rehmwa

I think it's Jibe... but I might be wrong.....or in the wrong thread ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

That doesn't make much cents? it does two ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

this happens a lot less when you rollerblade everywhere Walking is better. Or even public transport. yes, but it's still satisfying to rollerblade up to gas station owners and argue about the pump price ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

this happens a lot less when you rollerblade everywhere ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

top 20th percentile is a D+ ???? you set a pretty tough curve ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

If they know what's good for them, sure. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

did you ask the tunnel if they have a kids club and, if so, could you contact the parents? we did this for a helmet with my daughter a couple years ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

that's not even a sentence - why do you hate education? children are people too - once they can vote ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

This reads like a liberal talking about their "vision" of utopia - "It must be this way because that's how I view it working" My experience with religious kids: 1 - religious kids with religious parents that were judgmental and self righteous assholes that used their religion as a way to try and judge others and feel superior - tended to be judgmental and self righteous asshole kids that tended judge others and feel superior 2 - religious kids with parents that quietly held their sincere beliefs to heart and practiced them as intended in a kind and caring way - tended to......., well, you get the idea actually, ditto for the non-religious I find it funny to see "religious community" and child bearing and how no one in those groups flinches at the obvious - "it takes a village" parallel. it's crap - community of whatever flavor is fine (as long as it doesn't involve self mutilation, or excessive watching of McGyver episodes) , but it's not a replacement or improvement over just having good parents. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

you new here? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I gotta say guys, this is entertaining. I haven't had this much fun since watching snotty rich 2nd grader kids argue over who gets to kick the ball next. my favorite (so far, but it's early) is purposely confusing "a General of the army" (read as a general in the army), with General of the Army (read as 5 Star) and using that to call someone a poopy head liar. It's a big win, and ironic in that it's pretty much the type and level of argument accused against the media - as being presented by said poopy head anyway. only exceeded by said poopy head continuing to try which is clearly an indication of lack of experience in how these things play out in these forums - or serious masochism Edit: Normal discourse involves making a tiny attempt to understand the other persons' viewpoints and discussing it from there, as opposed to covering one's eye's and ears and yelling LALALALALALALA: A - "I believe that this is a media witchhunt. It's not unusual for people in power to make offers to the academy to talented students. The student would simply refer to it as a full ride education offer - not formal, so there's no paper trail. But informal, even the academy acknowledges it could have played out that way". B - "I understand your position and see how it could play out as you say. But I don't think that's the case. My opinion is he tried to 'pad his resume' and got caught and is now backpedaling." A -"I get that but I don't get that vibe from the interviews I've seen - we'll have to agree to disagree." but that's a lot less fun that 4 pages of the idiotic semantics warrior childish piss in the thread I also fully expect someone to blithely respond to this post and ask "what resume? this wasn't even about a resume? how can you compare interviews with a resume? do you even know what a resume is?" ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

From a very narrow viewpoint, this is perfect. As a non-religious person, I can't really tell those 'normals' that are religious (they don't wear a sign or have a tattoo or an extra arm or anything). So, "religious" means "fundamentalist, in your face, right out there, fanatic". Like terrorists, evangelicals, GW environmentalists, political activists, and Star Trek NG fans. so, yeah, of course they are harsh and judgmental - extremists always are. everyone else - religious or not, really don't register, since it's a personal thing, that also makes sense Edit: I find it more interesting that studies and articles that wallow in stereotypes are on a severe increase. It's likely a clear sign of societal narcissism. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

So the journalists are doing their job, trying to create wealth for their shareholders and Republicans complain about it? pretty much - my post is pretty much about the attention span and desires of the voting public - and how media and politicians and everybody else steps up and feeds that need. Clearly an example of how a free market is Hitler no, clearly an example of how our public education system is Hitler no, clearly an example of how our entitlement system is Hitler no, clearly an example of how right wing greed is Hitler regardless, wouldn't it be nice to have more smart people that aren't so emotional over subjective social crap? (I blame the internet, instant gratification culture, and of course, Hitler) (also, I don't think they are complaining at all. they are just pretending to. It was a really great PR gift - shallow, but a goldmine) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

It's pretty clear that with the possible exception of Christie, the GOP candidates only want moderators who will toss them softball questions. Bull. What happened is that the 'big moment' where everybody got all tingly was when they called the moderators on being the typical hacks they were. THEN - politics as usual means that the candidates now try to milk the crap out of that moment (rather than just take the true win- it really was a good moment and much needed - and move on). It's really stupid. I'd rather they take the extra press and use that visibility to talk about a real agenda, rather than pander to public sentiment and try to score a few more points. the moderators, and press in general, are completely guilty of trying to create reality show type hype for a short attention span public that is only capable of responding to a little titillation rather than listen to ideas. what's sad, is apparently the candidates are more concerned about extending a moment of spastic applause and cheers.....rather than try to put out ideas that would create a bit of thoughtful silence and respect. What I hate here is they don't even know that this act of defining debates is pretty much on par with what they are complaining about - show over substance. And I'm not just talking about the 10 on the right, the 3 on the left and one in the white house (and a bit of the 535 in the double wide) are doing it too on the same subject - little childish digs and picking on the same topic just to get a little boost and thrill their 'customers', or is it 'audience'. I wonder if the public wants leaders, or they just want to be entertained 24/7..... so - vote for the guys that makes you shout "DAMN STRAIGHT, yeah Skippy, go get em" "yeah, stick it to the other guy, give me stuff"... or do you vote for the guy that makes you think "that's a good idea, I hadn't thought of it that way" I guess in general it's the first guy. Too bad, the 1st guy shouts out in approval and then goes on to the next thing that distracts him. The second guy sticks around for more and maybe does something useful. what do I want to see? I want the candidates to "yeah, the moderators were asses and need to do better, hopefully they learned their lesson for next time or we'll recalibrate them again. We've talked enough about that, how about we talk about how to reduce spending/fix immigration/foreign policy/etc etc etc" ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

This is the one I came across. They basically said that the models suck, but that we should remain cautiously terrified anyway. I'm still scared beyond the capacity for rational thought (with apologies to Harold Ramis). Next month - "hysterical public gathers and chants for closure and defunding of NASA" ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Counting the fleas on my cat AND leaving 10 seconds delay would work just as well. it's clear you've never had your cat near an open door of a flying airplane edit: just reviewing the old thread to find old gems. and no.....simple physics hasn't changed in the last few years - therefore, it's still a good thread ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

nonsense - it's ok for the prosecutor to try and pick a horribly unbalanced jury because the expectation is that the defense will do exactly the same and their efforts are hoped to cancel each other out it appeals to a very poor opinion of human nature (i'm not saying the opinion is incorrect, it's just sad) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

That's the wierd thing about jury selection though isn't it? A candidate who wants on or off a jury can say anything they want about how they think and there's not a damn think you can do to show otherwise. What are they and what groups do they belong to is pretty much the only information you can have any confidence in. you have that right but the other two options. 1 - take 'em randomly and no selection process to ruin that - has some scary scenarios. 2 - have a more vetted (lengthy, deeper, more expensive?) pre-screen process that creates a pool of 'qualified' jurors to select from - that can be abused/biased by pre-selecting certain social orientations to fill the pool. I'm not sure if a fix is better than the original problem. But the current process is pretty sad when you have two countering intents trying to stack the deck with biases they think will help their case and hurt the other. And these biases based on personal, but studied, biases about demographics. it's pretty much the antithesis of what we should strive for - a jury of unbiased intelligent people that try their best to ignore their false prejudices and let data drive decisions. then we cap it off with closing and opening statements during trial designed to try and elicit emotional connections or reactions..... bring on the zombie apocalypse ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

sure, I guess they are all the same, no need to examine the individual ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Pre-supposing a bias in an individual based on something so shallow about a group they may or may not identify with (but they are placed in it arbitrarily by someone with a bit of power) is pretty much the definition of discrimination isn't it? (note the irony that the statement is pre-judging the tendency of another to pre-judge - I'm loving it. in other words, some types of discrimination are absolutely fine - even better if it's discrimination for the sake of giving a false appearance of trying to avoid discrimination dizzying) I mean, the question was "are you associated in any way with police". Not "what do you think about (something to do with law)" or even then some followup to see if the lawyers bias has any founding...... I have a hard time with questions that are "what are you", rather than "how do you think" ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

that's really way over the top it's like judges - I don't have an issue with someone having beliefs, positions, etc. Nor even if they are forthright and public about them. But, they have to have DEMONSTRATED, that they can do the job objectively without letting it color their decisions. That said - I understand your reluctance since it seems that politicians can't help but be churchy (or anti-churchy) in a non-biased way in their policy. Judges can't seem to adjudicate objectively when they have strong social and political positions. I think we need to also keep congress critters OFF of selection and approval committees when they bring in 'litmus' tests for things that should be non-factors in a job. It's a clear indication that they are hunting for a non-appropriate bias. That's wrong too. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Your numbers: ---$100/barrel, gas at $4/gal ---then moved to $45/barrel, gas at $2.50/gal so if all was equal the original ratio - Gas should be $1.80/gal. Not $2.50. Agree, it's more expensive as a ratio to oil prices.... So the clarity we need here is who is taking that extra 70 cents per gallon? Do you have the numbers to show how much of that is: -- extra taxes, -- and how much is increased profit margin, -- did any go to improving employment or pay of workers as a company triggered effort - voluntary -- improved employment situation due to government regs - same thing, but legislated -- extra product costs due to government regulations added or tightened Hard to agree or disagree with you unless the 'extra' is broken down. Can't just assume it's ALL profit margin without. But I'd like to know. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

...or atheists. or CrW Dawgs ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

so we'll start seeing posts soon calling Europeans bigoted, racist against brown people, 'cowboys' or 'rednecks' with penis shame issues ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

as well as talking in thongs ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants