[zk]

[quote=flu]

Actually, I like Bloomberg just fine. So there goes your argument…

[/quote]

What does Bloomberg have to do with anything?

[zk]

[quote=flu][quote=AN][quote=zk]I didn’t say they were victims, flu. I said (or at least implied) that they think they’re victims and that therefore you think they’re liberals.

You’ve gone off the deep end, flu. You’ve let the right-wing noise machine turn you into one of them. An angry, pathologically liberal-hating jackass with no remaining common sense or ability to think for himself.[/quote]You said only the crazies right wing nut would understand him. I don’t listen to AM radio, I don’t watch Fox (anything), I watch CNN, listen to KPBS, etc. and I understand him perfectly fine.[/quote]

funny thing is neither do I. Though these days I would avoid CNN, since they are just crazy these days..I go to BBC…[/quote]

I was making a point, AN. Sure, you understand him. But do you agree with him? Do you fvcking hate liberals with a passion? Even if you don’t know them? Even if they might not even be liberals but merely have traits that flu and the other brainwashed assume only liberals possess?

[zk]

[quote=flu][quote=AN][quote=zk]I didn’t say they were victims, flu. I said (or at least implied) that they think they’re victims and that therefore you think they’re liberals.

You’ve gone off the deep end, flu. You’ve let the right-wing noise machine turn you into one of them. An angry, pathologically liberal-hating jackass with no remaining common sense or ability to think for himself.[/quote]You said only the crazies right wing nut would understand him. I don’t listen to AM radio, I don’t watch Fox (anything), I watch CNN, listen to KPBS, etc. and I understand him perfectly fine.[/quote]

funny thing is neither do I. Though these days I would avoid CNN, since they are just crazy these days..I go to BBC…[/quote]

BS

[zk]

[quote=flu][quote=zk][quote=SK in CV][quote=flu]Yes, because everyone is a “victim”

I hate fvcking liberals… now even more so with a passion…[/quote]

I must have missed something here. What is the “liberal” side of this?[/quote]

SK, you wouldn’t know what flu is talking about unless you, too had been brainwashed by the right-wing noise machine. Or at least were familiar with their tactics. All liberals are pansies, crybabies, victims, freeloaders, and bleeding-heart (god forbid anybody should be concerned about anybody but themselves) losers. And all pansies, crybabies, victims, freeloaders, and bleeding-heart losers are liberals. Apparently even biker gangs.[/quote]

fuck you.. Sit in the middle of a riot zone like during the LA riots like I did and have your life seriously threatened, and let’s see if you still think punks that want to kill you and your family “are victims”….[/quote]

I didn’t say they were victims, flu. I said (or at least implied) that they think they’re victims and that therefore you think they’re liberals.

You’ve gone off the deep end, flu. You’ve let the right-wing noise machine turn you into one of them. An angry, pathologically liberal-hating jackass with no remaining common sense or ability to think for himself.

[zk]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=flu]Yes, because everyone is a “victim”

I hate fvcking liberals… now even more so with a passion…[/quote]

I must have missed something here. What is the “liberal” side of this?[/quote]

SK, you wouldn’t know what flu is talking about unless you, too had been brainwashed by the right-wing noise machine. Or at least were familiar with their tactics. All liberals are pansies, crybabies, victims, freeloaders, and bleeding-heart (god forbid anybody should be concerned about anybody but themselves) losers. And all pansies, crybabies, victims, freeloaders, and bleeding-heart losers are liberals. Apparently even biker gangs.

[zk]

To respond to their tactic with debate validates their position. It makes their tactic seem normal and acceptable. First, let go of your headlock, then we’ll talk. And if you can’t get anything done after that, then a) your ridiculous shut-the-government-down-and-hope-they-say-uncle strategy wasn’t going to work, anyway and b) again, that’s how democracy works. Continue the debate and, if the American people agree with you, you’ll have your chance to change it.

[zk]

All this debate about the ACA is well and good. But it’s not really the issue here. The issue is how congress should go about changing a law that some of them don’t like. The sensible answer to that is to get the votes you need and then change it. If you don’t have the votes, well then that’s how “democracy” works. Tell the people what you want and, if they agree with you, you’ll have more votes next term.

To basically grab the country in a headlock and say, “change this law that we don’t like or we won’t let go” is astonishingly childish, expensive, selfish, destructive, poorly-planned, and downright stupid.

I truly don’t understand why people aren’t angrier about this. I don’t understand why people are debating the finer points of this law when they should be excoriating the tea-party republicans and the house speaker responsible for this.

[zk]

And, it costs money to shut down the government. Over a billion dollars. What do we get for that? Nothing. Brilliant. Very fiscally conservative. Morons.

[zk]

[quote=teaboy]http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=congressing

October 1, 2013 Urban Word of the Day: congressing

Wasting time and energy. Being generally unproductive even though you have a lot of very important stuff to do.
Say your light bill is due by 5:00 PM or they’re going to turn off your power. A friend comes by at 4:30 PM and sees you napping.. He’d say, “Dude, you better quit congressing and pay your power bill.”

Or… you’re just hanging out on Sunday morning and a friend calls and asks what you’re doing. You’d reply, “Nothing man, I’m just congressing.”
mark as favorite buy congressing mugs & shirts
lazy ineffective wasteful congresing sleepy
by TBRADNC Jun 28, 2013 add a video add an image
Random Word[/quote]

If that’s the definition of “congressing,” then I don’t think congress is “congressing.” I think if congress relates in any way to the above scenario, it’s more like this:

The dude and his friend are roomates. They’ve agreed to split the light bill and the rent. The one dude wakes up the other dude and says, “hey, screw you. I know we agreed to split the light bill, but I’ve decided I don’t want to abide by our agreement. Either you pay the light bill all by yourself, or I’m going to stop paying rent.”

Isn’t the affordable care act the law already? Do Republicans really think it’s ok to shut down the government in order to change a law that’s already in place?

I’m not a huge fan of the ACA myself. But shutting down the government because you don’t like a particular law is no way to run a country.

[zk]

[quote=6packscaredy]Gosh I’m a Jewish ivy leaguer. I need to get a stranglehold on something.[/quote]

Yeah, like a 300-lb. squat bar.

[zk]

[quote=backintown]No rant here, it just appears so unbalanced that it catches the attention. It is highly unlikely this would go unnoticed if they were all Italian American (who are way more numerous) or something.

This fairly significant over-representation should be surprising to someone who believes these appointments should be blind to such a variable. After all, how statistically likely are these appointments to be so disproportionally distributed to such a tiny percentage of the population if such a variable plays no role?

I would expect to see more diversity in those ranks. Not a single woman (50% of the population), African-American (13%), Asian American (5%) or Hispanic (17%), ever. I find it especially interesting in contrast to its total lack of representation/interest for some other (arguably much less important) posts such as Secretary of Veteran Affairs or Secretary of Interior (none, ever). Those are the types of posts you historically find some of the token ‘diversity’ appointments to ‘minorities’.

I guess if we have Yellen, we will at least introduce have some gender diversity for a change. Let’s see.[/quote]

You say that it is statistically unlikely that the fact that they’re all (you really should just come out and say it) Jewish doesn’t play a role. What role do you think it plays?

[zk]

[quote=6packscaredy]I doubt psychedelics explain current political squabble. If anything I think they would encourage people reaching out across the aisle and dancing heedlessly while discussing the issues at a level they subjectively perceive as much much deeper.

Booze, crankiness lack of exercise, repressed sexuality, cigarettes better explain squabbles.[/quote]

Reporter: So, Mr. Cat, What would be your first act if elected to congress?

Scaredy: I’d hold a shroom party and invite all my fellow congressmen.

———

Why not? I’d say it has a better chance of working than any of the bs they’re doing now.

[zk]

The student president says, “we don’t necessarily look at the message. It’s more about the rhyme and the chant behind it.”

Which is extraordinarily lame. If it rhymes. Guess what, retard. It doesn’t rhyme.

I hope the message he’s sent with the chant doesn’t contribute to any assaults or rapes.

I also hope this jackass has a daughter some day. And I hope he then “gets it.” And I hope he then experiences the horror of realizing just what a fucked up douchebag he’s been his whole life.

[zk]

I’m not sure I totally understand the song “Comfortably Numb.” Because I feel just like the song sounds, but I don’t feel numb. But I definitely relate to the song. I don’t think I can put into words how I feel. But if you listen to the guitar solos, that’s how I feel. You probably wouldn’t guess that from talking to me or even knowing me a little bit. But that’s how I feel on the inside.

Ok, now I can take that money I was going to spend on a shrink and get some new golf clubs. Or maybe a car.

[zk]

[quote=bearishgurl]

zk, I saw your pics and they don’t take into account that weight is distributed differently on different women. For some it goes to the hips and thighs (pear shaped) and for others it goes to the waist, midriff, chest and arms (apple shaped). And the way the weight sits on the thighs makes a huge difference in aesthetics, IMHO. Of course, some of that is hereditary.

Correct me if I’m wrong, zk, but I thought ~25% body fat was considered “overweight” and ~30% was considered “obese” for the avg adult female. Even losing 5% of body fat can lower one’s blood pressure significantly.[/quote]

True, they don’t take weight distribution into account. It definitely makes a huge difference in aesthetics. I believe the distribution of body fat is almost entirely hereditary.

I don’t know what’s “considered” overweight or obese. I’m talking strictly from an attractiveness point of view. As you pointed out, distribution makes a big difference, but, in general, I find women who are slightly-moderately overweight far more attractive than women who are very thin.

[Author]

Posts