What are we supposed to be talking about, here?

What's wrong with being able to marry people?

Quote from: Mad Max on January 29, 2015, 04:58:47 PM

Even without a gun I have no problem saying I'm a socialist.

what do you mean "even without a gun"

that should be when it's the easiest

That's my point. I don't need a gun to my head to say what my real affiliation is.

Freshman state Rep. Molly White, R-Belton, is not in Austin today to celebrate Texas Muslim Capitol Day. But she left instructions for the staff in her Capitol office on how to handle visitors who are, including asking them to declare allegiance to the United States.

"I did leave an Israeli flag on the reception desk in my office with instructions to staff to ask representatives from the Muslim community to renounce Islamic terrorist groups and publicly announce allegiance to America and our laws," she posted on Facebook. "We will see how long they stay in my office."

Texas Muslim Capitol Day, which began in 2003, is organized by the Texas chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations and brings members of Muslim communities in Houston, Dallas and other areas of the state to the Capitol to learn about the political process and meet state lawmakers.

Even before participants in Thursday's event — about 100 Muslims, mostly children — could get to lawmakers' offices, they encountered opposition from a group of about 25 protesters outside the Capitol holding signs. One said, "Radical Islam is the New Nazi." Another said, "Go Home & Take Obama With You."

The Muslim group held a press conference on the South steps of the Capitol, where one of the protesters yanked the microphone from an event organizer, shouting, “Islam will never dominate the United States and by the grace of God, it will never dominate Texas.”

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/01/29/rep-staff-ask-muslim-visitors-pledge-allegiance/

Another classy move...

Depends on the distance, your financial situation, if you have a job, etc, really.

Quote from: Mad Max on January 29, 2015, 02:15:38 PM

Quote from: Tyger on January 29, 2015, 10:54:19 AM

Lol all these faggots saying they're poor

My household of 4 lived off $7,000 a year

I'm genuinely not sure how that even works. $7,000 wouldn't even cover rent in a shitty house, let alone food, utilities, clothes.

Shhh, he doesn't want us to know that he slings dope for a living.

$7k/yr slinging dope means you're a bad drug dealer. You can make at least double that just working a minimum wage job.

Lol all these faggots saying they're poor

My household of 4 lived off $7,000 a year

I'm genuinely not sure how that even works. $7,000 wouldn't even cover rent in a shitty house, let alone food, utilities, clothes.

The only opinion I'll let my wife have is the one where she's willing to have sex with me on demand.

She doesn't need to be willing - she's your wife.

Quote from: Kupo on January 29, 2015, 01:16:11 PM

Quote from: Kinder Graham on January 29, 2015, 10:01:48 AM

Quote from: Classic Mordo on January 29, 2015, 09:51:51 AM

Quote from: Kinder Graham on January 29, 2015, 09:48:11 AM

Quote from: Classic Mordo on January 29, 2015, 09:41:03 AM

Quote from: Kinder Graham on January 29, 2015, 08:08:22 AM

Climate change has been happening before humans even industrialized. Ever hear of the Medieval Warm Age and Little Ice Age?

Ever heard of carbon dioxide and how it's a heat trapping gas? Ever hear about the fact that the majority of our technology emits carbon dioxide?

Seriously, you have to actually wilfully try to deny anthropogenic climate change. Fuck. Turn your fucking brain on.

I'm not denying climate change exists, I'm questioning that history and science has shown multiple times in the past that change in the environment is natural. A study conducted in 2003 showed that temperatures 1000-1100 AD are comparable to the temperatures from 1900-1990. Rising CO2 levels are a result of global warming, not a cause of it. As temperatures increase, CO2 is released from "carbon sinks" such as the oceans or the Arctic tundra.  Measurements of ice core samples show that over the last four climactic cycles (past 240,000 years) periods of global warming preceded global increases in CO2. Human releases of CO2 cannot cause climate change as any increases in CO2 are eventually balanced by nature. CO2 gets absorbed by oceans, forests, and other "carbon sinks" that increase their biological activity to absorb excess CO2 from the atmosphere. 50% of the CO2 released by the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities, has already been absorbed

[Citation needed]
I'll be awaiting your pseudo science source.

Arthur B. Robinson, PhD, et al., "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" (3 MB) , Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Fall 2007

Willie Soon, PhD, and Sallie Baliunas, PhD, "Proxy Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1000 Years" (660 KB) , Climate Research, 2003

Anders Moberg, PhD, et al., "Highly Variable Northern Hemisphere Temperatures Reconstructed From Low and High Resolution Proxy Data," Nature, Feb. 2005

Timothy Ball, PhD, "Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?," www.canadafreepress.com, Feb. 5, 2007

Nicholas Caillon, PhD, and Jeffrey P. Severinghaus, PhD, et al., "Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III," Science, Mar. 14, 2003

US Senate Minority Environment and Public Works Committee, "US Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007," epw.senate.go, Dec. 20, 2007

Willie Soon, PhD, "Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future,” Physical Geography, 2007

Arthur B. Robinson, PhD, et al., "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" (3 MB) , Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Fall 2007

It took me like 20 minutes to gather everything that was wrong with the sources in your response. I'm not sure how many of these were published in what could be considered a peer-reviewed journal. Consider this post the short response:

Quote

Arthur Brouhard "Art" Robinson (born March 24, 1942^[1]) is an American biochemist, politician and member of the Republican Party from the U.S. State of Oregon.

For the papers referencing Soon and/or Baliunas, see here.

Moberg Anders is primarily a businessman, so there's obviously a potential conflict of interest.

Timothy Ball was funded by Friends of Science which he founded, and the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, both of which oppose the idea of climate change.

The paper published by the US Senate Minority Environment and Public Works Committee was written by Jim Inhofe, a notorious climate change denier in the Senate:

Quote

Since 2003, when he was first elected Chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Inhofe has been the foremost Republican promoting arguments for climate change denial in the global warming controversy. He famously said in the Senate that global warming is a hoax, has invited contrarians to testify in Committee hearings, and spread his views both via the Committee website run by Marc Morano, and through his access to conservative media such as Fox News.

The only paper that seemed to have any semblance of validity was Caillon and Severinghaus.

So because a person is a business man and others have a differing opinion, it's automatically wrong?

It's automatically subjective is what it is. Businesspeople stand to gain or lose things by these reports.

Even if i had the money, i wouldnt.

Why not?

Quote from: challengerX on January 29, 2015, 12:54:07 PM

You're not looking at the bigger picture. Like those 400 people recently layed off, there are thousands like them. That isn't good for economy no matter how you spin it.

The point is that this isn't happening. You can have a situation wherein 400 people are laid off and permanently end up on benefits, but it's certainly not the norm and, even if it were, clearly has no substantial negative effect.

I don't think Chally is talking about permanence, but there's certainly several weeks/months that these people need to cash in on their unemployment benefits before finding a new job.

Quote from: Mad Max on January 29, 2015, 12:04:25 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on January 29, 2015, 12:01:33 PM

Quote from: challengerX on January 29, 2015, 11:59:03 AM

Far more jobs

Outsourcing doesn't result in job losses.

Wait, is that chart trying to tell me that unemployment only topped 6%? That doesn't seem right..

The natural rate is the average or 'usual' rate considering the state of the economy--a sort of base-line. It's possible for the unemployment rate to be exacerbated or ameliorated by a number of factors.

Ok thanks. I wish there wasn't so many damn ways to measure unemployment.

What if someone is atheist? Or of a religion that is not available?

That's probably a secondary reason they did this. They see marriage as a union between man and woman...and God.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on January 29, 2015, 10:10:13 AM

Quote from: challengerX on January 29, 2015, 03:39:58 AM

I don't want to be rude because I like you, but you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. The republicans want to do nothing but run America into the ground and have done so almost every time they've been elected.

I like you too, but you're incredibly partisan, at least when it's against Republicans. Republicans, quite clearly, don't want to run the U.S. into the ground, and whether you think their policies will do that is an interesting discussion.

But let's be honest here, the Democrats who've 'endowed' the country with good economic growth have done so largely by adopting centrist/conservative policies; Kennedy's tax-cuts (ruined by the Great Society and LBJ), Clinton's appointment of Robert Rubin as head of the CEA and the maintenance of PAYGO rules. And when Republicans have fucked the economy, it's been because of profligacy a la Bush, which I have a hard time categorising as conservative.

I didn't even come out for the Republicans in my post, anyway, I just said Rubio was better than Hillary.

Of course I'm partisan when there are only two parties and one of them wants to destroy America for everybody who isn't rich. Sorry, but you're wrong. There has almost never been a time conservatism has caused progress for humanity or created a stable economy. They actively deny climate change, it's the party of racists, they're incredibly classist, they hate immigrants. There's nothing good about them.

Let's not forget about when they openly stated their objective was to make Obama a one-term president.

Is that your strategy behind closed doors? Whatever. But to say it to the press? LOL

There's no way this will go wrong!