discussion comment
11 years ago
True dat jabthehut my man. I don't know he had a master's but I did know he and a family have made a pretty penny.
Mr. Duck Dynasty dude's style isn't my my cup of tea, but I think he has a right to say whatever he wants. If I were interested in the show I would probably listen to what he said in its totality and if it bugged me I might stop watching. If it didn't bug me I'd continue watching. Personal choice. Doesn't matter to me since I've never watched the show and am not interested.
But I don't know what deogol wants...the government to force A&E to keep the show on? For the government to tell LBGTQ groups to STFU? Freedom of speech cuts both ways.
The Duck Dynasty folks have had shows before and will probably have more. If they say stuff that enough people find obnoxious their sales may tank. I suspect they've invested well and will be fine. If not, well...that is their problem. Free speech cuts both ways...everybody gets to say what they want.
discussion comment
11 years ago
Dougsta my friend, tell the truth...are you TDHQ-prime?
discussion comment
11 years ago
But deogol...if A&E is damaging themselves that is their right to make a bad business decision. Nobody is holding a gun to anybody's head saying "you can't say that". A&E must think the things Mr. Duck Dynasty is saying damage their financial interests. If they're wrong they'll lose money. Kinda the way capitalism works.
I wasn't changing the subject. I think you're confused about freedom of speech.
discussion comment
11 years ago
@esta --duck dynasty is a show about a Louisiana family that makes duck calls. Don't know the appeal since i don't watch much TV either.
One of the Duck Dynasty stars made remarks about homosexuality being a sin. Network suspended him. Alucard is probably right -- probably has a contract that says he can't say stuff that might lose A&E advertisers.
Still don't see it as freedom of speech. If the guy doesn't like A&E's rules he can try to find somebody else that will produce his show. Should the government force A&E to film his show when they don't want to?
discussion comment
11 years ago
Deogol, I don't see how this is a freedom of speech issue. A&E made a business decision to suspend production, as is their right. Plenty of people on both the left and the right threaten boycotts. That is their right. I actually haven't heard a threat of a boycott. It seems to me that A&E is scared they'll lose advertisers. The want to make money. Isn't that their right?
Freedom of speech is really about the government not interfering with speech. Not individual people saying i don't want to hear what you have to say or, more strongly, I so dislike what you say that I won't buy anything from folks that advertise in your program.
I have more problem with folks who try to shut down strip clubs by getting the government to pass restrictive ordinances. They have the right to say what they say, but a good government would say "hey, free country. If the club is doing something that interferes with the rights of others, like loud music at 1am or strippers giving out blowjobs in front of the neighborhood kids, what thay do is their business. We're staying out of it".
Of course, it *would* be the right of that prudish strip club hater to avoid buying anything from companies associated with the club owner (if he has other business ventures). Also their right to organize a boycott of those other business ventures. Free country, don't ya know.
discussion comment
11 years ago
True dat skibum. I found the pictorial very genteel. The new skankiness is...well, sometimes it is just TOO skanky!
Art my man. It said she was 18 at the time. All fresh faced but not illegal. And. Like I said, something kind of polite and almost Leave it to Beaver-esque to have those photos showing some nice titties but no beaver...
discussion comment
11 years ago
Tell the truth...how many of you pervoids jacked it while imagining an all night long anal and face-fucking fest with that wholesome girl?
discussion comment
11 years ago
Don't worry Slick my friend, in 30 years all the kids will speak that way. I may be a bit off in the punctuation though. I think it needs more periods. But no colons. Never use a colon when a semicolon will suffice.
discussion comment
11 years ago
@Slick -- Back in the 80's Taco Bell had some sort of handout on nutrition. That's where I learned about the four food groups:
Tacos with extra sawdust in the beef
Burritos with refrieds-like substance
Hot sauce
Cinnamon crispas
discussion comment
11 years ago
@motorhead and jack....
SHHHHH!!!
You guys are totally giving away enough info for Uncle Leo to figure out our super secret code. Don't fuck this up my friends.
discussion comment
11 years ago
Installment #2 in my ongoing effort to translate ilbbaicnl posts into Juice speak. I consider this an effort for posterity. In our dystopian future, when poor people are forced to hunt each other on reality TV, everybody will speak the language of Juice. Ilbbaicnl brings such a unique voice to TUSCL that it needs to be preserved. Hence the translation effort.
Please join in if you feel that specific posts should be read by future generations. Thank you and my God bless Panem.
discussion comment
11 years ago
And freckles on pale skin...can't beat that shit. Bur seriously redhead chicks...don't go fully bare. Keep some fire bush. Landing strip...groov-EE. Trimmed...that be coo-el. Hitler mustache...as long as you ain't a Hitler fan I'm down with it. Total full on '70 bush? Maybe a bit o' trimming is warranted. But don't go bare girls. FIRE BUSH RULES!!!!
discussion comment
11 years ago
Fuck yeah redheads! Three long term relationships with redheads. Including marriage.
I loves me the nekkid redheads!!!! I stay clear of actual extras as I'm in a LTR. I just like to look and get lappers. But with a hot redhead I'm tempted as shit!
discussion comment
11 years ago
@shark -- if you're being serious about the grand solar minimum you should think about what you're actually saying. Fundamentally, you're saying that AGW will compensate for a grand solar minimum -- a corollary of that is that CO2 *will* have an impact. We just lucked out and dumped greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere at a time when the earth would have had another little ice age.
Two problems -- the grand solar minimum is not guaranteed and -- even if it occurs -- is not guaranteed to compensate for the increased greenhouse gasses.
The problem I see is that people fundamentally don't understand enough science to even ask the right questions. Modern science is complex enough that at a certain point you have to trust people with actual credentials in relevant fields. For example, I ultimately trust that the CERN supercollider has detected the Higgs boson. I actually know enough math to follow a fair amount of quantum field theory. But at a certain point my understanding breaks down (my degrees aren't in high energy physics) and I have to accept experts.
Now I can hear you saying "so you admit you don't KNOW that AGW". True, but riddle me this...you are given a choice between flying in a plane designed by actual aerospace engineers and one designed by a random dude you know only one thing about -- he has zero credentials in anything related to aircraft design. Which plane do you hop on?
discussion comment
11 years ago
@Clubber -- fair enough, I was just trying to figure out what you were even saying. I will say that the fact that you label AGW a religion illustrates my point. The problem with Al Gore isn't the fact that he is wrong about AGW (he isn't, and there is essentially unanimous support for AGW among scientists that have relevant degrees; i.e., those that know what they are talking about).
To problem with Al Gore is that he made AGW a left-right issue. Thought experiment for the anti-AGW crowd. Let's say that tomorrow a group of conservatives came out and issued the following statement "It is clear, based upon the fact that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree, that climate change associated with anthropogenic CO2 emissions is occurring. However, our projections of the economic damage from AGW are much lower than the projected damage associated with any policies designed to ameliorate AGW. Therefore, we recommend ZERO policy changes." Would that change your opinion regarding the reality of AGW? If not, I'm curious why not?
The point is that I believe you're reacting to Al Gore's policy suggestions (or your perception of what they would be) rather than AGW itself. Why should you react to that? THAT is ultimately an academic issue, as abstract as the question of exactly when solar evolution will destroy complex life (several hundred million years, as Alucard stated, though estimates vary somewhat).
I say Al Gore did the world a disservice by making AGW a Republican vs Democrat issue. Better to communicate the science first, then argue about what to do about it, if anything. Now, thanks to Gore, we have a bunch of people who fundamentally don't understand the science disbelieving AGW because it is "liberal lies". We also get people who believe AGW because it aligns with their political views, not because they understand science. Neither group actually knows what the fuck they're talking about, so the debate is BS.
discussion comment
11 years ago
I think a reason KISS had to wait is that the idea of KISS is great but KISS itself sucks. Even as a kid I loved the idea of freaky ass rockers dressing up like a Demon, Starchild, Space Ace, and Cat (well, the cat was kind of stupid) but then you listen and most of their record is shit. Yes, you get a few cuts that are OK. But really...most KISS is crap. If they didn't have the make-up, blood, explosions, and shit like that nobody would listen to them IMO.
discussion comment
11 years ago
C'mon Hard4Dancers....really? Isn't this getting boring? Like Alucard or hate him, it just seems like every other thread is you doing something to poke the guy in the eye. People complained about Juice spamming the board. At least the majority of that was light-spirited and some of was (in my opinion) funny.
But just poking Alucard. What's the point? All I'll say is that when I addressed the guy like a normal human being he responded like a normal human being. Can't you put the dude on ignore at a certain point?
Here's an idea -- shift from poking Alucard to telling funny stories about paying for extras in fast food restaurants? Ever pick up any of those slutty McDonald's girls that SC has pics of?
discussion comment
11 years ago
Oh... And deogol if you want to actually understand the history of the planet you fundamentally have a LOT of reading to do. I'm not going to take you on because you and I would be speaking different languages. You could start by going to a local natural history museum and learning about the mass extinctions. Many have ver nice displays that provide a reasonable introduction.
Alas, there is no lap dancing in the museum :-(
discussion comment
11 years ago
@sharkhunter -- you're right that actual scientists should communicate better to politicians and politicians should be communicating better to the public. That is exactly why Al Gore shouldn't have won the Nobel. He took this issue on and made it a democrat vs republican issue in the states.
Remember when there were commercials with Newt Gingrich sitting next to Nancy Pelosi proclaiming both were worried about global warming? Can you imagine him doing it now? He needs voters that don't believe in global warming. Most of those that believe in global warming won't vote for Gingrich anyway.
You've clearly considered the evidence. But the evidence been poorly communicated to politicians and journalists who don't really understand that well. Then it has gotten to you. I'll break down the essentials --
1. CO2 *is* a greenhouse gas. If all else is held constant, adding CO2 *will* increase temperatures. This is based upon physics that' has been known for more than a century.
2. But all else is not constant. CO2 does go away into a number of sinks. It dissolves into the ocean, it gets converted back to O2 by photosynthesis. Then the problem becomes accounting -- how big are the sources and the sinks. Sources are both natural and anthropogenic. You add them up and compare to the size of the sinks. But there is any easier way -- ask whether CO2 concentrations have increased. They have so sources exceed sinks in recent history.
3. Projecting into the future involves estimating sources and sinks into the future. Natural sources should remain roughly constant, anthropogenic are expected to increase. Sinks are harder. Maybe plants will grow faster in the higher CO2. So you estimate that effect. But sinks are going away because we're cutting down forests. And so forth.
4. Maybe something else will compensate. Perhaps warmer air will increase cloud cover, etc.
But 1 and 2 are rock solid and based on readily measurable things. I've never seen an anti-global warming story that grapples with 1 and 2 in a real way. They throw out stuff about climate on other planets where our understanding is poor. They nitpick details. But they never grapple with the rock solid part.
discussion comment
11 years ago
I was wondering how fast I'd see evidence of scientific illiteracy...
@jabthehut. -- you know what? There are NO scientists that realized photosynthesis occurred. Now that you've explained it all of their work goes out of the door! I think you should send an email to the Nobel committee. Al Gore got a peace prize for pointing the issue out. Imagine what you'll get for solving it!
@clubber -- yes I've of heard of earthquakes, etc. Do you think the earth causes them intentionally? I'm really trying to figure out WTF you're talking about, not being sarcastic. You said that humanity doesn't have the power to destroy the earth and that the earth doesn't have that power either. Earthquakes, hurricanes, etc. haven't destroyed the earth. Nor can they. But nobody ever said they would. Nobody ever said climate change would destroy the earth. You're arguing against a strawman.
discussion comment
11 years ago
Not like us...we're CLEAN pervs!
discussion comment
11 years ago
Fuck...also an Air Marshall in Nashville
Air marshal accused of taking upskirt pictures of passengers - CNN ...
www.cnn.com/2013/10/17/us/air-marshal-upskirt-photos/
Federal air marshal accused of taking upskirt photos at Nashville International Airport.
But the flight was going to Tampa FloriDUH!!!
discussion comment
11 years ago
Are Harvard bombs anything like Eton rifles?
discussion comment
11 years ago
Actually five big ones (comparable to or more extreme than the K-Pg event that killed the dinosaurs [all 'cept the birds]). Plus minor ones. We're in number 6 now.
discussion comment
11 years ago
The finest baakonite Qo'noS has to offer. All the gun toting Terrans should run in fear from a tru Klingon warrior. If they challenge me they shall feel the sting of my bat'leth and Kri'staK. Victory for House Toragh! Qapla'