FMBI

I had a massive post all typed out here the other night, but then I accidentally lost it and decided not to post here, until you guys started posting here again. So here goes. The above quotes are all cherry picked to support the modern-day, infantile, American libertarian movement. I managed to find several reasons to invalidate each of them in the modern day before giving up (as above mentioned). Also, Jefferson is highly overrated, even when you aren't grabbing random quotes that seem to back up your position. A great many of his philosophical wanderings led him off into the woods somewhere without a compass, it would seem. Most of the Frenchies from that time period were a heck of a lot smarter than him.

Root, at first, I read your post as which is fairly normal. But then I scrolled back down and noticed: What the hell is in the water you're drinking? o.O

I have to agree with the guy on this... Hackers find vulnerabilities in IE because they search for it. There would be no use to search vulnerabilities in a browser used by only 10 or 20% of the population. Plus, these people are usually a bit more "skilled" with computers so they're more likely to have an antivirus and not divulge too many information... It's just like people who say Windows sucks because of all the viruses... To some degree that's true, but IE also has one of of the most incompetent support teams in the tech world. Every month you hear of a massive new vulnerability that could affect hundreds of thousands of users if it isn't fixed quickly - and the vast majority of the exploits/bugs are found by "good" hackers, not by Microsoft. If FireFox or the other alternative browsers had half as many problems as IE, they'd have been wiped out years ago.

I'm just glad Dana Perino got a black eye. When I see her on C-SPAN, I start foaming at the mouth. What a fucking bitch.

Don't need direct bible bashing, I thought we already discredited Leviticus. :\

You replied to an argument which he didn't make, and then threw in some serious personal attacks for no reason. Along with a dose of relativism that is, ironically, biased against those of European descent, whereas his was more of a sympathetic lament for the Arabs. Requoted for ease of reading:

Wrong. The middle east is civilized, and has been, in one form or another, for milennia - and I'm not even going to get into the whole "SUMER AND PERSIA STARTED IT ALL" thing. However, under the repressive and autocratic governments of the 20th century, which have been run either by religious extremists or corrupt businessmen, it's not quite a surprise to see a breakdown in culture. Compare Jordan to Saudi Arabia - Jordan's people are far more likeable and logical from what I've heard, though I haven't been there myself (going in 2 years, though). Additionally, in a tit for tat comparison of the incident, remember that the vast majority of the US's population was screaming about bombing the ragheads and sandniggers after 9/11 - and we did, whereas the Arabs are just supporting one shoe-throwing journalist. You can't call someone "not grown up" simply because they support a gesture like this. However, Hakaku, relativism is a load of bullshit, and I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't bring it into play. Not to mention your immediate attack on Bak with relation to the Native Americans and whatnot.

no it wasn't If you're asking this from the standpoint that the Bible is the final authority about what started when, then the answer is yes; Genesis 2:24 records the first marriage in history - Adam and Eve. Jesus Himself expounded upon this (Matthew 19:4) as the way it was from the beginning - the beginning of time, presumably. * 4 months ago Source(s): http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea... http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea... If you're asking about this strictly from the standpoint of the Bible, then the whole debate becomes meaningless, because the point of the debate is to identify alternate views.

I believe this was a lighthearted reenactment of the supposed assassination attempt in Georgia. Bravo, jolly Iraqi! Bravo! May all your countrymen gain your sense of humor! edit - not that I'm endorsing this, by any means. Even the worst president of all time doesn't deserve to be assassinated - if you want him out of office, that's what impeachment's for.

lol.

^ That was a stupid post. ^.-

Fine, you caught me.. it was 1 o'clock in the morning, and I didn't want to put "if a justice of the peace, preacher, or other legally recognized figure says you are". My point still stands, though.

Staying home, getting $50 worth of presents if anything. Way better than going on a cruise in the tropics.

I was replying to the picture.

Link We've been hearing about this sort of thing for years (in fact, I'm pretty sure there was a topic about it here somewhere, just too lazy to look it up), but it sounds like the research is coming to a head,* with the primary conclusion being that men are gonna be screwed** in the future. As I happen to own an extensive textbook on pediatrics which devotes several dozen pages to intersexual cases, I must say that this is pretty fricking scary. Thoughts? *yes, that's a pun, albeit an unfunny one. **again, yes.

Even if that were real, it's not like the kid would seriously get adult women to "date" him - it'd be more of a "oh, you're such a cute little bastard, I wanna hug you!" than a "come on, big boy, screw me!" kind of thing. Even assuming statutory rape laws suddenly disappeared.

No, 5-3=2. 2 out, 3 in. However, the numbers are wrong in the first place, it seems: to get that result, you'd have to count both Blago (4) and the last guy listed at that link (5), and change the phrasing somewhat - they haven't "been to prison" necessarily, just gotten in trouble with the law.

I dunno bout you, but I'd guess it would stop the orgasm, or at least knock a lot of pleasure out of it, depending on the timing of your sneeze (pre/post-"point of no return").

Weird, I can't sneeze that way. It really tickles my nose and drives me nuts, but the actual sneeze just won't happen. And, to Ace - what's weird about that? It's just an intense stimulation of the nervous system, why shouldn't it feel good? o_O

As a concluding note, I've always found that the best argument against the whole 2012 question is to simply read up on what it supposedly entails. I was always a moderate skeptic until I actually checked out the supposed secrets of the Maya and whatnot - after I did, I couldn't stop laughing at myself for ever thinking it could have any truth at all.

Most people were just predicting he'd hand it over to Jackson Jr. Oh well, those midwestern politicians are pretty stupid. After all, until McCain left Michigan, one of the top reasons it was a swing state was because of another corruption scandal. They just don't learn.

Bleh, I usually end up arguing about what marriage "is" every couple of months with some Bible Thumper™ or other. I've whittled my argument down to a couple of basic points, which at least shut the person up if nothing else - Marriage has three varying definitions - legal, realistic, and spiritual. In the legal sense, you're married if a preacher says you are - in the realistic sense, you're effectively married if you have a long-term domestic partner - and in the spiritual sense, you're forever bonded to your partner in some way that us mere humans just don't get. Because of the multifaceted nature of marriage, therefore, Christians have no reason to oppose "gay marriage", because (according to them) it can never be true spiritual marriage, only legal marriage, and legalities have no power in the eternal scheme of things. As far as civil unions (realistic marriage), you can only attack it on the basis of homosexuality itself being wrong - but, of course, if you go with that angle of attack, then you're left in the old "Leviticus dilemma" - how are homosexuality and bestiality wrong forever, when innumerable tiny pointless rules are ignored? We're supposedly liberated from the Law, and yet certain parts of it are conveniently still in effect. It just makes no sense. I'd welcome an analysis of this line of reasoning in case anyone can find flaws in it, I'd hate to actually lose an argument someday.

Question to the canucks: Why would you live in any Canadian provinces besides Nova Scotia, PEI, BC, or Alberta? The rest of them are colder than cities in northern Russia, for fuck's sakes. O_O

I can't vouch for specific numbers, all I can tell you is that the enjoyability of the sneeze depends on what kind of sneeze it is. If I get a sneeze on a normal day, it feels just as good as an orgasm, but if I have a bad attack of allergies, every sneeze burns like hell. Kind of like coughing normally and coughing when you have strep throat.