tvashtarkatena

and exclamation points!!!!!!!!!!

Proclaiming the "lovegod_sway.org" website gay requires no leap of imagination.

Genetically, we're 98% the same as our president. I am so ashamed....

You know, I stopped wondering long ago what star system you come from. At this point, I'm thinking alternative universe....

All dictators are hip, at least at first. That's why they become dictators. It's funny how they always really, really suck in the end.

Whenever I drive anywhere, I hold a raw egg between my groin and my anus. Anytime I get the urge to flip anyone off, or scream and the top of my lungs with my windows all the way rolled up, like some kind of epileptic mime, or pull the .357 from the glove box and shoot every moving target within my field of view, I can't, because how am I going to explain that persistent, oozing stain to those waiting for me at my destination? No. Instead, I drive in a hyper-conscious fashion, eyes in the boat, concentrating like a laser beam on the delicate relationship between that every so thin egg shell, my underpants, my tires, and the fickle road. That is all. I hope this helped.

To argue that a woman is better off in a middle eastern country that condones chastity killing verses a country like the US by comparing the statistical chance of her dying through familial violence is ludicrous. The statistics may, in fact, favor some muslim countries over the U.S. in that regard, that's not my argument. Rather, the U.S., unlike the muslim countries under discussion, neither tolerates nor condones familial violence towards women. We have a problem, to be sure, but we also have a mechanism and willingness to punish the crime. I would think this makes our situation considerably more hopeful for women than our Middle Eastern counterparts. Plus, women here can pack heat and blow the fucker's balls off, if so desired.

Can't....stop....drinking......beer. Must.....sue......Germany.

Yu kin jack awl da stisics yu wan, butt de only thing yu gotta aks yosel bout vahlince to da wimins is, did thuh mothuhfuckin bitch deserve it?

Twin kukri knives and chaps. Nice touch.

heroin is semi-legal (controlled but tolerated) in several European countries, most notably Switzerland. The addiction rate did not go up as a result of legalization. They also have fewer addicts per capita than the U.S. In our own country, cocaine and heroin was legal until the 1930s. Use was widespread until the early part of this century. Laws did not hault the popularity of these drugs, a public information campaign about the risks of these drugs did. Criminal drug laws didn't come into play until much later. People who have a need to 'self medicate' will do so. Those who do not, won't, whether a drug is legal or not.

It's uncanny. Every time someone mentions drug legalization, the evil HEROIN comes up. I used to play squash several times a week with a cop. We'd discuss drug policy, among other things. He told me that the public's concern over heroin was a joke...heroin addicts are some of the most docile people on the planet, and addict related crime is blown way, way out of proportion. The 'heroin problem' in this country, and most countries, for that matter, is so laughably small it shouldn't even be on our radar screen. Compare the 100 or so annual heroin overdose deaths to the many tens of thousands of alcohol related accidents, homocides, and health related deaths and you'll see what I mean. And hey, last time a checked, alcohol was legal. You could legalize every hard drug there is and the average person wouldn't notice any change in their daily lives whatsoever. It's simply not a major problem, particularly as compared to all the other monumental issues we face today. We shouldn't be spending a dime trying to 'solve' it.

I'm the direct descendant of Genghis Khan's accountant.

Yes, before and after fire. Before Gustav's was smaller and a bit more intimate. Roughly the same location as I recall.

The government has a long track record of misusing, losing, and corrupting personal data. Just last year the personal information (SSN, etc) of 25 million veterans was lost when a Vets Admin employee's house was burglarized. The No Fly lists are infamous for flagging the wrong people due to mispelled names, etc. Many legal immigrants faced deportation because they never received a hearing notice that the government ginned up in the paranoia following 911 (the gov's address database was horrificly inaccurate). On top of this, government database systems, are typically old, difficult to maintain, and unreliable from chronic underfunding. Then there is deliberate abuse, such as planting evidence, which is unfortunately common according to my brother, a public defender, and a friend who is a prosecutor. DNA is one of the most compelling types of evidence out there, so the temptation for law enforcement officials who want to further their careers by padding their track record to plant this type of evidence is high. Given all this, I would want the government to handle as little of my personal information as possible.

Licensing drugs by government isn't much different than insuring restaurants aren't serving rat and calling it chicken. It's in the public's best interests to know that they're getting a) what they think they're getting and b) something that's been tested to the point where its efficacy and risks are known. This is an important safeguard against returning to the days of patent medicine, where chicanery ruled the day. As for illegal drugs, pot should be legal and unregulated (for adults), just like making your own beer. As for harder chemical drugs that can kill you if cut with various substances, licensing and dosage restrictions might be in order.

That only works if you have no friends or family or children and you never drive under the influence and that the public health services and public safety officials have no legal, moral, or financial responsibility for you. If you can die by yourself without endangering anyone, without harming your family, and without costing Joe Taxpayer a cent...well, go for it! Europe's drug policies have proven that ours are archaic, expensive, and achieve the opposite of a drug free, crime free society. Our abuse and addiction rates, and drug related crime rates are signicantly higher, despite an incredibly expensive, 30 year "war on drugs". With over half of all the imprisoned (over a million people) convicted of non-violent drug related crimes, clearly something is wrong here. Possessing, taking, or being addicted to a drug should not be illegal, just as it is not for alcohol. There is no crime there. If the person commits a crime while under the influence, we already have statutes with which to prosecute. Health care insurance may choose to up premiums or cancel based on drug addiction, just as they do now for many other maladies. America should be focusing on what really matters, which is reducing crime, not drug use. Having said that, we'd be much better off if we treated addicts through public programs rather than send them to prison. Many might remain addicts, but they'd cost us much less, commit far fewer crimes, and not become hardened criminals while in the slammer, as is so often the case nowadays. I know, mine is a purely pragmatic viewpoint, and we live in a puritanical culture where private, self destructive behavior cannot be tolerated (even though we do more so than countries with more liberal drug laws), but there you have it.

This is a particular potential risk for me, as my DNA is of alien origin, and as such, is extremely unique and thus traceable.

While I applaud the appeal to personal responsibility, this is a gross oversimplification. It's undeniable that your environment shapes you, and almost nobody has complete control over their emotions like you suggest. Welcome to the planet earth.

They can take a sample of my DNA, but I wouldn't advise it, cuz it'll just grow into a whole 'nother me.

The headlines of the New York Times stresses me out nearly every day. Ban it.

Your proscription would require that all media cease to exist, because there are millions of neurotic, psychotic, and troubled people out there, each with their own personal, unique media 'triggers. Case in point: When Hinkley shot Reagan, he was obsessed with Jodie Foster after having seen Taxi Driver. The guy was obviously a nutter, but does that mean Taxi Driver should have been banned because of this one dood? Harsh as it may sound, our problems are our responsibility to resolve, not the rest of society's, and certainly not the media's. If you're troubled by your consumption of images, then it is your responsibility to limit that consumption, not government's. Government prohibition would infringe upon the 99.9% of the rest of your fellow citizens who may want to consume that image. Carried to it's logical conclusion, all media would have to be banned, because you never know. Gay teletubbies. Dazed and Confused teens. Where would it end? Would you want a society with no media? I wouldn't.

Curse of the asshole climber: They left.

Next time, buy a light switch that isn't made in China.

Cooking shows during the day, violence prime time, sex late at night. This reminds of a saying from an old Navy buddy, Sargeant Bill Crenshaw, USMC, who we used to call "Cancerbitch" because he'd always greet you by saying "Hey, bitch, gotta cancer (cigarette)? The guy stood about 5'4" and had a five o'clock shadow at 8 in the morning. Anyway, he used to tell us: "If you can't eat it, kill it. If you can't kill it, fuck it." The most succinct definition of the American Way I've ever heard.