Jauronimo
-
Posts
13,821 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Jauronimo
-
-
I'd stink palm him...
Its a small price to pay to smite your enemies.
-
Some thoughts to ponder
If we concede that this board is representative of a cross section of the male population then:
Can anyone say that Intelligent Design is the cause for our creation? Think of DiN, Conner, BFBF, lyrbob and BillsFan-4-Ever. Knowing the strength of the rebuttal examples can anyone have the balls here to attempt supporting the idea of Intelligent Design?
On the other hand, how can we support the Theory of Evolution, when by its very nature evolution lends itself to continued improvement and refinement? If we have had all of these many, many thousands of years to evolve, how do we still have examples like the ones that were mentioned under the Intelligent Design conundrum? Assuming that in real life they don't look like cavemen and probably their only "tell" is their pocket protectors, we can't even stretch things and propose dual evolution.
It will be interesting to see the boards take on this.
Human beings are an exception, as we are the only organism to have effectively removed the pressures of natural selection, the engine of evolution. We have all sorts of treatments and medications which ensure the survival and reproduction of individuals who otherwise would have perished, thus removing negative traits from the gene pool. We are the only species where the least capable and least fit, reproduce with the greatest frequency. In nature, the most fit individuals pass on their genetic material with the greatest frequency. Take a pride of lions for example. One stud lion gets 12 to 15 sexy lionesses all sorts of pregnant. Back to humans, where burdens of the state squat out 8 kids to ensure larger checks from the government, while CEOs, scientists, and Dr.'s who are well equipped for success in our environment have an average of 2 children.
Our mating rituals have also gotten absurd, and the selection process a total cluster f#$%. For mature peacocks, whether or not an individual is passing on its genetic material boils down to whos got the biggest brightest tail - a clear indicator of viability as supporting a heavy tail requires strength, and the brightness of color shows that the rooster is healthy and parasite free. Contrast this process to humans.
2 to 18 months of dating, which may or may not lead to marriage, which is no guarantee of reproduction anyways. The woman chooses her mates based on a host of factors ranging from income, physical attractivess, the degree to which her choice pisses off her dad, the desire to be the first of her friends to get married, pressure from parents, and many others. Simply put, choice of partner is often based not on viability but on other frivolous factors.
Then we have the trophy wife effect, whereby our most talented and gifted individuals choose semi-retarded trophy wives. Instead of passing on their spectacular traits, they produce talentless offspring that no one likes. This phenomenon is both counter-productive in an evolutionary sense and has also ruined many a private enterprise. Sure, theres the offsetting Cromartie-Henry effect, but the results are still unknown.
It is my contention that evolution has ceased for homo-sapiens, or at the very least, stalled.
-
Fair enough. And you bring up good points. But what is so troubling, to me, about Romney, his track record (some of which I admire, I don't hate the guy) is so inchoerent with the things he says now, trying to win an election. And I get,like I said to Chef, a lot of it is just playing politics. But he is painting himself into a pretty tight corner, as far as I am concerned.
Romney reportedly gave a doozey of a speech a few nights ago, to his largest donors, where he made some pretty big promises about new tax loopholes, cutting programs like HUD (wasn't that his daddy's old outfit?), making further cuts in education...he seems to adhere to the "trickle down" theory, which has never really worked.
I am not against cutting federal programs, and making government more efficient. The social "safety net" for the poor represents a relatively small part of our economy. I am sure there are cuts that can be made, and I am sure there are abuses...but I am also sure abuses exist, and cuts can be made elsewhere as well. Seeing and hearing the fervor of the audiences at the GOP debates when the topic of the poor, social programs (whatever term you want to use for these things, they all have their slanted implications, one way or antoher), was, frankly, disgusting. There seems to be this perception that anyone who receives government assistance is a no good, free-loader, drug addict...except for themselves, and anyone in their families who receive benefits of any kind.
And, it wasn't that long ago that universal healthcare was a Republican tenet. Nixon was a big proponent...it might be a B word to get it implemented (and maybe this is the wrong time), but would have a positive long range impact on the economy in the long run...you know, doing what is needed, not necessarily what is wanted. Something I read somewhere (sorry, can't remember the source, though I am sure someone will try to get me to find it!) said that one third of meidical expenses incurred in the US are done so by the uninsured. Which directly affects the cost of services that we all pay, and the cost of health inusurace for those who have insurance. So, in effect, healthcare in the US, pre-Obamacare, is one of the costlier entitlement programs out there.
Trickle down isn't an economic theory. Its a term made up by satirist during the Great Depression, that was revived to dismiss supply side economics and pander to the ignorant. If tax cuts were exclusively granted to the rich under Reagan, then maybe that term would have some merit. Since thats not the case, trickle down is nothing more than a sassy comeback for people who nothing about economics.
Yes, Medicare and Medicaid are this country's largest expenditure and are on pace to drive this country into bankruptcy, and I don't doubt that the uninsured are a major drag on the system. I just don't know how waving the wand and saying "voila, you're insured" is going to relieve that problem. No matter what you call it, you still have to fund it.
-
Yes, I want the economy to be strong, but I don't necessarily want it to come at the cost of the things that Romney and his ilk consider to be unimportant or trivial. I know, everyone here is a highly focused, type-A, boot-straps guy who never makes any mistake, or has a lapse in judgement that they can't fix themselves. But what the hell do you guys want to do with everyone who isn't so blessed as you with supreme confidence every step of the way?
There are lots of people in this country, many who don't likely fit the profile of the typical TBD dweller...what do you want to do with them? Kill them? Lock them up in jail? Let everyone die?
I respect your conviction...I have no problem with you voting for Mitt Romney, or anyone else. That goes for anyone here. But why is it so difficult for some to see that not everyone has the same priorities as they do? What makes the needs or desires of some so much more important than the needs or desires of others?
Where has Romney ever said that helping the poor and downtrodden isn't important or isn't a priority? Why do you assume that cutting social programs equates to a death sentence for the less fortunate or less capable?
Have you considered that the current system which intends to benefit the lower class has been ineffective and to their long-run detriment? Have you considered that the benefits of a strong economy are not limited to only the upper class, but indeed benefit all who participate? Generally speaking, I think we all want the same things for this country, in terms of standard/comfort of living, but disagree strongly on how to achieve that end.
Libs seem to think that cutting entitlements is a sign of disdain for the lower classes. They only seem concerned with the intentions of a program and how it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, rather than looking at the results. Perhaps Romney loves the poor so much that he will give them what they need rather than what they want. Is giving an addict another hit a sign of compassion? Tossing more money at the condition rather than addressing the cause of the problem doesn't seem very compassionate to me. It seems irresponsible and ultimately futile.
A strong economy is the only means to achieve the standard of living we all want and is the best remedy for poverty, education, healthcare, etc.
-
I am just glad I am not in the 50K and below group.
A gal that works for my wife is going part-time to spend more time with her 4 kids, and she has a 5th one on the way. Her husband is a youth pastor or something, and his job is unpaid. This gal told me their family got a huge tax return/ credits because of their "situation"... and they get food stamps and are on Medicaid for all the kids.
I simply cannot get over the concept of having 5 kids and no way to pay for them.... however, on the flip side, these people tend to spend every penny the get from the public so in that sense it is funnelled back into the eocnomy, which is good.
That life just sounds awful to me.
How is any of what you've just described good?
-
No, I can't name all the "flip-flops", but if you are really curious about what a liberal considers a "flip-flop" turn on MSNBC pretty much any night...if you Mitt Romney's view seems to be, in reality, that only rich women should be free to stay at home and take care of their children, while less fortunate mothers (or welfare mothers if you must) don't have any dignity if they don't work outside the home. His, and his wife's pho-outrage over the "mommy-gate" issue was as insincere and transparent as they could manage.
Pho-outrage? Isn't that what Marion Barry is campaigning on now?
I don't know what Vietnamese noodle soup has to do with this issue, but I think I know what I'm doing for lunch today. Thanks.
-
He's on his way, preparing his demand that the corrupt police cease their racial profiling of the suspects and investigate teenage white boys equally...
Should we organize the "We Are Coons" march and protest? The family hasn't trademarked it yet, so.....I'll make the T-shirts.
-
Obama will win because I will vote for Romney.
Please vote for Obama. He will pay for your gas, you know?
-
21 years? For killing 77 people?
I believe thats the longest sentence possible in Norway's legal system.
-
Obama is going to win the presidential election on November 6th because the country is addicted to government handouts, blissfully ignorant of how underfunded our government's current obligations are, and only concerned with "what's in it for me, and how fast can it get here?".
This election will be an indictment of common sense and fiscal responsibility and a victory for easy answers.
-
What are the chances that JW will return and actually povide some color to his 5 year plan for prosperity? I'm guessing he calls it "The Great Leap Out of the Suburbs" and his new Capitol will be formed in Detroit.
-
Wow, he hasn't released any new stuff in a while.
-
A ringing endorsement for the Virgin Tebow from a former teammate.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7807571/denver-broncos-demaryius-thomas-miss-tim-tebow
-
Yeah....but normally that depends on the next guy being worse, right? An argument can be made that the current guy:
1. Who supports terror
2. Has chemical/bio weapons
3. Is a surrogate of Iran
4. Is killing his own people indiscriminately
pretty much means the next guy can't be worse.
Sounds an awful lot like Saddam or well, any other dictator in the region. Remember Uday and Qusay's extra curricular activities? Don't ever think it can't get worse in the Middle East.
-
Make your top 3 worst analogies between Buffalo athletes and historical Russian figures!!!!
Clint Malarchuk : Catherine the Great - Instead of dying while fornicating with a horse he got his throat slashed with a skate and lived.
Ko Simpson : Anastasia Romanov - Unfathomable net worth yet managed to disappear without a trace.
JP Losman : Yuri Gegarin - First man in space and first QB to put a ball into sub orbit on a 5 yard out.
-
I think when you start out as the next pre-teen Disney star to roll off the assembly line, 'crap like this' IS your work once you hit puberty.
There's certainly no reason to like any of these young bimbos, but at the same time I do feel a little sorry for them. They may get rich young, but they also get used up fast while generating the real money for other people. Such stories rarely have a happy ending.
Huh? Didn't Danny Bonaduce and one of the kids from Family Ties end up living under a bridge, giving handjobs for smack?
-
Really? No one here likes pigs in a blanket? I think it's !@#$ing brilliant! You start out wit the pizza and move on to the pigs in a blanket. Cocktail party fare in a slice.
As long as they use only locally produced, sustainable, organic hot dogs in the crust, then I'm ok with this.
-
Oh, that Annan. He is the former Secretary General. If he couldn't do a damn thing (other than enrich himself and alot of others) when he was in charge, why would you expect him to be able to do anything now?
Take it easy on the UN, 3rd. The UN has repeatedly demonstrated the ability to facilitate much more orderly slaughter than the monkey-**** fight that's going on in Syria. Let the UN go into Syria, establish a few safe zones, gather the rebels and refugees, and the bloodshed will be over faster than you can say Srebrenica.
-
Wait...wait...whatddya mean? Does that mean that Noma finally overtook Golden Corral on the list?
Buffet Rule:
No matter what you smell, there is neither chicken nor beef on the Chinese buffet. The General Szos consists of something more exotic.
Hint: Think smaller, and with more legs.
-
Oh...no reason, really. I had just spent a while looking at that picture wondering what brand that might be....
Whatever gets you off...
-
May as well rename this thread BPA, because essentially that is what this thread describes. You're better off picking up a difference maker even if you're already stacked at the position then drafting a serviceable starter to address a need.
The theory is simple, but the application proves to be much more challenging. Is the #1 CB in the draft this year a bigger difference maker than the #2 OT, #1WR, #3 QB, etc.? Taking the concept one step further, we can rename the thread "Talent Evaluation is Paramount."
-
If we are to intervene in Syria, by that logic aren't we also obligated to take action in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Congo, Yemen, Somalia and probably a dozen other regional conflicts I'm forgetting? And if that holds true then wouldn't it be the responsibility of the United States to police the whole world (as long as those chicken hawk republicans aren't running the show of course)? And if directly supplying the Syrian rebels escalates into conflict with their largest ally, Iran, shouldn't we declare war on the Iranis?
There is nothing more noble than the selective outrage for the cause du jour. How long until Matt Damon starts leading the charge for regime change in Syria?
-
The ratings agencies are a joke (one of the reasons the stated plans for privatizing social security won't work - they're based on investing only in a set of "blue chip" investments as determined by the ratings agencies).
But their idiocy and negligence don't preclude Bank of America's responsibility to not package 100lbs of dog **** as an AAA-rated investment to begin with.
Agreed. I'm pretty sure it was either Morgan Stanely or Goldman that provided each of the ratings agencies with the model to value the MBS and CDOs they were selling in the first place, garbage assumptions and all. The e-mail record certainly proved that many of these institutions knew they were selling **** at least a year before the market collapsed.
Clearly, when you know that the mispriced trash you've been peddling is going to blow up, wipe out investors, banks, and bring financial markets to their knees, the ethical thing to do is find the only company rich and dumb enough to insure your **** CDOs 10x over.
-
Perhaps securitizing highly leveraged mortgage notes in masse wasn't a good idea after all.... If banks were required to hold the Note they originated, my guess is they don't fund 400k mortgages on people with stated income and little down payment...
Perhaps the government should not be in the loan guarantee business, that way taxpayers don't have to fund mortgage programs or bailouts when all the financiers coming looking for the bailout money...
Why would George Bush make a stink while this happened, the economy was great.... By the time Grenspan was talking Froth, the damage had been done....
What a mess
There's nothing wrong with securitizing garbage mortgages, just as long as you aren't selling tranches in your worthless synthetic CDO as a AAA-rated asset and then buying CDSs to effectively short the "risk-free" security you just sold. Bang up job by our ratings agencies, who as it turns out, never once saw any of the underlying mortgages. Seems like that might be a pertinent step in assessing the risk of an asset backed security. I would be willing to bet that if Goldman delivered to Fitch 100 lbs of dog **** diversified with 100lbs of **** from another dog, it would at least get a BBB.
Secret Service Agents
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted · Edited by Jauronimo
Yeah, but he only wears it to pick up chicks.