On the subject of the Pursuit Special, it's a modified Ford Falcon XB GT.

Looks good, goes fast, suspension from the stone age, can't corner worth a damn.

Eric Bana had one and drove it into a tree in Tasmania.
Love The Beast

I grow my own plants, well, as many as I can in an apartment. I bike everywhere I can. I eat some meat, but it consists very little of my diet. I produce a grocery bag of trash a week and most of that is organic waste.

Oh, you mean I should stop living in a first world country and go back to the stone-age! I get it now. You mean, I should completely and utterly give up everything because it may cause some pollution? Very illogical of you. I believe that is another one of those fallacies people are chiding you for.

By acknowledging the climate change is man-made, we can make better strides to actually bring about meaningful changes. One person reducing their carbon footprint isn't going to make much of a difference, but 350,000,000 people will.

Or, if politicians like Marco Rubio, who I shutter to think belongs to my state, would stop denying climate change we could actually have a dialogue about actual changes we can make, not ad reductionist claims like some people here on the sift are making. (I.E., you.)

Um, as for the state getting out of the way . . . The reason we have any clean air is because of their standards. For instance, it took a government mandate to eliminate lead from gasoline. Lead, which is highly toxic and one of the leading causes of anti-social behavior in convicted felons of violent crimes. I'm sure the free-market would have solved that issue on it own, however, in a much shorter period of time. *Thinks about that for a while.*

So you want to move away from the AGW and just say the climate is changing?

Basic premise flaw: if we humans aren't creating it, then there's nothing we can do. I give you, case in point, climate change deniers. Such as our Marco Rubio. Humans aren't causing it, therefore, we shouldn't impose any regulations on oil and gas. (I believe they did something similar back in the leaded gasoline days. May what short memories we have.)

By the way, saying since California has environmentalists that having the worst air pollution thus makes environmentalism a mute point would be called Fallacy of Composition. Because, let's not forget basic math: California population is greater than oh, I think 49 other states and contains the counties largest ports (major source of air pollution), the majority of the countries cars, the majority of semi trucks and trains originate here, they house dozens of oil refineries and there's this little itty bitty nascent issue of these Rocky Mountain things people keep talking about. Or, this "valley" people make fun of. I hear it's right next to these mountains.

So, really, the logical argument would be, because of the increasingly dire air pollution in California, more and more people are become environmentally aware and are slowly changing their habits to reduce future smog, but without increasing government intervention, larger corporations will continue their practice so long as it returns a profit. So, as a result, the larger corporations are spending millions lobbying politicians who have been passing favorable laws much to the angst of the growing environmental movement.

And no, that doesn't require overthrowing the government and going to an all berries diet. Nor me writing a book about my efforts.

@eric3579, that alternate is also *blocked

Hola to the rescue

For the record kids, you can still go to concerts in your 30s.

I went to see NIN and Queens of the Stone Age just two weeks ago. It was epic, and I'm 36. If I hadn't had my hand in a cast, I'd have been taking names in the moshpit too, which I will do next month at Beastwars!

ChaosEngine: refusing to grow up since 1977...

"I don't know" is not a belief.

it's all part of the murky definition of atheism that seems to be in flux.

at one point Atheism used to be defined as a definitive claim that no gods existed. This was the primary reason I considered myself to not be an atheist. Because you can't know (presently) There could be a creator, just that a creator probably isn't an petty ass from the stone ages which is how most religions portray a creator.

However I would identify with with how the Atheist Experience defines Atheism: to be the rejection of theistic claims. They specifically say numerous times that they do not claim that no god exists, just that they call bullshit on the claims of all current man-made religions because of lack of evidence.

Which is a viewpoint I can agree with.

It's something I've kinda kept track of for a while, over the years I google the definition of Atheism and many times in the past, it's been defined implying the positive belief that there are no creator(s) which I can't agree with..again, because you can't prove a negative in this situation.

it does seem to be slowly changing though, more and more definitions have changed to match the Atheist Experience's definition.

David Silverman, (while I agree with him on a lot of things) is a douchebag IMO. I'm sorry, you're just not going to win people over with douchey billboards antagonizing theists.

I support freedom of religion, I agree with our founders though that gov't has to be secular. You can vote based on your religious beliefs. but a person elected into public office has to compartmentalize themselves from their religious beliefs and be secular. You govern everyone, not just the followers of your religion. Kick religion out of gov't, but as long as religion doesn't infringe on other peoples' rights, then they can do whatever they want.

For the 1st country in the Arabian peninsula to afford women the right to vote, member of the United Nations, blah blah blah, 2013 and these Shia-stone-age cunts fuck their own children-....Throwbacks kept in the dark and fed shit instead of knowledge. Thank you, Islam.

Forget the uncle, this girl should go and live with Pat Condell!

Whatever happened to real news? Oh yeah, it never really existed in the first place!
We need more pentagon papers kinna folks-Not so much reporters as participants...people who see the big picture and risk imprisonment in the name of information distribution. People who realize that a non-disclosure statement signed will at at some point, mean your own mental and spiritual demise.

Real history would record that Lyndon B. Johnson was a complete piece of human garbage. Buildings should be renamed that carry his name, the man was a fucking monster. His administration fucked us to stone age in the grand schemata....

Assange fucked up. He wasn't choosy enough with what he released, eh?

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^LarsaruS:
>> ^Yogi:
I like it when women who have curves say that women are supposed to have curves. It's just not true, we're supposed to be starving hungry animals running around ALL over the F'n place trying to persistently hunt down our food. I sincerely doubt there was ever a fat "cave person".

If you look at the old (stone age) stone figures for fertility they are all round so I guess they had rotund people back then too...

Because fertility gods are pregnant!


I recommend reading this study comparing a hunter gatherer society's energy expenditure to western society.

Also look at this meta study regarding energy expenditure and activity level and its relation to obesity.

>> ^LarsaruS:

>> ^Yogi:
I like it when women who have curves say that women are supposed to have curves. It's just not true, we're supposed to be starving hungry animals running around ALL over the F'n place trying to persistently hunt down our food. I sincerely doubt there was ever a fat "cave person".

If you look at the old (stone age) stone figures for fertility they are all round so I guess they had rotund people back then too...


Because fertility gods are pregnant!

>> ^Yogi:

I like it when women who have curves say that women are supposed to have curves. It's just not true, we're supposed to be starving hungry animals running around ALL over the F'n place trying to persistently hunt down our food. I sincerely doubt there was ever a fat "cave person".


If you look at the old (stone age) stone figures for fertility they are all round so I guess they had rotund people back then too...

Another problem with Paul is his inability to understand that his concept of liberty is far from subjective and far from universal. He believes in a type of liberty called 'negative liberty', which is defined as freedom from laws and regulation. The big flaw in negative liberty it gives powerful people the liberty to take away the liberty of less powerful people.

Positive liberty, by contrast, is a liberty of empowerment, a liberty based on working together to solve problems. Liberty from sickness and disease through science and medicine. Liberty from oppression through labor laws and civil liberties. Liberty from ignorance through education. I could go on... but I've got to go right now.

The history of the human race is an arc from negative liberty to positive liberty. Let's not regress. I have no interest in going back to the stone age.

My impression is that biomedical research using a canine models have intensely supervised facilities and have to follow a huge number of regulations. Animal models are a central part of biomedical research. I am as much a dog lover as anyody. But this research is incredibly important for curing degenerative diseases like MS, Parkinsons, etc. Without dogs or animal models medical research would be stuck in the stone ages.

In other words, it's Stone Age graffiti.

Go Canada!

Ummm no because there are people who agree with that 4% bumping up the statistic significantly.


Also Democracy isn't right if it's used to take away the rights of individuals. So 58% of people can say that they think Black people should be slaves...does that make it right?

So, 4% plus 54% of gay sympathizers equals 58%, does THAT make THAT right?



EDIT: Bonus points for "Mexifornian" because it was Mexico before we attacked them needlessly and took their land from them after destroying the indigenous population.

The Winners write the history. Mexicans are the result of Spain conquering Mestizo Indians, so you can take this silly 'blame game' back to the Stone Age if you want.

This great country you love is filled with humans as bad as any that have ever lived.

I don't disagree, but bad people are typically not a nation's majority here or anywhere else. In America one is free to leave any time and I doubt one can find a better country.














>> ^Yogi:

>> ^quantumushroom:
If The Gay is genetic despite the variables of the spectrum, in the future the option to make a fetus 'not gay' will likely be offered. I neither condemn nor condone this inevitable tech.
The 4% indeed has a voice, right now it's far-too-loud, an imbalance that will have to find its center. When religious people state that, per their beliefs, they consider homosexuality wrong, they are made into 'hate criminals'. "Gay history" is now mandatory in at least one mexifornian school.
I'm all for personal freedom, but rights can't be spun out of thin air, and that's what's been happening.


>> ^rottenseed:
Sexuality and the hormones driving it falls on a spectrum and it involves several chemical processes. Since it's OBVIOUSLY not passed on from gay parent to gay child, that means straight people are having homosexual children at a rate of (4%?) or whatever it is.
And that 4% of the population deserves a voice. And the oppression of their rights should be of more concern than just 4% of the population. We should all be involved with maintaining one another's personal freedoms.>> ^quantumushroom:
The Gay is likely genetic, but that means in a few decades it can be "cured". And 4% of the population has no business steering an entire election.
Cain, unlike Obama, seems to understand the Constitution limits presidential power. Good on him.



Ummm no because there are people who agree with that 4% bumping up the statistic significantly. Also Democracy isn't right if it's used to take away the rights of individuals. So 58% of people can say that they think Black people should be slaves...does that make it right?
EDIT: Bonus points for "Mexifornian" because it was Mexico before we attacked them needlessly and took their land from them after destroying the indigenous population. This great country you love is filled with humans as bad as any that have ever lived.

~For Packo
declared terrorists not covered by the Geneva Convention

For which I believe Bush, Cheney and their entire entourage should be brought up on war crimes charges over. Cheney shouldn't even get a trial, he's written a bloody book staunchly defending his use of torture which should be enough to skip the conviction and get straight on to sentencing.

It's nitpicking, and childish to resort to a "who declared war on who"

I was responding to your declaration that it's not really war. I believe whether we call it a war or not is more than just semantics. The jihadists like Al-Qaida have been calling it war for their part since long before 9/11 finally made it a mutual declaration.

So as much as you believe it is WESTERN nation's responsibility to solve problems
I'm not saying it's their responsibility so much as recognizing that there are instances where western self interest happens to coincide with solving problems. It's vitally important difference.

Extremism will only be defeated by the environment in the Middle East being such that it can't take root and grow. This will never be accomplished by force or political buggery.

I agree with your sentiments on extremism and the environment in the Middle East being the key. I must ask though if a Middle East with Afghanistan still ruled by the Taliban and Iraq still ruled by Saddam really make a better environment for putting an end to extremism. I see the evidence being very strongly against it. Additionally, I don't see any way of improving Saddam era Iraq's environment without the use force. I don't think those are terribly radical and unfathomable statements, yet it seems most here seem not only content to reject it without evidence, but in the face any evidence and without any need for a defense either.

All of the above doesn't even touch on the original point I made that if you are a US Citizen, you should be viewing the assasination of a US Citizen, at your government's sayso, without their providing ample reason (or any really) as to why he could not have been captured, with some foreboding..

I still prefer it to Bush's stubborn insistence to explain everything to the public as though they were children. I believe Awlaki's past and present actions were expected to stand somewhat one their own, without really needing anyone to hold people's hand and explain to them what it meant to write books promoting Jihad in America and mentorship of a man that went on to kill for that very cause. I also believe they again don't feel they'll have much luck explaining why capturing an Al-Qaida operative in Yemen was going to be difficult for anyone that didn't already grasp that on their own.

I've already agreed up thread that the precedent is worrisome, but so is the alternative. I could have respected if Obama had come out and instead of announcing Awlaki's death had announced that he had the opportunity to assassinate him, and chose not to as a matter of ethics. I doubt however that his presidency could have survived such a moral move. He'd last until Awlaki's next attack before the Reps and Dems wanting his place would have people running him out of office for failing to protect the nation.

My real problem and raging here is at those content to convict and condemn Obama, but insistent that Awlaki be deemed innocent until the absolute highest bar of proof be satisfied.

My real problem and raging is those raving as though bombing Cambodia into the stone ages and backing the Khmer Rouge in those ashes is morally equivalent to the removal of Saddam's regime in Iraq and the holding of free elections there.

As though those indignities weren't enough, those same claimants then want to believe that they are the ones truly studying and seeing the shades of gray involved in these matters.

It's more than should be tolerated by any thinking person that cares enough to take these things seriously.

How the fuck is that not illegal? How the fuck can they not be sued into the stone-age for shit like this? It's amazing to me this is obviously done on purpose...they need to pay.