Lurker > SmartMuffin

Eminem was on TRL constantly, which makes Till I Collapse the de facto winner.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

I'm leaning DX but I might not have enough time on Sunday, whereas next week I'll most likely have a three-day weekend.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

I just have to say, this is the first time in a LONG time that both companies have built their PPVs well enough that I'm seriously considering buying them. Ultimately I will probably decide on just one, and I'm still mulling it over in my head...

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

I knew there wasn't going to be a quad joke in here.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

You're ditching Youk just like that?

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

So, generally speaking, I'm pretty numb and stories of government abuse don't get me going that much...

http://offgridsurvival.com/mansentencedjailtimeforbiblestudy/

But I am absolutely outraged by this one. It's kind of ironic, just last week in church the pastor showed us a video of how lucky we were to live in America, because in OTHER countries, the government sometimes harasses you for worshiping Jesus!

WTF is going on here? Is this American or not?

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

anti-purge

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/07/06/3-health-care-misconceptions-that-never-die-.aspx

Morgan really does some great work over at TMF. It's a shame that, since it's an investment and not a political website, most of it largely gets ignored.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

where's the exact point at which it starts being human and is no longer okay to kill?

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

the word you are looking for is "hilarious"

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

Well, they also ban prostitutes (and johns) from donating. And yet, Jakyl and Ryoko aren't in here pitching a fit!

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

From: neonreap | #061

the cdc

it'll probably be the first google link you see

what is your source?

Silly neon. Leftists don't have to provide sources! Only people who disagree with them!

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

I joined the Illuminati on my first playthrough.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

Mer is one of those guys who throws out provocative and often incorrect labels to everyone who has the slightest disagreement with him on any single position.

I HATE people who do that!

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

I can't believe the majority of B8ers are actually defending this. Did everyone loan their accounts to SmartMuffin and MWC for the day?

If we let gay people give blood, what's next? Letting animals give blood? Letting four people give blood in a single baggie? WHERE DOES IT END???

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

The point is, you addressed an issue while ignoring all potential consequences.

Of course, we could save tax dollars by releasing all prisoners. We could also save tax dollars by shooting all the prisoners.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

awful site features awful game

film at 11

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

Oh I am. I just hate the type of logic you were using there.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

From: red sox 777 | #068

Oh, we can go further with amnesty than that....I'm talking amnesty for prisoners. And yeah, CA is the biggest state and obviously that creates complexities, but that shouldn't necessarily lead to failure. The taxable wealth is there in spades, at the end of the day.

We could just line up all the prisoners and illegal immigrants and shoot them. That would "solve" the problem also, would it not?

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

neat

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/07/oklahoma-state-rep-to-file-bill-to-nullify-individual-mandate/

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

lol, MSNBC supports Fascism right now!

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

From: CoolCly | #021

That was a pretty interesting article. Not sure why the hell people are being "lol daily mail."


Maybe Daily Mail is a terrible news source, and that's kind of interesting to hear. Don't see how that has anything to do with the contents of that article considering it who it was written by.

I just have to say that I fully agree with this sentiment and this is a HUGE pet peeve of mine. I've learned to stop linking to anything Fox news because all the posts are "LOLOL FAUX NEWS!!" even if the article is just a basic statement of indisputable facts that are also being reported by every other news organization on the planet.

Usually I call people out on that crap, but they rarely listen.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

Tom Woods bringing it hard:

"I think both of these individuals are such reprehensible human beings that stand for such horrible ideas that at some point you simply have to say, 'I can't continue to give my consent to this system.' "

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

From: VincentLauw | #023

It baffles me how the word 'feminist' is thrown around here the same way Smuffin calls (or called) everyone "communists"

Why does everything have to be so black and white every single time in these debates? I can think of a few reasons:

1) Board 8 is just a cesspool of extremists (or "trolls") now, no matter what the subject is, so rational people tend to either refrain from discussing or pick a side to support people they like here.
2) The subject matter at hand tends to shove people in one direction or the other, basically 'I think this woman is right' or 'this woman is wrong'.
3) No one cares to have a sensible debate anymore with the same old people and topics. Including me.


What happened to nuance here guys? I think we can all agree that radical feminism isn't good like radical ANYTHING isn't good, but to say a movement is completely and utterly wrong simply because of a flawed individual or book is preposterous.


So who will be the first one to go 'Lol Vincent' at this post or 'XFD are you kidding me l0s0r'

You make a good point.

But on the other hand, why should anybody listen to a Communist?

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

Quincey (DET)

The arbitrator should rule that he's going to have to pay Detroit a couple million dollars if he wants to play there next season.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

You can't have that many number one picks in a row and not be good. It just can't happen.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

From: Rad Link 5 | #205

That's satire, right?

It absolutely is. Unless he's changed his position. Pretty early on in some interview JBL had nothing but nice things to say about ADR and basically took the position of "look, it's all been done, we've all lifted our gimmicks from SOMEONE, I wish the guy much success"

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

John Cena is like 20-0 against people he cannot possibly beat!

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

You know who may REALLY be in trouble here.... Vancouver! Edmonton HAS to get good eventually, Colorado is on the upswing, and the Wild just got a lot better. Vancouver's days of coasting to the one-seed by playing four crappy teams six times a year are over!

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

Come on guys, he DOES have a point. A very large percentage of DB's moveset has nothing to do with setting up the labell lock. We can love Dragon in general and still admit this flaw.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

What I'm saying is that the 2nd Amendment is/should be applicable only so long as "a well-organized militia [is] necessary for the security of the State." My thesis is that it's no longer necessary, for threats foreign or internal.

This is somewhat interesting. I disagree, but I'll be honest, I'll have to consider it more as I've never heard someone attempt to argue the issue from this perspective before. All I've ever heard is "The second amendment only applies to the militia and nowadays that means the national guard."

Here's something from the Heller decision though.

"(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28."

The federal government disarming the people in order to create a politicized standing army, you say? Well gee, it's a good thing THAT never happened!

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

The Supreme Court ruled that 5-4 (with the four judges against it adopting the perspective I just outlined), so it's not as OBVIOUS as you may think. I'm not saying that my explanation is the only correct one - just that it's not as clear-cut as some people make it to be.

Just because four people voted against it doesn't mean it isn't obvious. Just that four people don't care about what the constitution obviously says and want to rule over us like kings.

When that context is no longer applicable, then, it is my belief that this puts the right into question.

I would argue that it's more applicable now than ever. Only the threat isn't foreign.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

From: red sox 777 | #013

Ah, but the first amendment gives no rationale for why Congress may not do x, whereas the second amendment does. The difference suggests that perhaps the framers intended the second meaning of "shall." Darn it Obama, why can't you do anything funny like the last 2 presidents? You're also a top 2 law school graduate, you can tell us about the meaning of the word "is" too!

Well, he's had Eric Holder come out with the oh-so-hilarious "the constitution guarantees you due process, not necessarily judicial process, therefore our method of Obama single-handedly deciding who gets killed in a drone strike is totally constitutional because there's a process involved (we just aren't going to tell you what it is, that's classified)."

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Decision

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

The company is pressuring you to give up privacy to get a job

And if you don't like that, you don't have to take the job. By this logic, any job that requires anything that most people would not like to do should be illegal. So long, garbagemen!

I'm sure most people would love the opportunity to walk away from bad jobs, but it's not like everyone has the opportunity to just get a new job or to have some way of making money until that happens.

You are not entitled to a job, or to money. Everyone has the opportunity to walk away from jobs. Once again, please explain to me why they can't find any Asparagus pickers in Washington State, given that unemployment is so high. By your reasoning, all of the unemployed are FORCED to take those jobs. And yet, they are not doing so.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

From: red sox 777 | #007

Well, that depends on the meaning of the word "shall," does it not? If "shall not" means "Congress may not," then we may have something, but if "shall not" only means "Congress will not, because it's stupid," then we may not have anything. A very tricky word indeed, just like the word "is."

Pretty sure the point of the bill of rights was to limit the power of the federal government, not just to provide helpful suggestions. I mean, the first amendment is worded the same way...

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

2nd Amendment stuff: you forget the first part of the amendment. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ..." One could interpret this as saying that the right to keep and bear arms is unalienable only so long as a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state, which it obviously isn't today.

Except the Supreme Court has already ruled that this is incorrect and that the OBVIOUS intent of the founders was for this to apply to individuals.

Which makes me wonder, then, why they decided to include that first part if they wanted that right to remain quasi-absolute.

At the time, the militia was comprised of regular citizens who simply owned guns and showed up to defend their towns. It wasn't some special arm of the organized standing army (which isn't even supposed to exist, remember?) like the National Guard or some such thing.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

Given that I don't watch superstars or NXT, I'm not certain I've ever seen Yoshi do anything but job.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

Also, the 2nd Amendment is really not as explicit as you may think.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

sounds pretty explicit to me

Also, many of the founders were abolitionists. The DOI originally DID say "life, liberty, and property" but they didn't like the word property in there because they foresaw the southern states using that as a basis to keep slavery legal forever.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

I suppose. What about Kofi?

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

From: yoshifan823 | #002

It's a natural right according to...

I mean, I agree with your theory so far as those are not the only unalienable rights, but this sounds an awful lot like you putting the words "the right to private property is an unalienable right" in the founding fathers' mouths.

Well, the basic tenet of natural law is that you have the right to your own body (life, liberty) and the right to the fruits of your own labor (property, pursuit of happiness).

It is impossible to have a "right" to specific goods and services, because then you are laying a claim on someone else's life, liberty, property, etc.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

From: voltch | #178

So uh with all the bad ten year deals people are predicting.

What are cases of double digit year deals working out well?

You must be forgetting those three Stanley Cups that RIck DiPietro brought to long island!

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

From: edwardsdv | #160

I wish dragon were less kicky and more like Dean Malenko to be honest.

I know MMA is like proof that this mindset is false but a kicky guy and a submission specialist feel like totally different wrestling characters.

WWE has definitely gotten kick-happy. Dragon, Punk, Sheamus, ADR, and Cody off the top of my head all rely on kicks as significant moves in their arsenal.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

man, Wild are my third favorite team, but having two players signed to 10+ year deals is suicide...

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/ryan-suter-zach-parise-minnesota-wild-north-stars-141503386--nhl.html

would be cool!

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

No. That's an invasion of privacy.

No it isn't. It's an invasion of privacy if you refuse, and they hack into your account anyway.

If someone asks to come into your house and you let them in, you can't call the cops and have them arrested for trespassing...

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

I absolutely cannot fathom how someone is arguing that preventing voluntary exchange is somehow protecting people's rights. You have this so incredibly backwards it's sad.

Everyone always has a choice. Nobody can make you sign a contract. Just because you're unemployed does not mean you HAVE to enter terms of employment which are unfavorable to you, and I can prove it. Washington State currently has a dramatic shortage of farm labor. They need people to pick the asparagus, and many of the illegal aliens have left the country, and they cannot find legal Americans who are willing to do the job for minimum wage. And yet, there are plenty of unemployed people in Washington State. Care to explain that one?

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=9926946&l=e649e50d91&id=90664406259

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

“among these”

No, I’m not crazy, just bear with me for a moment.

We all know that modern governments are comprised almost entirely of power-hungry statists. We know that when a new law is considered, there is zero obligation for the government to justify why it has the power to enact this law, but rather, the obligation rests entirely on the public to attempt to prove why it does not (and even then, they usually just ignore it). When you speak to a non-libertarian about “natural law” they usually look at you as if you told them you had been abducted by aliens.

On the fourth of July, a lot of attention is paid to the Declaration of Independence, and for good reason. It is essentially the founding document of our country. The entire philosophy behind the American experiment can be summed up in the most famous sentence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

There are a lot of significant aspects of that sentence that are largely ignored by the government today. Most neocons will concentrate on the “by their Creator” aspect, which is important to be sure. But I would suggest that the most important two words are “among these.”

The use of the words “among these” rather than “and they are” or “which are” or something like that clearly states that our God-given rights are not limited to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those aren’t our only unalienable rights, they are just a few examples of them. This is where natural law comes into play. The right to private property, for instance, is a natural right, despite not appearing in the declaration of independence (or explicitly in the constitution, for that matter). At the time, the founders were obviously relying on the common sense of the American people to understand that a document listing all of your rights would be ridiculous and unnecessary. You see this in the constitution as well, which specifically includes the ninth amendment, which states: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Unfortunately, this amendment is typically ignored by the statists in power today. If only the founders knew what was coming, they might have taken the extra time to explicitly list every imaginable right and explicitly forbid the government from abridging them. Although, if the second amendment is any indication, that really wouldn’t stop them at all.

To summarize: The use of the words “among these” in the Declaration of Independence clearly indicates that the founders were making no attempt to limit the scope of natural rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” but rather were just providing examples of some of our natural rights.

http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/2012/07/04/the-two-most-important-words-in-the-declaration-of-independence/

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

Hmmm, at first glance I actually think you have that backwards.

Given that house edge exists, the longer you play and the more you bet, the more likely you are to lose. I've always argued that the smartest (although least entertaining to be sure) way to gamble in vegas would be to take ALL of your bankroll, bet it on a single hand of blackjack, and then walk away regardless of the outcome.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/