Comment history

Do you think Lawrence has a panhandling problem?

and your sarcasm detector needs its batteries replaced. Or recharged, if you're going green.

November 7, 2008 at 9:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

What are you going to be for Halloween?

There was a set of six people on campus all dressed as various Tetris pieces! They'd go about 20 feet, stop, and put themselves together to make the 4 row, then move another 20 feet, and do it again. Priceless.

October 31, 2008 at 4:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

My choice for president

"Say you are going to war torn zone for humanitarian efforts and you have two "lifelines" to choose. Person A is a decorated war veteran with immense experience fighting wars. Person B has no combat or military experience. You get to choose one of them as your bodyguard. Would you really even consider person B? That's why I think McCain would be more decisive and apt to help Americans in a hostile situation."Holy god, paul, stop the analogies. You can't posit experience as a pilot to experience as Commander in Chief any more than you can suggest that a front line soldier could suddenly step up and lead a protracted war. If you could, our current president would likely be John Kerry, not George Bush. Your hypothetical scenario is highly questionable past that, too. First, the assumption that you would somehow merit special consideration, having gone to a war-torn area of your own volition (and likely against the advisement of the State Department) is rather ludicrous. Second, the idea that the potential President's involved would be any different in their response, should they decide that somehow you merited special attention, due to their relative experience on the field, is reaching at best, illusory at worst. At any rate, McCain himself is Not going to come roaring in like Tony Stark in his Iron Man suit to break you out. Likely, in both cases, what would happen was a long period of negotiation. The idea that you as a singular human would warrant military intervention is totally absurd.Don't even get me started on the comparison to Who Wants To Be A Millionaire. Say you're on Double Dare, and you've gotten hit with the Physical Challenge. Who would you want on your side? A guy who's in his 80's, and looks like he can barely open his mouth naturally, or a younger, relatively fit, slender man? I have no issue with you voting McCain. I had planned on it, because I felt with a Democratic Congress a young Democratic president would potentially be a rehash of what we got landed with in 2000, but in ideological reverse, though I have spent the last few months being convinced against voting for him by McCain himself. Your stated reasons for voting for him, however, have so far been Comedy of the Absurd. I respect your willingness to put your head on the block, and the resilience with which you have defended yourself, and I'm not saying this out of derision, but a genuine plea for you to think more thoroughly about what you are saying. I got no response to my first criticism of your argument, but I hope with both of these that at least you have something to consider.

October 30, 2008 at 11:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Robin Hood or Marxist?

I wonder which talking head this Chicago talking point came from initially. Does anybody know?

October 22, 2008 at 6:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Evolution evidence?

gr: Fair enough, but it says "theory" and "idea," does it not? I did not see "fact" in either of those definitions. In the definition of the scientific method, if you recall, you start with a stated hypothesis, and then test it for its merits. So perhaps you misunderstood me. I was referring to this notion of dogmatic belief, which you have not provided here.Now, I spent my afternoon on another forum about, frankly, a cartoon that I like, asking some high-school kids how they were taught evolutionary theory in their science classes, and whether it was brought up as an alternative to religious theory."For me, middle school didn't really talk about it. High school did though, mainly focusing on how animals evolve (like the birds on the Galop islands), but us as well. I can't really remember how far we got into a religous aspect of it, even in college I don't think anyone brought much of a religious point up." "Eh, we just learned it as it is. Yes, there was that religious aspect, but we never actually focused on that.""I don't really remember them talking about it.""in biology, evolution of animals was taught but not evolution of humans. but she decided to talk about it in class one day & this christian girl in the class flipped the fck out over it because she was a strong believer in the whole Adam & Eve thing... =/" Three of them, that I didn't include here, said that what was also brought up was the idea of coexistence, understanding the mechanisms of evolution but allowing it to potentially remain the mechanism of a creator, and that they liked that idea. So yeah, do you know what you're objecting to?

October 22, 2008 at 4:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Evolution can't be ignored in board of ed race

Andrew Stahmer (Andrew Stahmer) says:"Unfortunately I can't personally relate; being 'created' to walk upright on the ground."Are you sure? You spend a whole lot of your time here doing nothing other than throwing excrement at pedestrians, and hooting unintelligibly when they stick. It appears that you've worked out how to use a computer, but I think they taught a Gorilla to do that about a decade or two ago. Her vocabulary (about 3000 symbols/words at the end, if I recall) seems to match yours. (might have only been 300, but doesn't change the point)

October 22, 2008 at 8:22 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Evolution evidence?

"Nothing in our world has been designed, built, used, or influences our lives in any way that relies on your monstrously overblown evolution narrative."I think the only thing that's been overblown is the actual importance placed on the over-arching theory of a single ancestor or whatever, which has been fed to us as something that all scientists buy into completely, which is pretty much untrue. In true scientific fashion, it provides nothing more than a level of inquiry, and no answers. Of course, corruptible people have corrupted that idea.

October 22, 2008 at 8:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Evolution evidence?

No, they really aren't. We don't know, and currently don't have access to the answer, but it's a meaningless and irrelevant question that does not change anything at all in the observable evidence of evolution. You'll recall that Darwin's title is "On The Origin of Species," not "On The Origin of Life."It's not a set of questions limited to evolution either. Where did the first God come from?How did God generate from nothing?Do you find those questions unsettling?

October 22, 2008 at 8:09 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Chicago taint

jaywalker: It was the first thing I thought. Either it was, or the woman is so abysmally ignorant as to use such loaded terminology in reference to political corruption, but either way, the sudden talking about blacks at the end, and the ridiculous notion that without Obama politics would be clean (even assuming that is corruption, not ethnic purity) both make me see a potentially racist mind. I would put the level of potentiality/level of error ratio here to be where I don't bring it up myself, but am willing to, for instance, defend another who brought it up. With just this letter, we're all taking shots in the dark anyway. But perhaps, open racism where you live clouds the more subtle racism that still exists under the surface. I still can't see a black man in a nice car without the first thought that he must have sold a lot of drugs. I yell at myself for it, and immediately contradict it in my head, but it still pops up, every time. I grew up in lily-white Johnson County, in Leawood where the cops spend their time targeting teenagers and black people from Missouri, but they're sophisticated there, so they hide their racism behind stacked excuses, while laughing at their kids' vulgar racist jokes.

October 22, 2008 at 7:59 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Government not the answer

Hahaha, Cal. He only writes a piece like this before an election where it appears that the Democrats are going to blow away the Republicans. I seem to remember that, either right before or right after the last election, 2 years ago, he wrote a great piece on the need to reach across the aisle and seek common ground, after spending a majority of the previous 5 years yelling about how conservatives shouldn't kowtow to liberal demands.

October 22, 2008 at 7:47 a.m. ( | suggest removal )