Greased_Lightning

yeah, and its !@#$%^&*ized

Generally cops won't cite you for public intoxication unless you are 1). Unbelievably staggery can't-function-enough-to-get-home drunk. 2). Vomiting/pissing/!@#$%^&*ting in public. 3). Being a public nuisance (being loud, destructive, etc). In my experience they prefer you walking to having someone try to drive drunk. (Note: these are !@#$%^&*uming the person is of legal age, if not, a whole other story.) The one time I was stopped by the cops when walking home from the bar was when I had the misfortune to slip on the ice in front of their car (I'd had a few but wasn't off-balance). They came up (after laughing), checked my license, asked me to describe how I would get home and said goodnight. They asked if I had been drinking and I said I had and that was why I wasn't driving. If you do get talked to, be cooperative and respectful saying 'Yes Sir/Ma'am, Thank You Sir/Ma'am etc.' Above all else, do not yell 'F'king Pigs!!' and reach for their gun. That's a ticket to Taserville. Drinking isn't a problem as long as you don't make it one yourself. I like beer for social drinking but will have a Crown or Gentleman Jack every now and again. Cheaper whiskey (McAdams, Canadian Mist, Windsor, regular Jack) for whiskey cokes.

No particular order... The Cowboys (John Wayne) Batman (first w/Michael Keaton) The Great Escape MacArthur Tombstone Honorable mentions: 3:10 to Yuma Red River Dr. Strangelove Anchorman because it's so quotable.

Need more education about firearms. It should be that in order to purchase one, you have to p!@#$%^&* not only a good background check, cooling-off period, but examinations on firearm safety, operation, laws, penalties, etc as well as to actually have to demonstrate safe usage to another human being. If we put as much education into firearm ownership and usage as we do in the operation of a vehicle, I think we'd be doing much better. I took gun safety as a kid (required for hunting licenses) and you took everything seriously or the instructor would boot you out. There was no horseplay or joking around because it's not something to joke about. Personally, I don't think there is justification for someone to have an AK-47 for 'home protection'. I've shot one a few times and it was fun, but I don't want one because it's unnecessary. Finally, speaking for the vast majority of firearm owners/operators who obey the laws and practice good safety, don't lump us in with all the idiots who go around gang-banging and want to 'pop a cap in ya'lls !@#$%^&*es'. The ghettos can burn for all I care, just keep it in your own trashy cities.

been gone awhile but still alive. i need a laptop so I can check in more regularly

drugs are bad m'kay ??

(rimshot) Seriously, he's here all week folks!

!@#$%^&* that Dark Nexus!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and Tex?

Congrats sama, you dirty canadian midget.

nd u looz all abilitee to put 2gethar koheerent sen10sez

If the world is going to end in 2012, you know what you should do? Just get really really fat! Go out and totally pig out on a tub of ice cream! Yeah, and if the city thinks I'm gonna pay this parking ticket they are dreaming! HAHAHAHAHAHA!..Ha...Haa...ha...ahhhh... no seriously I'm still gonna pay it, you know, just in case. But yeah, the world has ended dozens of times by now so I'm not worried. Life adapts.

!@#$%^&* useless bumpers

I absolutely agree that physical weakness can and in most cases is either easily corrected or overshadowed by the positives that person has to offer. I agree with pretty much everything you said and I wasn't implying that you thought I was a Nazi. I just think I didn't make myself clear that under the cir!@#$%^&*stances I indicated (being no moral code, survival is paramount, !@#$%^&*uming constant natural environment, limited resources), in a natural state those deleterious traits would be 'weeded out' in the best interest of the genepool. I'm not talking about our society today, I'm illustrating how humankind is the only species that purposely allows and encourages these kinds of traits to continue, and rightfully so. Of course disability isn't a factor in our leaders, because mankind does not really live in a survival of the fittest way. I think I misspoke earlier when I used the term Darwinian and that's probably where the main disagreement comes from, as I meant a system where it is survival of the fittest individual on a purely physical basis (which would be chaotic, bloody, and cruel). I think you're more talking about preserving the species as a whole, whereas I was talking about individual survival as a part of the species. As a whole, variations of strengths and weaknesses enhance survival through cooperation, whereas an individual's survival is enhanced by having more strengths than weaknesses making it more self-sufficient in difficult times. When times are good, everybody wins and does well, in harsh times those with more strengths who are more self-sufficient have the advantage. A big part of this is that if man weren't such a social creature and not prone to cooperation rather than compe!@#$%^&*ion, survival of the fittest would apply. Luckily this isn't the case and it's more like survival of the most cooperative (cooperativeest ). Edit: In regard to the 3rd paragraph, it's also interesting to note that genetic variation can also be a positive in survival as it reduces the risk of a disease that wipes out the species. Also, you get into a whole mess if the gene pool is too small, where you get inbreeding coefficients closer to 1 and less heterosis resulting in reduced reproductive rates and increased rate of congenital defects. So in a way, even in nature, the existence of weaknesses can be a strength.

Sure could use Beyonce Knowles at the moment

Actually, the first part was a joke, if it hadn't been I would also have mentioned Washington's bad teeth, Polk's sterility, Lincoln's color blindness, Teddy's nearsightedness and whole list of maladies suffered by former presidents. Also, since polio isn't a genetic disease and is rather a viral one for which there isn't genetic resistance (unless some undo!@#$%^&*ented person somewhere which we would probably never know anyway), my statement that passing on of polio susceptible genes was in itself a joke of absurdity. Please don't tell me when I'm not joking as I think I have a better handle on that than you do , if I was actually serious about that crap I'd be a frickin Nazi. What I was referring to in the example of Prof. Hawking is that in survival of the fittest, disregarding morality, where the individual is concerned with individual survival and propogation to continue the species, and not survival of the species as a whole, the resources that must be spent to keep alive an individual that can't sustain itself would be detrimental to others with a better chance. Again, basic genetics dictates that traits that increase chances for successful repro. are passed on with greater frequency while those that have no effect or decrease those chances become rarer. On that basis, a species genepool that doesn't take that extra effort to include deleterious genes is, on the whole, stronger and better suited to survival. Yes, it's possible that an individual with great genetic weaknesses could actually enhance chances of survival of the whole species indirectly (genetically speaking), the risks have to be weighted in the immediate sense of available resources and possible advantages against immediate disadvantages. My Quantum Physics/whales analogy was maybe a little confusing, but put it in another way: Say a wolf is born that can understand calculus, but can't walk. Is the rest of the pack better served risking survival on the chance that calculus will help the rest of them survive, or by letting nature take it's course? My joking answer is yes, because dude, you have a wolf that knows calculus! My serious answer is no, because that's a big bet for the rest of them to take. Again let me point out that this is all just hypothetical and that I DON'T believe think people with disabilities should be exterminated. Thankfully, we are a species that values intelligence, morality, and the benefits that the individual can bring to society, regardless of whether those contributions have a concrete effect on survival. And Falcon, never, because anyone who likes the !@#$%^&*ans can't be president.