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.

Unfortunately, no. This book lacks the nuance and hepa!@#$%^&*is of that author's work.

If you are talking about survival of the fittest or the law of nature, then the passing on of genes is the paramount factor. Beneficial genes, those that increase odds for a successful reproduction, should become more prevalent at the expense of weaker genes that either have a neutral or detrimental effect to reproduction. I don't think that anyone can argue that Professor Hawking's condition isn't one that would seriously hinder successful reproduction. Intelligence does play a part as an evolutional advantage, however intelligence combined with a functionless body is not enough, in a natural setting, to offset the weaknesses. Should he have, of course not. But in a natural setting deprived of morality, it would be the logical move. Quantum physics hasn't exactly helped the whales has it? Note: My earlier post was made in jokingly, not to be taken seriously as something I actually believe, hence the lol. lol.

chainsaw some dead trees, shoot trap, build a ship in a bottle, make your own fireworks, take in a movie, clean your home, raft down the Mississippi with N-word Jim

On a Darwinian system, neither JFK nor FDR can be the best president, because FDR shouldn't have been allowed to p!@#$%^&* on inferior genes in the susceptibility to polio, and JFK because he lacked the necessary cranial density to deflect the bullet. That felt stupid even typing it lol. Amending my post, Washington was !@#$%^&* good, I think better than Lincoln. Teddy's still my guy. Bully Ho!

Sorry if I got too carried away in my earlier post... and this post. Yes, a member of a group will more likely follow in the direction the group does, basic psychology. There's a difference between whether that direction comes from the choice of one person who is a leader, or if it is a concensus and compromise of the individual members into something they can all mostly agree with. That's not really that bad, unless the end result is. I disagree that groups will inherently choose a path to create conflict, it's on more of a case by case basis as to whether they will or not in my opinion. Most groups are formed by individuals with similar interests, backgrounds, beliefs, etc so the fact that members will go along with what is decided isn't too surprising given the likely similarities of the individuals. I don't agree that these groups will blindly follow irrational actions just because their leaders say so. If a girl scout troop leader suddenly has a wire snap and says let's go burn all the black people, I tend to believe that person will soon be in a mental ins!@#$%^&*ute with no harm to others (again, !@#$%^&*uming the group isn't made up of seriously disturbed people in the first place) ... forgive the extreme on that example. As for myself, I've been in many organizations throughout high school and college and outside those, and I don't think I've been manipulated into doing something I wouldn't normally do. If the groups decide to do something I didn't agree with, I said (mentally usually) 'F*ck that'. As far as corruption, yes it occurs more frequently in groups primarily because the power to use in a corrupt manner has been granted by others. Will everyone use whatever power they get to their own devices? No. Will some? Yes. Will those that do always do it in a severe way? No. Will some? Yes, and they hopefully will be caught and punished. Just because it can and does happen doesn't dictate that it will. On the subject of religion and power as far as the topic goes, they should be totally separate in terms of authority. No state sanctioned religion, no gov't money to religions (unless a recognized charity). Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and Billy Grahm and whoever else there is should either pick politics or religion. It pisses me off to no end when candidates are going on and on about how much they pray/don't pray and the media just hammers on it. It shouldn't matter as whatever office is being held, the first priority is to your responsibility as an elected official. Anyhoo, hope that clears up my stand, apologies for any misunderstanding. P.S. Jessica Alba is hot, and the book is '1001 Ways You Didn't Know Jessica Alba is Hot But Were Afraid to Ask' I recommend Chapter 7: The Nudie Years

Oh Snap! (do kids still say that these days?) but still, emo sucks

You said you couldnt remember the last time religious groups had a positive impact on society, groups are made up of individuals. As for a specific example, how about the YMCA? YWCA? In fact, just google 'Christian Charity' and you get quite a few charitable religious groups. Collecting food/money for the poor, building hospitals and clinics, providing medicine in third world countries, yeah I suppose that really isn't a positive impact on society. My bad. Yes, I mentioned individuals who represent groups that have done/do a lot of good in the world and have a very positive impact on society. You just said, the crazy ASSS behind the Crusades, wouldn't that be a small part of a group, maybe some individuals rather than the group as a whole? Are you condemning the whole group for what a few crazies do, when the leaders of the rest of them condemn them? There's a few crazies who claim to follow Islam, does that make the entire religion a negative impact on society? Don't give me grief for citing individual examples when you yourself are painting vast groups as somehow bad for what a tiny minority of them have done over generations. It's a 'more than the sum of its parts' type thing, not a 'a couple bad apples spoils the bunch' type deal.

The JFK thing pisses me off so much that people say Oh if only he hadn't been killed everything would have been great! Such a load of crap. JFK had some pretty nice screwups during his short presidency. As far as Clinton, again, history will judge, but he had a fairly calm world for his 8 years in office.

Positive effect on society, how about John Paul II's stand against the USSRs power in eastern Europe? Mother Teresa? The thousands of organizations set up by all religious denominations that work to help the poor, sick, hungry around the world? The REVEREND Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.? lol

Uhm, off topic? I disagree with the FDR one especially.. the fact that he had polio and was reelected isn't all that germane. If there were TVs in every home back then I doubt he would have made 3 terms. The guy had leg braces to make him 'stand' in public speeches. That itself isn't good criteria in my opinion because, to borrow from some joke today, big deal about his polio, a re!@#$%^&*ed president has been elected twice but you don't give him the prize. Regarding his economic policies, after numerous failed programs from his administration, one was bound to finally succeed after the years of depression. Also, the fact that Europe was rearming itself and the US was a major trading partner in that did a lot. And as for how much of that was his idea is up for grabs, as most would agree that those kind of programs are hatched by some underling and then promoted by the higher-ups. Lincoln is too much of a knee-jerk reaction for best president. He didn't really save the nation as it divided under his watch anyway, he was just lucky that the vast advantage the North had in troops, material, and transport was enough to overcome their idiocy. They were also lucky enough that in a few key battles, southern generals didn't press the advantage and crush entire union armies (they could have easily taken D.C.). Sure he guided through the Civil War but at a huge cost. He reinstated incompetent generals who let the war drag on far too long, he put in place the policies that sparked the secession even after being told the effect they would have. Even the move to free the slaves in southern states was more of a war strategy than an actual social reform. Had the south not seceeded, slavery would have continued much longer in those states. No question that the magnanimous terms he set at the end helped heal the wounds, but the division between northern and southern states continued (continues?) for decades.