>> ^lucky760:

>> ^poolcleaner:
>> ^lucky760:
>> ^VoodooV:
>> ^lucky760:
She looks a bit like Elvira Mistress of the Dark in this video.
I find it odd that everyone finds her so "hot." She's cute and seems like a fun person to hang out with, but not so much hot really.

maybe it's because she IS cute and IS fun to hang out with MAKES her hot?
Shocking, I know, but some people find qualities other than the physical to be hot.

Not quite, but of course it depends on how you choose to interpret the term "hot." The most common application of the word in describing a person is in reference to their physical and, more specifically, sexual attraction.
It's atypical, to say the least, for a person to describe someone as hot in reference to a list of traits excluding their physicality. You hear "Man, that chick is totally just-okay looking and built like a preteen boy, but she is so effing hot, Broseph. I totally don't wanna do her, but I would enjoy hanging out having a conversation and glass of lemonade with her. She's scorching hot! High five!" not so much.
Cute? You betcha. Winning personality? So it would seem. Hot? Mmm... Big negatory on that one, Kimosabe. But let's just agree to disagree.

What isn't physically "hot" about her? It's never dawned on me that she is anything but. Do you mean hot like stick figure vomit faced model hot, cuz that ain't hot -- that's obnoxious. Or do you mean that her body isn't as toned as that of a hot womans? Either we have a different standard of beauty or I'm misunderstanding a piece of the hotness puzzle.

When I look at her I see an adolescent girl, and I don't tend to regard who I perceive to be young-looking, underdeveloped girls as hot pieces of ass. I'm realizing that one key requisite in my standard of hotness is the piece of meat woman must actually look like a (grown-ass) woman, and not a (still-maturing) teenager.
But that's just me.

I guess it depends on the context. Puppies are cute too.

In reply to this comment by poolcleaner:
Cute = perceived jailbait

I'll remember that next time I go to flog myself for my sins.

In reply to this comment by lucky760:
>> ^poolcleaner:

>> ^lucky760:
>> ^VoodooV:
>> ^lucky760:
She looks a bit like Elvira Mistress of the Dark in this video.
I find it odd that everyone finds her so "hot." She's cute and seems like a fun person to hang out with, but not so much hot really.

maybe it's because she IS cute and IS fun to hang out with MAKES her hot?
Shocking, I know, but some people find qualities other than the physical to be hot.

Not quite, but of course it depends on how you choose to interpret the term "hot." The most common application of the word in describing a person is in reference to their physical and, more specifically, sexual attraction.
It's atypical, to say the least, for a person to describe someone as hot in reference to a list of traits excluding their physicality. You hear "Man, that chick is totally just-okay looking and built like a preteen boy, but she is so effing hot, Broseph. I totally don't wanna do her, but I would enjoy hanging out having a conversation and glass of lemonade with her. She's scorching hot! High five!" not so much.
Cute? You betcha. Winning personality? So it would seem. Hot? Mmm... Big negatory on that one, Kimosabe. But let's just agree to disagree.

What isn't physically "hot" about her? It's never dawned on me that she is anything but. Do you mean hot like stick figure vomit faced model hot, cuz that ain't hot -- that's obnoxious. Or do you mean that her body isn't as toned as that of a hot womans? Either we have a different standard of beauty or I'm misunderstanding a piece of the hotness puzzle.

When I look at her I see an adolescent girl, and I don't tend to regard who I perceive to be young-looking, underdeveloped girls as hot pieces of ass. I'm realizing that one key requisite in my standard of hotness is the piece of meat woman must actually look like a (grown-ass) woman, and not a (still-maturing) teenager.

But that's just me.

Cute = perceived jailbait

I'll remember that next time I go to flog myself for my sins.

In reply to this comment by lucky760:
>> ^poolcleaner:

>> ^lucky760:
>> ^VoodooV:
>> ^lucky760:
She looks a bit like Elvira Mistress of the Dark in this video.
I find it odd that everyone finds her so "hot." She's cute and seems like a fun person to hang out with, but not so much hot really.

maybe it's because she IS cute and IS fun to hang out with MAKES her hot?
Shocking, I know, but some people find qualities other than the physical to be hot.

Not quite, but of course it depends on how you choose to interpret the term "hot." The most common application of the word in describing a person is in reference to their physical and, more specifically, sexual attraction.
It's atypical, to say the least, for a person to describe someone as hot in reference to a list of traits excluding their physicality. You hear "Man, that chick is totally just-okay looking and built like a preteen boy, but she is so effing hot, Broseph. I totally don't wanna do her, but I would enjoy hanging out having a conversation and glass of lemonade with her. She's scorching hot! High five!" not so much.
Cute? You betcha. Winning personality? So it would seem. Hot? Mmm... Big negatory on that one, Kimosabe. But let's just agree to disagree.

What isn't physically "hot" about her? It's never dawned on me that she is anything but. Do you mean hot like stick figure vomit faced model hot, cuz that ain't hot -- that's obnoxious. Or do you mean that her body isn't as toned as that of a hot womans? Either we have a different standard of beauty or I'm misunderstanding a piece of the hotness puzzle.

When I look at her I see an adolescent girl, and I don't tend to regard who I perceive to be young-looking, underdeveloped girls as hot pieces of ass. I'm realizing that one key requisite in my standard of hotness is the piece of meat woman must actually look like a (grown-ass) woman, and not a (still-maturing) teenager.

But that's just me.

>> ^poolcleaner:

>> ^lucky760:
>> ^VoodooV:
>> ^lucky760:
She looks a bit like Elvira Mistress of the Dark in this video.
I find it odd that everyone finds her so "hot." She's cute and seems like a fun person to hang out with, but not so much hot really.

maybe it's because she IS cute and IS fun to hang out with MAKES her hot?
Shocking, I know, but some people find qualities other than the physical to be hot.

Not quite, but of course it depends on how you choose to interpret the term "hot." The most common application of the word in describing a person is in reference to their physical and, more specifically, sexual attraction.
It's atypical, to say the least, for a person to describe someone as hot in reference to a list of traits excluding their physicality. You hear "Man, that chick is totally just-okay looking and built like a preteen boy, but she is so effing hot, Broseph. I totally don't wanna do her, but I would enjoy hanging out having a conversation and glass of lemonade with her. She's scorching hot! High five!" not so much.
Cute? You betcha. Winning personality? So it would seem. Hot? Mmm... Big negatory on that one, Kimosabe. But let's just agree to disagree.

What isn't physically "hot" about her? It's never dawned on me that she is anything but. Do you mean hot like stick figure vomit faced model hot, cuz that ain't hot -- that's obnoxious. Or do you mean that her body isn't as toned as that of a hot womans? Either we have a different standard of beauty or I'm misunderstanding a piece of the hotness puzzle.

When I look at her I see an adolescent girl, and I don't tend to regard who I perceive to be young-looking, underdeveloped girls as hot pieces of ass. I'm realizing that one key requisite in my standard of hotness is the piece of meat woman must actually look like a (grown-ass) woman, and not a (still-maturing) teenager.

But that's just me.

>> ^lucky760:

>> ^VoodooV:
>> ^lucky760:
She looks a bit like Elvira Mistress of the Dark in this video.
I find it odd that everyone finds her so "hot." She's cute and seems like a fun person to hang out with, but not so much hot really.

maybe it's because she IS cute and IS fun to hang out with MAKES her hot?
Shocking, I know, but some people find qualities other than the physical to be hot.

Not quite, but of course it depends on how you choose to interpret the term "hot." The most common application of the word in describing a person is in reference to their physical and, more specifically, sexual attraction.
It's atypical, to say the least, for a person to describe someone as hot in reference to a list of traits excluding their physicality. You hear "Man, that chick is totally just-okay looking and built like a preteen boy, but she is so effing hot, Broseph. I totally don't wanna do her, but I would enjoy hanging out having a conversation and glass of lemonade with her. She's scorching hot! High five!" not so much.
Cute? You betcha. Winning personality? So it would seem. Hot? Mmm... Big negatory on that one, Kimosabe. But let's just agree to disagree.


What isn't physically "hot" about her? It's never dawned on me that she is anything but. Do you mean hot like stick figure vomit faced model hot, cuz that ain't hot -- that's obnoxious. Or do you mean that her body isn't as toned as that of a hot womans? Either we have a different standard of beauty or I'm misunderstanding a piece of the hotness puzzle.

>> ^lucky760:

>> ^VoodooV:
>> ^lucky760:
She looks a bit like Elvira Mistress of the Dark in this video.
I find it odd that everyone finds her so "hot." She's cute and seems like a fun person to hang out with, but not so much hot really.

maybe it's because she IS cute and IS fun to hang out with MAKES her hot?
Shocking, I know, but some people find qualities other than the physical to be hot.

Not quite, but of course it depends on how you choose to interpret the term "hot." The most common application of the word in describing a person is in reference to their physical and, more specifically, sexual attraction.
It's atypical, to say the least, for a person to describe someone as hot in reference to a list of traits excluding their physicality. You hear "Man, that chick is totally just-okay looking and built like a preteen boy, but she is so effing hot, Broseph. I totally don't wanna do her, but I would enjoy hanging out having a conversation and glass of lemonade with her. She's scorching hot! High five!" not so much.
Cute? You betcha. Winning personality? So it would seem. Hot? Mmm... Big negatory on that one, Kimosabe. But let's just agree to disagree.


I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you, lucky, but your eyeballs are broken. Mila Kunis is smoking hot. That's not my opinion; that's fact.

>> ^VoodooV:

>> ^lucky760:
She looks a bit like Elvira Mistress of the Dark in this video.
I find it odd that everyone finds her so "hot." She's cute and seems like a fun person to hang out with, but not so much hot really.

maybe it's because she IS cute and IS fun to hang out with MAKES her hot?
Shocking, I know, but some people find qualities other than the physical to be hot.


Not quite, but of course it depends on how you choose to interpret the term "hot." The most common application of the word in describing a person is in reference to their physical and, more specifically, sexual attraction.

It's atypical, to say the least, for a person to describe someone as hot in reference to a list of traits excluding their physicality. You hear "Man, that chick is totally just-okay looking and built like a preteen boy, but she is so effing hot, Broseph. I totally don't wanna do her, but I would enjoy hanging out having a conversation and glass of lemonade with her. She's scorching hot! High five!" not so much.

Cute? You betcha. Winning personality? So it would seem. Hot? Mmm... Big negatory on that one, Kimosabe. But let's just agree to disagree.

5.20! Record? You betcha!

Keep in mind that these guys and girls don't have a choice in the amount of luggage they travel with. The government requires them to travel with a specific kit. They don't really have the option of "packing light".

Believe me, if I could just pack a change of clothes and a toothbrush for a deployment, I would.

Also, in reference to your second paragraph, it would be uncouth for me to tell you to "eat a dick", so I'll refrain.
>> ^Xax:

I've found the Internet's outrage at Delta pretty damn perplexing. If Delta got their policy wrong, shame on those who made this call. If the U.S. military and/or soldiers are mistaken about the agreement with Delta, sorry, but that's not Delta's fault.
Would it have been nice if Delta waived the fee for the 4th/5th/10th bag? Sure. Would it be nice if they offer all soldiers/vets/crippled old ladies a lollypop? Yep. Would it be nice if airplanes were fueled by farts and monkey snot? You betcha.

I've found the Internet's outrage at Delta pretty damn perplexing. If Delta got their policy wrong, shame on those who made this call. If the U.S. military and/or soldiers are mistaken about the agreement with Delta, sorry, but that's not Delta's fault.

Would it have been nice if Delta waived the fee for the 4th/5th/10th bag? Sure. Would it be nice if they offer all soldiers/vets/crippled old ladies a lollypop? Yep. Would it be nice if airplanes were fueled by farts and monkey snot? You betcha.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qojv1bR-S0


That was quite the wall of text just for that quip.

Thanks for pointing that out. I think I mentioned that though so it makes your statement kind of insulting.

I think Paul would be better than Bush, but far, far worse than Obama. You want to blame Obama for Gitmo, apparently, but you obviously haven't cared about the topic enough to actually follow the sequence of events. Congress passed a law barring Obama from bringing the detainees onto American soil, and before that New York City opposed bringing KSM to trial there because of security concerns. I think anyone who thinks Ron Paul is somehow going to overcome those obstacles is deluding themselves.

Apparently, you are wrong about my lack of care in this particular topic. Do not generalize. Congress did pass the law, and so? They passed it, if I am correct, in 2009? So he did close it in 2008 when he had a chance? No he did not. And who cares what New York City opposed? Many states opposed blacks being integrated with whites in public schools too—and we know where that went...

I don’t think Paul can overcome the obstacles that Obama has allowed in terms of Gitmo. However, there are ways, one would be leverage. But there are plenty more.

Would the Republican party line up and vote for legislation that would let the detainees come here for Federal trials if Paul tells them to? I doubt it.

Republicans would absolutely not line up behind Ron Paul for this or most other matters. In fact, they would go against nearly every policy he tries because they are corporate hacks and they hate a truly “free” market. Corporations enjoy too many hand outs, too many protections that our government gives them… Just look at how the Republican party speak out Paul...even while pretending to emulate him.

Would Paul make Gitmo his #1 priority? I doubt it.

#1? Maybe not. And? Second or third is fine. However, pointing against your suggestion that he would not give it his best to remove this unconstitutional bullshit, he has been major in his stand on habeas corpus…

Would Paul try to repeal the Civil Rights Act? I bet he wouldn't veto a repeal if Congress passed it...

And? Congress and the House would not have the votes for a repeal, so, like I said, this is a straw-man issue we have…

Would Paul try to repeal Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and health care reform? You betcha! Priority #1, even.

Um, now who doesn’t know what they are talking about? First, Paul stated that he would not, because it was infeasible (Social security and Medicare/Medicaid.) He said he would allow opt outs, and that we would need to fulfill our obligations to those who have already been promised their dues, somehow, to those currently in the program. Just watch the video I posted a link too.

Would Paul get impeached if he tried to rapidly withdraw our troops from everywhere, and then slash the military budget? Almost certainly.

I would be honored to be impeached for doing the right thing. Since when do people only do the right thing when it is easy? That's not the right thing, that convenient. And, actually, the clamor from most republicans citizens (Even those at the VFW I go to) is to cut the military (To a significant degree) because we are in a serious financial crisis. They also, with the actions in Libya and around, wonder if we can sustain our empire. A year ago, you would have been 100% right. We must admit, most Americans want our troops home, even from Iraq and Af-gan.

For the record, I totally agreed with what heropsycho said (the comment you said was 100% right). Paul and libertarians refuse to accept the good things that government regulation has provided us, and dismiss (and decry as EVIL!) the idea that any new good could come from new regulation.

Agreed. Just make sure to note that certain people (Me and others) agree that some regulations need to be a federal issue.

Worse, they want to dismantle all the good, and absolutely forestall any more progress being made in this country on any major issue. Maybe he'd impotently try to deal with the war and associated civil liberties issues, but I doubt he'd even bother when there's still a New Deal to repeal.

He cares about bankruptcy first.

"If we made common sense about this yes I would cut all this militarism and not cut people off from medical care."

I don't see a problem with this. And his view that the dollar will go, some say is doomsday...and so they said that about the levies, and so they said that about 9/11, and so they say it till it happens.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

(Sorry for the length of this response...)

That was quite the wall of text just for that quip.

I think Paul would be better than Bush, but far, far worse than Obama. You want to blame Obama for Gitmo, apparently, but you obviously haven't cared about the topic enough to actually follow the sequence of events. Congress passed a law barring Obama from bringing the detainees onto American soil, and before that New York City opposed bringing KSM to trial there because of security concerns. I think anyone who thinks Ron Paul is somehow going to overcome those obstacles is deluding themselves.

Would the Republican party line up and vote for legislation that would let the detainees come here for Federal trials if Paul tells them to? I doubt it.

Would Paul make Gitmo his #1 priority? I doubt it.

Would Paul try to repeal the Civil Rights Act? I bet he wouldn't veto a repeal if Congress passed it...

Would Paul try to repeal Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and health care reform? You betcha! Priority #1, even.

Would Paul get impeached if he tried to rapidly withdraw our troops from everywhere, and then slash the military budget? Almost certainly.

For the record, I totally agreed with what heropsycho said (the comment you said was 100% right). Paul and libertarians refuse to accept the good things that government regulation has provided us, and dismiss (and decry as EVIL!) the idea that any new good could come from new regulation.

Worse, they want to dismantle all the good, and absolutely forestall any more progress being made in this country on any major issue. Maybe he'd impotently try to deal with the war and associated civil liberties issues, but I doubt he'd even bother when there's still a New Deal to repeal.

You betcha!

>> ^quantumushroom:

The majority of the American people aren't buying the leftmedia's BS spin about this lone vermin, whose heinous act was apolitical.

A politician was specifically singled out at a political function. By that very fact, it can't be apolitical.

It wasn't like he went and robbed a 7-11 and ended up accidentally hit a member of Congress when the clerk pulled a gun. That would be apolitical.

The word "non-partisan" is a better fit, but firing a gun at a politician sounds pretty "partisan" to me.

He was clearly not right in the head, but also pretty clearly, he wasn't completely loopy. As much as the media has joked about "government using grammar as mind control", that's exactly what was going on in 1984, which was on his favorite book list.

Also, there's been mention of him burning the flag. Well, in his Youtube videos he explains that the flag isn't in the Constitution, therefore it's meaningless.

As much as the right likes to act like flag burning is something liberals do for fun, what does it mean if it's burned in protest of it being unconstitutional to even have an American flag?

He also talks at length about currency, and there he sounds like an Austrian economist -- the Fed is manipulating currency to control us, and the solution is that we should just individually create and use our own currency instead.

All that said, I'm perfectly happy to say that nothing about the above makes "the right" directly responsible for what happened. I think he had sterner stuff than cable news driving him nuts.

But I will say that the delusional nightmare he fell into is very much like the one the right is always trying to sell these days. The government is evil, all powerful, and coming for you, so get your guns, you "might" need them.

Do I think they should stop pushing that dystopian picture? Yes, and I always have felt that way. Do I think this is a good time to say so again? You betcha.

Do I think the left generates a significant chunk of the noise that adds heat to our debates without adding light? Sure. Does the left have a similar dystopian vision that they're constantly hammering home? Maybe. If so, ours is presented with non-violent calls to action and a kernel of hope that it's not too late to make a difference, not a call to lock and load, build a bunker, and your only hope is that you might survive the inevitable apocalypse.

And QM, if you read this far down, I'm not really directing this at you, you were just the catalyst for a rant that had been building for a while. Thanks for helping bring it out.

Pretty sure you can make almost anywhere fun and exciting when you're rich and you have a crew taking care of everything.

"Just have a good time and make sure to talk to the camera."
"You betcha!"