydraulic leverage and all that.

Let's put it this way, granting full marriage equality for LGBT folks has got to hurt the Kristians WAY more than any threat of 'uncomfortable conversation'. Soooooo satisfying...

The question was regarding the obvious, yet oratorical. That we are different. Regarding the more allusive, I do not seek, nor do I require, your approval. We're probably more alike than different, I'd wager. I would not presume to grant you my approval. I simply put forth my opinions for public caning, as required.

My (offline) friends would get the same ration of shit if they refused to sign a petition they believed out of fear of disclosure. They all sign petitions, though, so its a non issue.

Are you looking for agreement on the obvious or approval of your decision? The first is self evident, the second more allusive.

I don't think any of use support the tactic of harassment, and I haven't argued in favor of disclosure (on the fence and all), but what I do argue in favor of is signing petitions for reforms you strongly believe in EVEN IF THE KRISTIANS THREATEN YOU WITH UNCOMFORTABLE CONVERSATION (which, of course, never happened, and doesn't happen, in reality). Given that disclosure, right or wrong, is allowed, I still think people should man up and sign. What, you can't handle a few (mythical) Kristian harassers? Fucking bring it, beyotch. In general, I'm a very private person. Sure, I may have a few "Hey Sobo, what time is it?" threads floating around here, but for the most part, I mind my own business and let other mind theirs. I really hate telemarketing phone calls, spam emails, and fiercely loathe the door-to-door Krusaders that come around here pretty damn regularly... too damn regularly, in fact. So no, I do not even want to have to think aobut considering to deal with these types. That's just how far I want to remove myself from them. Yeah, me too. And petitions have nothing to do with all that. But I step up beyond my personal nature when required by things larger than myself. I simply don't buy the postmodern concept of 'no muss, no fuss, only if it suits me personally democracy'. Democracy requires action, participation, and, at times, being (slightly) inconvenienced. The alternative is: do nothing, and let the other side run rampant.

BTW, I've grown my own wheat for personal consumption. Have you? Birds ate it, though.

As I stated before, Wheat is Murder. Hint: If you've got enough extra time on your hands to debate the moral/ethical/legal question of growing your own wheat...I'm not really sure I'm your guy. If you're out hypocrisy hunting, there's another poster here you might team up with. He's got an awesome database full of the stuff.

No, WWII had no bearing on the SCOTUS decision, which occurred in the middle of the war. How could it possibly? Why would such a minor event effect their thinking?

I don't think any of use support the tactic of harassment, and I haven't argued in favor of disclosure (on the fence and all), but what I do argue in favor of is signing petitions for reforms you strongly believe in EVEN IF THE KRISTIANS THREATEN YOU WITH UNCOMFORTABLE CONVERSATION (which, of course, never happened, and doesn't happen, in reality). Given that disclosure, right or wrong, is allowed, I still think people should man up and sign. What, you can't handle a few (mythical) Kristian harassers? Fucking bring it, beyotch.

Swiftboating was a lie. At least some of Cain's 'accusers' appear to be legit. Either way, the man is an utter buffoon.

Look, I think you're a good man and all Sobo. I'm not casting aspersions to your character. But I tend to be frank with friends, doncha know. Don't wanna get all over your personal shit, but petitions are a public issue with far reaching consequences, so I expect, rightly or wrongly, for folks to step up to what is essentially a very easy and historically risk free way to participate in reform. I'm not an arbiter of anything...your choices are yours...and my opinions are mine. I don't think there's anything inaccurate in what I've opined so far about this.

Unless you're going to meaningfully participate here, STFU and quit stealing time from your employer, KKK.

It's not about 'opposition groups' having access to signatures, it's about the public's access to same, per the PRA. It's a legislative process. PRA requires disclosure unless a competing harm resulting from disclosure or a reasonable expectation of privacy can be demonstrated. Neither was effectively by the plaintiffs in the case. Again, I remain on the fence about disclosure, siding slightly in favor (secretive government IS a HUGE problem, retribution is a non problem). I do feel strongly about people who don't sign petitions they strongly believe due to mythical fears of skulduggery, however. People all over the middle east are risking their lives just to vote...and we can't sign petitions because we're afraid of a credit card theft scheme that's never happened and probably couldn't, given the information that probably won't be disclosed anyway because no one will actually request it? That's some pussy shit right there, IMO. Sorry.

Turns out Scalia and Thomas voted against each other on this one: Cato report on Doe v Reed

Fine, glad you finally see my point. Fine, I can understand your position on that. That's a person who lacks conviction. I don't lack conviction. Conviction is nothing without action. Sorry...I've heard it all before. One of my many convictions is that I don't release personal information. Nor do I commit funds over the telephone. Are you now to be the arbiter of my convictions as well?? To judge what are, and are not, legitimate convictions? Ad hominem, blah blah, but Grandma's still got bigger ballz. She's willing to be active in an important process of reform, even at the risk of identity theft (which has, do date, never occurred with petition signatures). You've decided that your fear of identity theft trumps participating in the petition process. Grandma is simply braver in that regard. Them's just the facts, dood. Call it an attack. I call it an observation.

I have absolutely no problem with this, as I said before. You are talking about elected representatives in that case, which I addressed on the previous page. That's not the issue that we are talking about now, which is disseminating personal information of petition signers. Different animal... I know that, too. But tell me why an opponent of a particular petition or referendum can acquire that information? Tell me why an opponent of a particular petition or referendum would need the names and addresses of the signers? Tell me what possible use could that information be to the opponent other than to seek out and attempt to influence the signer to vote differently come election day? Does not the non-governmental verifying agency have the duty to confirm or refute the legitimacy of the petition? Isn't that the only group that needs access to the personal infomration? Tell me why the opposition would ever need access to that personal information? I thought campaign contributions entered into the discussion somewhere. You'd have to ask FW to look that shit up in his hypocrisy database, though. The PRA is about open government, its about the public's broader right to know what its government is doing (after all, we're paying for it all, and we voted these folks in to do a job that effects all of us)...not about the specific need to verify names on a petition.

Fine, glad you finally see my point. Fine, I can understand your position on that. That's a person who lacks conviction. I don't lack conviction. Conviction is nothing without action. Sorry...I've heard it all before.

Well, I'm just observing the facts. Grandma's willing to stand up, in public, regardless of consequences for what she believes in (regarding petitions, anyway). You are not. That's cool...and your ballz are smaller in that regard.

If people don't want to sign, that's cool. If someone says "Hey, I'm all for it!"...and then doesn't sign? That's when they get the treatment. Sorry...I don't like pussies. I call it robust activism.