All that foam rubber, probably suffered heat stroke.

Here, let me see if you agree.

Basically, there were three camps around Ron Paul.

1st was the conservative camp. 2nd was the liberal camp. 3rd was the everyone who voted for Paul camp.

In the 1st one people hated Paul because he didn't follow their platform. He didn't want to ban abortion at the level of the federal government, he didn't want to make gay marriage illegal with a broad pen stroke and he wasn't keen on telling people they could drink but not smoke pot. He believed the states should decide.

In other words, this camp was solely based on their own selfish beliefs. Me me me, greed greed greed. Give me. Fuck the honest guy.

In the second camp people hated Paul because he didn't follow their platform. He didn't want federal government handouts, one-sized fits-all approach to education or legalization of gay marriage or abortion at the federal level. He believed states should decide.

In other words, this camp was solely based on their own selfish beliefs. Me me me, greed greed greed. Give me. Fuck the honest guy.

Then there was the 3rd camp. They valued him as a candidate, and said fuck the platform. Platform voting has been destroying our country and polarizing our nation since the beginning.

What makes me so pissed is that the first 2 camps believe they were doing the right thing. Like a rapist in India trying to make a lesbian straight...yeah, great morals there guys...these delusional whack jobs disgust me. Yeah, it is fine to vote against Ron Paul without being labeled as such, so long as you 100% believed your candidate was morally superior to Paul. And as long as that belief had nothing to do with platform...

Or am I just being a prick?

http://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/views-from-the-nhs-frontline/2016/jan/05/doctor-suicide-hospital-nhs?

With that in mind, remember that the Bank of England can start Overt Monetary Financing (aka print money) at the stroke of a pen and thereby allow the Department of Health to increase staff levels to whatever it takes to provide the desired quality of service. There are plenty of underutilised or even unused resources, human most of all -- meaning unemployed people.

The current situation is the result of political decisions, not an economic neccessity. No excuses. For the damage they inflict on the people and the environment, they should have to spent the next decade digging peat with a spade, 18 hours a day.

Looks like a stroke.

Well, you could prevent MASS migration by removing the reason most are migrating. If they could be provided some stability where they live, most of them would not leave their homes. That seems to me to be the best, most reasonable, cheapest, and only feasible 'solution' to this current refugee problem....and it solves a few other important international problems as well.

I have an idea along those lines (that won't be implemented). European countries should allow any family that wants to immigrate to do so, but require that at least one 18-30 year old immediate family member (lets say 1 for every 5 immigrants) to enlist in an international military force and go 'home' to fight Daesh...if not more.
That might solve SO many issues and fears in one stroke...which is why I'm certain it won't happen.

What the heck? I think Siftbot is having a stroke. Though I see Siftbot ignored Eric's call for dupe as well...

I have limited experience with slinging, but IMHO it's already very much the same as just throwing a stone out of your hand in terms of aim and how it feels.

You basically just release the knot at the point of the swing where you would anyway. Feels very natural.

There's also very little gain in swinging it more than one revolution above your head, almost all the power comes from the flick at the last moment.

I found getting a good power stroke (ooh er Mrs etc.) was the harder part.

A good afternoon of farting about and you could probably kill someone fairly proficiently with one though.

Someone with a lifetime of practice would be terrifying, at least as much as a good archer I would imagine.

Life lessons garnered:

"YOU can paint a picture."

You don't need to "go to school half your life."
You don't need to be "blessed by Michelangelo at birth."
You don't need 1500 colors. 8 will do.
"You just need a dream in your heart and some practice."

Your base needs to be firm. "If you start with a thin, loose paint, you're going to become a mud-mixer."

Large strokes live in your mind. Details live in your brush. "You just need to push them out."

Don't lose the trees for the forest. Think about the small world that lives in your painting and it will be much richer. "This is where they live [these creatures]... In these bushes"

Painting will teach you to look at Nature and see things that have been there all your life, and you've never noticed. "Look around, look at what we have. Beauty is everywhere."

"In the time you sit around worrying about it and trying to plan a painting, you could have completed a painting already. Let it happen."

"We need dark in order to show light."

It could also be my monitor causing the subtleties to stand out, but If you kind of step back and look at him, he's quite yellow in some areas, quite red in others, and you can see brush strokes between some of the layers of makeup.

"They're freaking amazing scribbles."

Umm... no.

Of course she chooses examples where there's more explainable depth in the artist's intention (e.g., the clocks) or where there's actual skill required (e.g., straight lines with oil paint), but what about examples of paintings made up of random smudges and brush strokes? Not only am I sure I could do something like that, but I've been loosely considering making something like that to hang up at home.

Adding NdGT is a stroke of genius.

Can't say this isn't a little bittersweet, though. Wouldn't it be amazing if it was real?

*promote

You are welcome to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is. ;-)

My dogs, and almost every dog I've ever known that doesn't have medical problems causing facial deformity or paralysis, DOES smile when happy. They also wag their tails. If you can't see emotion in a dog's face, I think you need serious therapy (or a new dog). It's clearly there to see.
You picked a cat (cats, who normally don't show much facial emotion) with a facial deformity to 'prove' your point that animals don't show emotion? OK, well, then lets look at Steven Hawking (or any severe facially paralyzed stroke victim)...he never shows emotion, so that proves that people don't smile either, right? That's how I read your argument.

And again....does this... :-) ...have a smile? But it's just a drawing and has no emotion to display...so how can it smile by your definition? It can smile because a smile is upturned mouth corners, and not necessarily an anthropomorphic display of emotion through facial muscles.
EDIT: Ascribing emotional content to a smile is how YOU INTERPRET the smile. The mouth shape IS the smile.

It may look to us like this gecko is HAPPY, but that's mostly because it's mouth is smiling. I think that's the argument you may want to be making instead of the 'animals don't smile' argument.

I was having Star Trek Deep Space Nine flashbacks, she sounded like the Grand Nagus. If I were on a date with her I don't think I'd be able to resist asking her to cackle maniacally while asking someone to stroke her lobes.

I think this is analogous to what happens to someone who has a stroke, and needs to learn how to walk, or talk, or ____ again. The pathway they used before to do that thing was broken, so they need to build a new pathway to relearn how to do something they used to know.

That is quite possibly one of the stupidest projects I've ever seen undertaken.

And then to stroke their own egos after accomplishing nothing of value - astonishing.