Good advice for some people, but if I lived every day like it was my last, I'd be in jail many, many times over. Some of us should just live our lives like we probably have some more coming. Make sure you're not one of us before you go rearranging things.
All of those things except education are under the "we want the government to not let us die in huge numbers when it's entirely preventable" umbrella. And yes, we would like the government to do that.
Depending on who you ask, either in a cheap effort to get angry repeat customers, or for balance. If it's the latter, they should learn that media actually interested in balance will pick the smartest people from both sides while ignoring the loud idiots. It's a mistake only the best news organizations manage to avoid. It's usually why they're the best news organizations in the first place.
Don't worry - America is becoming irrelevant to the world, and in another 100 years it will enjoy a lovely equal status as Africa and other 3rd-world countries.
That's silly. We're just going to be the new France. No one will know what the hell we do over here, but we'll have a few pretty buildings for the tourists, once they get old and antiquey, and we'll occasionally issue smug, condescending statements to more important countries. We're well on our way.
(I say this as a big fan of France, despite all that stuff, so please don't -1 me too hard.)
And I've always wondered why the hell it took an all-powerful, perfect God six days to make one measely universe. And why did it tucker him out so much he had to nap for a whole day afterward? He was probably doing other things, though, like coming up with that fun "trick the humans into getting themselves tossed into eternal fire by putting dinosaur bones everywhere and then hiding" game.
You've clearly forgotten the nuance of the time leading up to the war. It went like this:
Administration: "They got nukes." Everyone, everywhere: "What?" A: "Nukes." EE: "Nuh-uh. Where?" A: "Over there." EE: "That's a shoe." A: "Next to the shoe." EE: "There's nothing next to the shoe." A: "Sure there is. Trust us. We know it. Plus, look at this bottle of anthrax I have." EE: "Uh.... Should you really have that in here?" A: "He can make oodles of this stuff." EE: "..." Hans Blix: "There's no nukes." A: "Shut up, dude. They're buying the anthrax thing." HB: "Seriously, though. There's nothing there. I looked." EE: "Maybe we should hold off for a while and hear this guy out." A: "Don't listen to him. He's... got... WE DON'T NEED A PERMISSION SLIP TO PROTECT OURSELVES!" (Administration runs away, locks self in room, and cries into pillow.) EE: (Rolls eyes at Administration.) "Okay, I think this is a bad idea." A: "Shut up." (Administration starts sending troops.) EE: "Seriously. Just hold up for a minute." A: "You never loved me anyway." EE: "Well, you're kinda weasely. Are you sure this isn't about oil? Because if this gets done and you give Haliburton the job of reconstruction, people are going to look at you funny." A: "You're not my real mom! Just shut up! You'll see! There'll be nukes!" EE: "No. Now stop it." A: "No!" EE: "Seriously, dude. Stop it." A: (Bombs some stuff.) EE: "You fucking dick."
And here we are. It'd be nice if we could have held hands and sung about how we were going to end human rights violations throughout the world, but hindsight is 50/50, as they say.
As fun as it is to reduce judges to idiots and cartoon villians, a whole bunch of them actually are competent. These things are granted because that's what's done. Judges don't assume cops are full of shit. But the system still works. It keeps the numbers down to 2,000 warrants that someone keeps track of instead of 200,000 searches whenever a cop feels like it that no one hears about.
Except if you're looking at it from a tax perspective (and not the practicality perspective from which you probably should be), then letting in Indian and Canadian workers to make 30-50K means not hiring American workers to make 40-55K, and that's a net loss for Uncle Sam and the US economy in general (assuming the savings from hiring the non-Americans isn't passed on to the consumer. And even if it is, I still have a feeling there'd be some loss).
Oh. Sorry. I assumed you had a point. "People sometimes get married to have kids." Great. Thanks. I'll make a note of that in my Big Book of Obviousness.
I like how you slipped "genetic" in there. But you didn't quite go far enough. Some of them have kids from previous relationships that technically qualify just as well as straight blended families, so you should throw some more arbitrary constraints on it. I recommend "the genetic offspring of not-currently-gay parents". That oughtta cover it. You've still got that gaping hole around infertile straight couples and straight couples that would just prefer to adopt, but that's okay. Thinking is for fags, anyway.
So don't homosexually relate. What the fuck is so hard about that? You're not going to save the rest of us by forcing straightness on us. Start by converting, and once you've got that, you can move on to telling us which of our many behaviors make our new god cry.
A cat can't consent. Nor can doorknobs or any other ridiculous thing you want to make a flawed analogy about. Explain to me how a cat says "I do," and I'll be 100% behind man/cat marriages.
So we have "Why can't 3 guys get married?" left. And the answer is that it serves no legal purpose. If 3 guys want to get their friends together and put on tuxes and dresses, let them, but legally, there's no point.
And I doubt it would happen, but if it turns out that 3 guys want to get hitched, we'll hear them out. If the only reason we can think of to not let them is that it's always been that way, then we should probably go for it.
What the hell is the problem with that? None of them are trying to marry you, are they? And even if they were, I don't think forced marriages are ever going to be part of the gay agenda.
I'm not a skilled driver. It has nothing to do with skill. If 95% are going 65 are 5% are going 50, the 5% are the danger. They accepted limit is predictable. Anything significantly slower is a hazard to the other 95%.
Wreckless and drunk driving is nowhere near popular enough for that to apply. They're both considered by the majority to be insane. If it weren't, people would just avoid the roads in general.
... follow the laws to the letter, leave plenty of time for travel, and don't bitch when you get a legit ticket.
If everyone started doing that, they'd just lower the speed limit to the point where following it became impossible so that they could keep giving out tickets.
It's never the guy going 65 in a 50 that's a problem. It's always the guy doing 50 in a 50 when everyone knows the accepted speed on the road they're on is 70.
Slashdot Mirror
Good advice for some people, but if I lived every day like it was my last, I'd be in jail many, many times over. Some of us should just live our lives like we probably have some more coming. Make sure you're not one of us before you go rearranging things.
All of those things except education are under the "we want the government to not let us die in huge numbers when it's entirely preventable" umbrella. And yes, we would like the government to do that.
It's not so bad that the article guy pissed on stuff, the problem is he pissed on stuff without being even remotely funny.
I am a hippie. Voted against Bush and everything. But it ain't the science that does the killing.
If you can't get out of the way of the guy carrying a gun bigger than my house, I think it's probably best if your slow-ass organs die with you.
I don't agree with the OP, but when you include Amnesty International in your list of sources to just ignore, you've gone off the deep end.
Depending on who you ask, either in a cheap effort to get angry repeat customers, or for balance. If it's the latter, they should learn that media actually interested in balance will pick the smartest people from both sides while ignoring the loud idiots. It's a mistake only the best news organizations manage to avoid. It's usually why they're the best news organizations in the first place.
I'd double-dog-dare you to completely miss the point, but you went ahead and did that already.
Wow. God's a jerk.
Don't worry - America is becoming irrelevant to the world, and in another 100 years it will enjoy a lovely equal status as Africa and other 3rd-world countries.
That's silly. We're just going to be the new France. No one will know what the hell we do over here, but we'll have a few pretty buildings for the tourists, once they get old and antiquey, and we'll occasionally issue smug, condescending statements to more important countries. We're well on our way.
(I say this as a big fan of France, despite all that stuff, so please don't -1 me too hard.)
And I've always wondered why the hell it took an all-powerful, perfect God six days to make one measely universe. And why did it tucker him out so much he had to nap for a whole day afterward? He was probably doing other things, though, like coming up with that fun "trick the humans into getting themselves tossed into eternal fire by putting dinosaur bones everywhere and then hiding" game.
You've clearly forgotten the nuance of the time leading up to the war. It went like this:
... Should you really have that in here?"
Administration: "They got nukes."
Everyone, everywhere: "What?"
A: "Nukes."
EE: "Nuh-uh. Where?"
A: "Over there."
EE: "That's a shoe."
A: "Next to the shoe."
EE: "There's nothing next to the shoe."
A: "Sure there is. Trust us. We know it. Plus, look at this bottle of anthrax I have."
EE: "Uh.
A: "He can make oodles of this stuff."
EE: "..."
Hans Blix: "There's no nukes."
A: "Shut up, dude. They're buying the anthrax thing."
HB: "Seriously, though. There's nothing there. I looked."
EE: "Maybe we should hold off for a while and hear this guy out."
A: "Don't listen to him. He's... got... WE DON'T NEED A PERMISSION SLIP TO PROTECT OURSELVES!" (Administration runs away, locks self in room, and cries into pillow.)
EE: (Rolls eyes at Administration.) "Okay, I think this is a bad idea."
A: "Shut up." (Administration starts sending troops.)
EE: "Seriously. Just hold up for a minute."
A: "You never loved me anyway."
EE: "Well, you're kinda weasely. Are you sure this isn't about oil? Because if this gets done and you give Haliburton the job of reconstruction, people are going to look at you funny."
A: "You're not my real mom! Just shut up! You'll see! There'll be nukes!"
EE: "No. Now stop it."
A: "No!"
EE: "Seriously, dude. Stop it."
A: (Bombs some stuff.)
EE: "You fucking dick."
And here we are. It'd be nice if we could have held hands and sung about how we were going to end human rights violations throughout the world, but hindsight is 50/50, as they say.
As fun as it is to reduce judges to idiots and cartoon villians, a whole bunch of them actually are competent. These things are granted because that's what's done. Judges don't assume cops are full of shit. But the system still works. It keeps the numbers down to 2,000 warrants that someone keeps track of instead of 200,000 searches whenever a cop feels like it that no one hears about.
As long as we're changing laws, the solution to that problem is trivial and, again, a tax gain for the US.
Except if you're looking at it from a tax perspective (and not the practicality perspective from which you probably should be), then letting in Indian and Canadian workers to make 30-50K means not hiring American workers to make 40-55K, and that's a net loss for Uncle Sam and the US economy in general (assuming the savings from hiring the non-Americans isn't passed on to the consumer. And even if it is, I still have a feeling there'd be some loss).
Oh. Sorry. I assumed you had a point. "People sometimes get married to have kids." Great. Thanks. I'll make a note of that in my Big Book of Obviousness.
I like how you slipped "genetic" in there. But you didn't quite go far enough. Some of them have kids from previous relationships that technically qualify just as well as straight blended families, so you should throw some more arbitrary constraints on it. I recommend "the genetic offspring of not-currently-gay parents". That oughtta cover it. You've still got that gaping hole around infertile straight couples and straight couples that would just prefer to adopt, but that's okay. Thinking is for fags, anyway.
I know somebody that actually managed to have one of those without being married. I'm 85% sure it was some kind of miracle.
So don't homosexually relate. What the fuck is so hard about that? You're not going to save the rest of us by forcing straightness on us. Start by converting, and once you've got that, you can move on to telling us which of our many behaviors make our new god cry.
What is there in *marriage* that straight people want so desperately?
Yeah. Acceptable, but problematic.
A cat can't consent. Nor can doorknobs or any other ridiculous thing you want to make a flawed analogy about. Explain to me how a cat says "I do," and I'll be 100% behind man/cat marriages.
So we have "Why can't 3 guys get married?" left. And the answer is that it serves no legal purpose. If 3 guys want to get their friends together and put on tuxes and dresses, let them, but legally, there's no point.
And I doubt it would happen, but if it turns out that 3 guys want to get hitched, we'll hear them out. If the only reason we can think of to not let them is that it's always been that way, then we should probably go for it.
What the hell is the problem with that? None of them are trying to marry you, are they? And even if they were, I don't think forced marriages are ever going to be part of the gay agenda.
I'm not a skilled driver. It has nothing to do with skill. If 95% are going 65 are 5% are going 50, the 5% are the danger. They accepted limit is predictable. Anything significantly slower is a hazard to the other 95%.
Wreckless and drunk driving is nowhere near popular enough for that to apply. They're both considered by the majority to be insane. If it weren't, people would just avoid the roads in general.
... follow the laws to the letter, leave plenty of time for travel, and don't bitch when you get a legit ticket.
If everyone started doing that, they'd just lower the speed limit to the point where following it became impossible so that they could keep giving out tickets.
It's never the guy going 65 in a 50 that's a problem. It's always the guy doing 50 in a 50 when everyone knows the accepted speed on the road they're on is 70.