Nightingale

This is why I requested a paper ballot.

Hehe. after this midterm election, would you still want to run, Vinny?

Doubt it. But lets see if you still feel this way in a few years...Don't get me wrong this *may* be a good thing, but the left has failed to stand for anything for 10 years. If they do like they have been doing they will not do anything here either. I think that this will be a really good thing. Not because the repubs are evil or the dems are angels, but because it will create a balance. The repubs controlling congress and the executive branch let them run away with their agenda. Both branches controlled by dems would equal the same result. One branch repub and one branch dem will mean that only what they agree on will get through, which should significantly reduce the impact of extremism from either party. I voted for Schwarzenegger for California's governor for the same reason. I don't particularly like the guy, but he has tried to be sensitive to the other side, and because we have a democratic legislature, the legislature can stop him from doing something idiotic, and he can do the same to them. I didn't vote for him because he's a good governor; I voted for him because he brings balance.

Probably better to carry the real one with you, and keep a photocopy in your luggage and/or in the hotel safe. that way, if you lose it, you can go to your embassy with the copy and your ID card (driver's license?) and get your documents replaced.

I'd be fine with that, except it would mean a lot of construction and management, and you end up with a high concentration of unskilled workers in one place. A rent voucher system would bypass this issue by using housing that is already there, and allowing two or three adults to combine their vouchers would allow a wider distribution of the unskilled work force, so they're more likely to be able to find jobs where they're living, and if they get a job making decent money and no longer qualify for assistance, they don't have to move (which may cost them the job they just got).

Because food stamps and WIC are accepted at regular grocery stores, and cash is given as change. I read about a guy who would take $1 food stamps to a store, buy five cent bazooka gum, and take the 95 cents change. He'd do this twenty times over, take the change and buy a bottle of whiskey. My plan eliminates this by using debit cards, and would also eliminate people buying non-essentials with food stamps, and it would also enable people to purchase clothing. Section 8 housing isn't accepted everywhere. My plan would require any corporation owned apartment building to accept vouchers for part of the rent. Section 8 also costs landlords money by putting caps on the rent.

Hehe. that's the same reason several guys at my college took ballet.

Lucky, increasing minimum wage doesn't work. If it did, I'd be all for it, but I don't see the point of supporting programs that don't work. Better to devote the time and energy into finding something that would actually help. This is a plan that a friend and I came up with when we were philosophically solving all the world's problems over beer: Open government stores (or, ideally, stores run by charities) that sell staples at very cheap prices. Just the basics: healthy food, cheap clothes. Sell them at, or even slightly below cost. Instead of just sending people money, if they qualify for assistance, give them a difficult to forge photo ID debit card that only works at stores like this. Put a low amount of money (say $150 per family member) on the card each month. Set an amount of income that's considered "poverty" and use things like those cards and housing vouchers that corporations that run residential apartments must accept as regular currency to help (private landlords, such as people who rent out a room could be eligible to accept these, but they'd have to apply for permission. This is to both prevent slumlords and prevent someone from being required to accept vouchers if they're renting out a room or have a few small rental properties) Landlords are then reimbursed by the government for the face value of the voucher. For every $100 people make over the set income, they lose $25 in benefits. That way, they're encouraged to work, because they'll still have more money than if they didn't. Right now, people stay on welfare partially because they have more money than if they went to work. With a system like the above, you end up with a balance. The government helps out with essentials like food, clothing, and shelter only. That way, people have food to eat, clothes to wear, and a roof. Necessities only. Then, when they get a job, they end up with more money to spend than what the government was giving them, which is an incentive to find and keep a job. This system bypasses the issues involved with minimum wage, because it doesn't cost employers more. It also bypasses the issues with the welfare system of people spending welfare dollars in ways they're not meant to, and encourages people to work because while benefits decrease, they decrease by a value significantly less than the increased income. I'm sure there'd be some issues with a system like this, but it seems like there would be fewer issues than with our current system.

The argument could also be made that morality was ingrained in us by evolution. Primitive tribes that slaughtered themselves or warred constantly with their neighbors would be far less likely to pass on their DNA than tribes that were able to live peacefully.

No, not bothered at all. Television channels are businesses, and will run the ads of people who choose to pay them. There's too much government regulation in the television industry as it is, and telling networks which commercials they can air is just silly. if a church wants to waste their money by buying air time, that's fine with me.

These are arguments against a specific form of supreme being. The all knowing, all seeing, all caring, all good one. That's a lot of assumptions in your hypothesis. You can scan your garden with a sonar machine, and we can take a look at saturn, but we have no way of looking for a supreme being. There's no solid evidence for or against because we haven't found a way to look for it yet. Well, I think a statement that "there is no god that affects my life in any way that I can perceive" would be more accurate. And no, I'm not an athiest in any sense of the word, as I have made no decision one way or the other. That's the definition of an agnostic.

Religion will never die it will just change form ... I agree. The "blindly faithful" will exist as long as there are people who want someone else to make all the important decisions for them and relieve them from personal responsibility and the need to apply rational thought to their own choices.

While Occam's Razor may be a good logic tool, it is a tool meant to differentiate between competing hypotheses, not a tool to simply hand you the correct conclusion. The simplest solution with the fewest assumptions is often correct, but not always. There is a significant amount of evidence that the santa, easter bunny, and tooth fairy myths are false. Ask any parent who's ever put presents under a tree. They're myths that we know are false but deliberately perpetuate for the purpose of amusing children. The same cannot be said for belief in a supreme being. There is simply no reliable evidence one way or the other. Even you admit that there is a possibility of a supreme being (although I have no idea how you managed to calculate your odds). Therefore, logic dictates that if you make an absolute conclusion of the lack of a supreme being... you might be wrong.

That's exactly why I think it's silly for someone to make up their mind at this point. There's no conclusive evidence either way, so I figure keeping an open mind is the most logical course of action. Sometimes, it seems like anybody with a strong opinion one way or another just plugs their ears and sings "la la la" when being presented with evidence or opinions contrary to their position, whether it's "the shroud of turin is fake," "the indians aren't related to the hebrews" or "we think noah's ark is on top of a mountain." I think the biggest problem with belief or non-belief is that people make up their minds before they hear the evidence, and promptly ignore anything that doesn't fit their preconceived ideas. Too many people use spirituality as an excuse to stop using their brain.

Agnostic. I don't have a clue whether or not there's a supreme being, and I don't think anyone else does either. Logic tells me that there's not much evidence of a supreme being, and what evidence there is is very subjective, easily fabricated, and not at all conclusive. I think that making an absolute statement of "there is no god" is almost as illogical as believing, because, while there's no credible evidence to support the existance of a deity, there's no conclusive evidence against it either.

A TEENIER KING OINKS RUM A MEEKER IRKING IS NO NUT wtf?

Yep. At Anaheim Stadium, the year the Angels won the World Series.

In order, so far: Phantom of the Opera Ragtime Cats Evita Chicago

Yes, it's really as gory. I wish I hadn't watched it, and I love horror movies that don't have stupid monsters in them.

It wasn't so much of a recoil/weight issue, it was that the 20ga fit my body better. It felt so much more comfortable. The weight was part of it, but it just felt different. I'm really happy with it, and I've put a few hundred rounds through it so far.

Well, the reason I went to college was that I knew that it opened doors that would otherwise be a lot more difficult, if not impossible, to get through. So, I guess it could be said that I've gotten what I went to school for, several times over. To answer your specific question, I was a film/screenwriting major. I worked in the television production industry for two years and decided that I preferred filmmaking and writing as hobbies rather than as careers. Learned a lot, could easily get back into the industry if I wanted to. I just don't want to.

I'm worried that the MIL may be getting mixed messages, especially if the daughter has already said that bringing the dog is fine. I was also thinking that if the child's mother doesn't have any problem with the dog (especially because the poster has said that MIL appears to be a reasonable person), that his dog fears may be unfounded. Everyone here seems to have the attitude of "how dare she!" towards the MIL, but who knows what her daughter has told her? If the daughter has said that bringing the dog is just fine with her, we really can't blame MIL for doing just that. It seems like a situation of he wants this, she wants that. I don't think anybody's right or wrong. It's just different opinions. She thinks that bringing the dog will be perfectly fine. He disagrees. He says it's "his" house, but isn't it hers too (or at least going to be "theirs" shortly)? Why isn't her position as vaild as his? On DZ.com, we often don't hear both sides of the story. If she'd come on here and said "my mom is coming to visit, and she wants to bring her sweet, adorable dog along. The dog is wonderful and would never hurt anything, and he's very gentle and great with kids, but my fiancee has a totally irrational fear that it might bite our new baby. He's being completely unreasonable, and I don't see why I can't allow my mom to bring her dog into my house. Am I in the wrong here?" I think we'd get a lot of reactions the other way. People here tend to side with the original poster and offer support, but sometimes that has the opposite effect of getting them farther entrenched into their own position and unwilling to listen or compromise. edited for typo

I don't have any video, since it's been about five years since I was competing, so if there was any, I wouldn't even know who to ask for it, but here's a photo.

I do Kenpo, and yes, I have weapons training. I consider American Kenpo a street art, mainly because it was specifically designed for the street and geared towards defending against techniques commonly used by attackers. Pure kenpo probably saved my life when I was attacked, and without that training, things probably wouldn't have worked out in my favor. In most kenpo schools, "sparring" isn't the focus of training. Self defense techniques are the focus, and kenpo specifically trains reactions to attacks. Kenpo (at least the way it was designed and taught by Mr. Parker) is street first, sport second, and many other arts put sports and tournaments first, and true self-defense second. I've seen a lot of sport fighters who couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag on the street, and a lot of really skilled street fighters who get their tails kicked in tournaments (mainly because their main strikes and techniques aren't legal in tournaments). There's a huge difference between a "martial art" and a "martial sport" and a lot of it really depends on what the school chooses to focus on.

You hadn't said that the dog went to the bathroom inside. That's a big problem, and I wouldn't let a dog with house training issues inside my home either.