Ohhh, I love Keith. Such a sarcastic ass.
But seriously, WOW.
By 
Kinneas - Your Friendly Reality Check, at
6:35 PM
I agree that there probably were voting irregularities in this election. I also believe that there have been irregularities and fraud in every election we have ever had. The reason this is such a big deal is because the vote was so close like the last election. I agree that with modern technology we ought to be able to come up with a fool proof way of insuring that every vote counts one time for the candidate that the voter chose. I don't believe that we are going to change anything on this election. I DO believe that we need to work very hard to make sure that the next election is better (although it probably won't be perfect). It seems to me that there are far less irregularities this time than there were in 2000. I guess that means we are headed in the right direction. I do not believe that their was a nationwide consipiracy to corrupt the vote. I believe that any consipiracy that was involved was originated and practiced at a local level, and from what I've seen it appears that it existed on both sides. I have already seen reports of a librarian in Massachusets throwing away voter registration forms of people who registered as republicans. These people arrived at the polls to find that they weren't registered and they had to vote on provisional ballots that were not counted. Does that mean that the results in Massachusets were invalid? Of course not!! Kerry took his home state and everyone knows it. Provisional ballots are only not counted when they would not change the outcome of the election. This appears to be the case in all of the questionable voting practices of this election.
Having said that, if there was a nationwide conspiracy to corrupt this election I have faith that it will be uncovered, not by our government, but by our media which is one of the best in the world at digging out the facts of any scandal no matter who is in office. I look forward to seeing what is uncovered in coming weeks by reporters and investigative journalists. That's one of the reasons that our country is so great, because our press is free to question anything they want.
I voted for Bush, but I firmly believe that if Kerry should have won the election that he should be in office. Voting is one of our fundamental rights as US citizens and any corruption of the process, even if it swings the vote the way I would have chosen, is an insult to the American people and a violation of our constitutional rights. At this time, I have seen no evidence that convinces me that this is the case, but my mind is open to the potential revelations of coming weeks.
In addition, I have seen much said and written about the "mandate of the people" in this election. What exactly does that mean? Reagan's win in '84 was clearly a "mandate from the people", but where is the line drawn? At what point does a victory become a mandate. I submit to you that winning an election, by whatever margin, is, in and of itself, a mandate. That is what our election process is all about. We, the people of the United States, cast our vote and pass on an authorization to act to our representatives. That is what a mandate is, nothing more and nothing less. When the American people vote and and elect anyone, by whatever margin of victory, we have given that person an authorization to act on our behalf for a given term. I loathe Hillary Clinton with a passion unprecedented in my experience (I have my reasons which I will not debate with you), but if she is elected, by however many votes in 2008, I will not abandon my country or "head for the hills". I will grit my teeth and get on with my life doing everything I can do to make the country that I love better. I will start with my community and those closest to me. I will work to make my life and their's better. I will not put my life and work on hold for four years in a vain attempt to try to change the unchangeable. I will however support her opposition in the next election (it's hard to imagine that they will be worse), and I will hope and pray and work to change other's minds so that our country can become even greater than it is. That is my commitment to those who disagree with my point of view. I would greatly appreciate a similar effort on the part of those who disagree with me.
By 
, at
8:27 AM
Wow, an informed Bush voter! You sir, are a rare breed indeed, but do you know what's even harder to find? An informed Kerry voter! Why? They cannot understand why he lost, that's why.
I said it before and I will say it again before the typical landslide of comments rushes in after they read your personal and I might add informed opinion on the legitimacy of this election. The problem is that everything that the republican party did to get their candidate elected was perfectly legal. Underhanded or not, they knew how to tilt every little thing in their favor and that made all the difference on E-day. Don't say that the democrats did not partake as a matter of principal, because it was all within the rules. They lost because they were unprepared to play as 'dirty' as their opponents in a 'dirty' game that we've all come to loathe and despise because it is far too open to corruption.
Hilary Clinton would be the dirtiest move they could make during the next election. In this era of political correctness she would be hard to criticize effectively without hurting your own cause. All she needs is Oprah Winfrey as her running mate and it would be a landslide for the democrats! If the republicans can use Don King and the 'governator', there's no reason for the dems not to press this advantage! Hell, all they have to do is say that Hilary Clinton is the democratic candidate for president and watch the republican party sink itself! She might not be the best choice, but at least with the democrats in charge it would be far easier to effect changes than it is now. Hopefully, they would start with the electoral process because all of its loopholes make it look like legislative swiss cheese at the moment, and when you leave cheese out for too long, you get rats in charge...
I don't really care who voted for who, I just don't like a guy who tries to use morality to get re-elected when his party has a paleontologist's wet dream's worth of skeletons in its closet. Speaking of closets, after the brown ruling half a century ago, I'm surprised so much of America is against gay marriage. This is civil rights hypocrisy at its finest. Hate and ignorance are always tardry and stupid, too. As for the role religion plays in this with their stance on homosexuality, the words 'Jesus laid down with Peter' appear three times in the bible. He travelled around with twelve other guys whom he bathed and slept with, as well as a prostitute if I remember correctly. Plus I'm not inclined to trust a church who's currently in the midst of several sex and child abuse scandals that they tried to cover up and whose true reach and scope in its history we will never know...
Make your own decisions on morality, because it's not all black and white, and don't let anyone or anything else decide for you.
Sorry for the long post. Ugh...tired... Must pre-order copy of San Andreas and clear calandar through to March... of '06.
- Infamous 370
By , at
11:34 AM
Don't you find it interesting when people use scripture to support something when really they have no idea what the scripture is about and wouldn't know doctorine if it bit them on the butt? Clinton used to do it all the time. The great thing about when he did it is when the verses that he quoted were examined in context, they usually condemned his lifestyle and positions. It made it very interesting. I'm a Christian and I'd like to think that I have a pretty good working knowledge of scripture, but when I post on these blogs, I have enough respect for other people's beliefs not to quote scripture at them. Wouldn't it be great if you didn't misquote it at me when it's obvious you don't believe in it anyway? Just one last note on the Bible: Anyone can take scripture and misquote it and take small sections out of context and use it to justify a lifestyle that they would have continued with anyway despite what the Bible says. It takes real guts to keep using the Bible as a guide for your life even when it says things you don't like.
You were doing so well in your arguement until you did that too. If your point is good, let it stand on it's own merit....trying to warp my religious beliefs in ignorance to fit your agenda just makes you look stupid, which you probably aren't.
By , at
3:03 PM
Infamous 370: I love generalizations, I really do. Well, no, I don't. There is an ample supply of both Bush and Kerry supporters that are highly informed in their respective topics of discussion, so knock off.
Blanket statements like that only hurt your argument's credibility.
3:03: So what was that Acts verse that is the only thing in the Bible that supports Supply-Side Economics (or "Reaganomics") again?
I'm serious. I can never remember.
By Kinneas - Your Friendly Reality Check, at
3:13 PM
Oh, and 8:27: As is evidenced by the nonstop arguing on this board, not all Kerry supporters are "heading for the hills". In fact, there are only a select few out of the entire nation. And that one guy who committed suicide.
Once again, I love generalizations.
By Kinneas - Your Friendly Reality Check, at
3:21 PM
Ahhh scriptures. Seperation of church and state? That's nonsense! Sure, you can't recognize a religion or whatnot, but we're not the government. Or ARE we? ::Hides his FBI paraphenela:: oh screw it, proper spelling is overrated.
I liked the first guy: he seemed to have a good view on things.
As for the political correctness thing, the republican party should run Colin Powell in 2008 as VP and McCain as president. And the democrats should run either Hillary Clinton or Libramen as president, and Jon Stewart as VP. Why Jon Stewart, a non-politician? Because it would dispel a lot of the liberal elite media cynicism: Jon isn't one to condemn, only to laugh. So on both sides you have the political correctness, and then you also have someone that represents something the party needs. Hillary a... okay, I don't know what she represents, and quite frankly don't care, but McCain represents a more moderate republican party, and I really think that'd be helpful. Tsk tsk.
Go Neutralist party! Seriously: c'mon. Neutralists!
By , at
6:57 PM
AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW YEAAAAAAAAAAAAH. GO RIDERS!
By , at
7:35 PM
Why does everyone think that the media is liberal? Ok, lemme rephrase: Why do most people believe that ALL media is liberal? There are more conservative talk-radio hosts on the air than liberals, there are PLENTY of conservative actors and actresses besides the Governator, and let us not forget FoxNews. They lead the pack, and the rest of the news channels just follow whatever they say. Just because Dan Rather tried to misunderestimate the President, doesn't mean they're all commie/pinko/leftists.
Side note: Can somebody let me know if the Bill O'Reilly kids book is out? I think it's called "The Little Loofa that could.
Because people are spaming me about why I voted for kerry on my e-mail.
Why I voted Kerry using
TOULMIN LOGIC
+Credited to historian & philosopher Stephen Toulmin, --
+Toulmin logic is a generally accepted standard for the logical, objective examination of claims made by scientists.
+Toulmin logic bolsters the Scientific Method and demands that the individual asserting a claim be honest and objective
The Toulmin Method is 4-6 parts (depending on which professor you are asking)
It consists on a warrent, Grounds for a claim (evidence), the conclusion and the claim itself, (not to mention rebutial and objections)
Let me make 4 statements (too tired to make a rebutial do it for me please)
Claim. (A): Bush and Kerry are both good canidates, however Bush leans too hard to the right. Therefore I will not vote for president bush. A country with a leader who represents both partys tends to do better intenationaly and nationally and will probably be remembered for great things. (like Ronald Regan or Theodore Rosevelt [opinion]). Kerry seems undecided on traditional liberal values (i.e. abortion, gay marrages[sp], ect...) that I wonder if he is even a democrat sometimes.
Evidence(B): Bush tends to approve of policys that are considered by my standards, the standards of my community and the standards of the nation as a whole. By embracing the right wing "bible belt" and anything christian as a whole and becoming a poster boy for church and state he has slowly drifted from the traditional values of Republicans I.E. individual rights (such as firearms), lowering taxes, and others and turned it more into a "christian morals and ethics class". Reguardless this evidence will not suit all of you so CONSTRUCTIVE criticsim is welcome.
C)Warrent:
Therefore Probably
D) Conclusion: Kerry is more of a balanced canidate and I voted for him because although he did not match my EXACT values he was closer than bush. Also Kerry was better in my mind because his party was out of power, a weak goverment that cannot harrass you is a better goverment.
D.1) Rebuttial
A lot of my friends said that Kerry, not Bush was unbalanced but living in the most republican state in the union (Idaho) this is not very suprising. Bush has had a very clean record for what his presidency has had to go through, however somewhere in the back of my head is the smallest violin playing. The rebuttial is therefore not very strong
Thus ends my case, using logic
BTW I'm not a Leftist, Democrat, Republican, Pro or anti anything
I'm a centralist (in my mind [a bit to left here but then again it's Idaho]) and proud of it.... Every year I get to bitch about how left/ right the prez is.
(edit accidently posted it in another blog oops)
Okay, I just have to say, what the hell. Grand Theft Auto San Andreas was released. The comic doesn't comment. Halo 2 comes out, not a peep in the comic. So far in November we still have Metroid Prime 2 Echoes, Metal Gear Solid 3, the Nintendo DS, World of Warcraft, and Half-Life 2 and I'm already getting the distinct impression that we really shouldn't hold out any hope that a "gaming" comic is going to run a story brushing over any of these releases. If you want to run a political satire comic, fine. Just don't falsely advertise it as a game comic while ignoring the biggest gaming month of the year.
By , at
4:18 AM
To the previous poster, most of us are still staring longingly at any or all of these great games on the store shelves. I have already pre-ordered all that I can for myself and have hardly enough leftover to buy gifts for my family and friends. Christmas is coming up haowever, so many of us may be blessed with some of these great games, or the new compact PS2.
As for my previous post, you guys are right, that was rather cheap of me and I apologize. I suppose I'm just jaded towards the catholic church. I used to be catholic, I even went to church at least twice a month, but after learning of many of the double standards that exsist between the bible and the church, not to mention the recent scandals... Perhaps I'm being far too cynical, but I used to expect more of the people who are supposed to be the closest to God. I still hold men of the cloth in high regard, however, and I hope that the good ones do not protect the guilty ones should this happen again. As for twisting the words of the bible, again I appologize. However, I do believe that the scriptures and the bible are vague at times and like the current electoral system, can be easily twisted to suit one's own agenda. Though I believe the reason for this is so that it can be interpreted differently by everyone and they can form their own opinions. Two things that you'll quickly notice about me is that I'm not always on the mark with my views, and that I'm not of the mind that you should follow anything without question. I also believe that you should read the bible through at least once whether you believe in Jesus or not, because there's more than a little wisdom contained within. If you do and you have not, go do it now because it won't take long and you'll be better-off one way or another once you do.
I feel like shit for doing something so unseemly to support my arguement and I will again appologize for what it's worth. I also appreciate the criticizm and will try to keep your suggestions in mind when I post in the future.
Oh, and Kinneas, I seem to remember an attack on your use of the word 'sweetheart' not too long ago. There's nothing wrong with it and I even find myself curious about the region of the world where this is a part of the regional dialect, or if it is something you adopted on your own. Attacking the person and not their arguement is another dirty tactic that can hurt your main arguement, and I would know.
Always assume nothing,
Always question everything,
Always believe in something,
Just not me.
- Infamous 370
By , at
5:09 AM
To the guy above me...
This is also ELECTION MONTH. Things like the presidency take presidence over Halo 2 and GTA, no matter how good (yeah right) the games released recently may be.
By , at
5:16 AM
I'm from the "slave south" of the good ole' US of A. Tennessee, more specifically the Cumberland Plateau. If you've seen or read Deliverance, that'd be it. Thanks for asking!
By Kinneas - Your Friendly Reality Check, at
5:26 AM
I've gotta say, I've been reading the blog boards on the sight since the election and I think this one is the best one yet. I think we've all cooled off a little and I'm really enjoying reading some of the rational and well thought arguements that are listed on this one. Both sides seem well prepared to present themselves better than they have on the other two boards. I've gotta thank whoever that first long poster was for setting such an intelligent and open minded tone.
I don't know about you guys that are more focused on all the games that came out this month. There's more to me than gaming and while I do appreciate a good GTA joke as much as the next guy, I don't mind a little diversion now and then. Wouldn't we all look a little silly if the most important election in decades came and went and all we talked about was games?
By , at
6:25 AM
Kinneas (in regards to 3:21). I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply that dems and Kerry supporters were "heading for the hills" and after rereading what I wrote that does appear to be what I said (although not what I meant). I would like to point out, however, that one can remove themsleves from effective citizenship emotionally and mentally as well as physically. Covering oneself with bitterness and anger over this election for the next four years can be just as great a removal from the body politic as moving to the moon for a while. There does seem to be quite a bit of that going around (and certainly was over the last four years in the aftermath of the 2000 election) and I'll tell you this, many Republicans and Bush supporters are happy that it's happening. They want to see you go off and lick your wounds while they get on with the business of running government. I don't. I trully believe that confrontational political systems are the best thing for people. While they do tend to polarize individuals, they also bring out cogent discourse concerning our governement's policies and the role that we as Americans can play in it. I think that this is wonderful. By being forced to defend my position on issues I come to understand my own stance on a given subject more completely, and on occasion, I have been known to change my mind. Please keep coming at me with things that I don't agree with. It makes me a better person. Hooray for free speech!!
By , at
7:05 AM
You guys all suck. Not cause your kerry supporters or bush supporters or anti-kerry supporters or whatever the !@#$ people think you are. But because no one even mentions my neutralist agenda. C'mon people! It's a radical idea! Neutralist party! The very definition of anti-radical presented as a radical idea! Isn't anyone going to support the paradox? Isn't anyone going to say "Hey, I'd like a race between Jon Stewart and Colin Powell for Vice President!" Not a single Daily Show reference amongst you. You talk about cynicism and blogging, and you don't even mention the GRAND MASTER OF SATIRE?! It's a sad sad day in politics where a fake news host is mentioned more in real politics and media coverage than in political blogging.
I don't know how you can sleep at night!
By , at
7:49 AM
If mediocre was a flavor it would have a heinz stcker on the bottle. The media hyped kerry up, he was never that popular to begin with. Bush won the election because, whether democrats will admit it or not, he is more popular to the american people than "slick willie' ever was. At the same time he was also infinately less popular than clinton. Why? because the man is straitforward when he speaks. he didn't hide his entire agenda like kerry did. That is why he won.
TRUST. NOT RELIGIION.
By , at
9:59 AM
(On the election: I think it's pretty obvious Bush won... and that the Sore Thumbs author/s seems to be letting this drag their comic down like an anchor in the mud.)
Being a centrist I hate to see propaganda against either platform, it just seems wrong to my sensibilities because the right and the left each have their virtues.
The latest comic draws it humor from the outrageous opinions and actions of Fairbanks & mother, but it doesn't strike me as funny. It just doesn't seem real, their statements about how 'the liberals blah blah blah are defeated and the know it etc.' just seems to me like the author's own words of defiance and way of coping with the dems losing.
This comic is becoming too politically biased, I'd like to know what soldier-boy has to say on the issue and more importantly for the storyline to proceed.
-Toteone
(btw: I'm not a U.S. citizen, I'm Hong Kong-Norwegian)
Shouldn't there be some discussion about the guerrila war in Iraq/battle of Fallujah in this forum? That would be interesting.
By , at
11:53 AM
Oh btw... NEUTRALIST PARTY sounds like a great blast (just forgot to reply on it)!
Yeeeeesshhhh.... Guineas and that other guy should DEFINATELY replace something like 30% of the current political bias and replace it with funny qoutes and cheesy cameos * or something * . =^*^=
By , at
11:57 AM
bitterness... didn't your comic once have a storyline? I enjoyed the political aspect as much as anybody, but the plot is still the major motivation for me reading this comic. I guess what I'm asking is, if kerry had won, would you have spent this many comics ignoring plot for a political statement? I had a major problem with this election... The majority of the public seemed to treat the damn thing like the damn superbowl... And now their supposed either be bitter, or gloating about the outcome... This was an damned election, of coarse there was political and monetary manuevering involved. You think kerry's this fucking knight in shining armor? If you do your fooling yourself, he's a damned politician... COME ON! He wouldn't be in this race if it weren't for one thing, desire for power. Do you really think if he could've just pushed a button, and become president, he wouldn't have? I'm just saying that saying one politician is evil, and expecting others not to be is a little odd...
By , at
12:50 PM
The comics and posts by Crosby and whoever the hell the artist is are just getting plain RABID. I can see Crosby, frothing at the mouth in a dank basement at a small wooden desk, crumpled up papers surrounding him in great piles illuminated by a naked lightbulb swinging overheard as he clacks out eerie, hate-mongering scripts on an ancient typewriter while screaming, "More outrageous!! I need MORE OUTRAGEOUS!!!" tearing away script after script that isn't belligerent enough to become a comic. This political bent that Sore Thumbs is displaying is just getting downright scary. Republicans are portrayed as these evil, sinister, hate mongering villains. While some of you may be ignoramuses and agree that they are, we all know in our hearts that it's not really that way. Think of all the kind and innocent Americans that happen to be Republican that you're judging and slandering. You’re saying that ALL those people are evil and/or ignorant? Do you judge people on the color of their skin, too? This outright and obvious hatred makes you no better than the hate-mongering Republicans you portray, Crosby. This comic is starting to scare me more than make me laugh.
By , at
12:50 PM
This comment has been removed because it linked to malicious content. Learn more.
By , at
1:09 PM
My personal favourite moment of the comic is where Fairbanks divulges to soldier-boy how he killed the two arab-looking people with his soup! *laughs 45!*
aaaanyyyywwwwayy that and the Fairbanks - Melody romance.
The thing is... I didn't take the drowning-with-soup thing seriously, and even if it had been, dude that was just hilarious!
But it seems quite clear to me that these latest comic, especially the last one, is filled to the brink with personal feelings that we're supposed to take seriouslyyyy... and that 'everyone who believes Bush won Ohio must be a freaking idiot thingamajig is rather unfounded, 140 k votes is quite a difference and your country seems to already suffer from quite a few conspiracy theories' Anyyyway I'm getting over my head. I'm just hoping Fairbanks can get back to drowning innocent Saudis and/or burn Mayflowers store. That would be so kewl.
-Toteone
By , at
1:21 PM
My personal favourite moment of the comic is where Fairbanks divulges to soldier-boy how he killed the two arab-looking people with his soup! *laughs 45!*
aaaanyyyywwwwayy that and the Fairbanks - Melody romance.
The thing is... I didn't take the drowning-with-soup thing seriously, and even if it had been, dude that was just hilarious!
But it seems quite clear to me that these latest comic, especially the last one, is filled to the brink with personal feelings that we're supposed to take seriouslyyyy... and that 'everyone who believes Bush won Ohio must be a freaking idiot thingamajig is rather unfounded, 140 k votes is quite a difference and your country seems to already suffer from quite a few conspiracy theories' Anyyyway I'm getting over my head. I'm just hoping Fairbanks can get back to drowning innocent Saudis and/or burn Mayflowers store. That would be so kewl.
-Toteone
By , at
1:22 PM
My personal favourite moment of the comic is where Fairbanks divulges to soldier-boy how he killed the two arab-looking people with his soup! *laughs 45!*
aaaanyyyywwwwayy that and the Fairbanks - Melody romance.
The thing is... I didn't take the drowning-with-soup thing seriously, and even if it had been, dude that was just hilarious!
But it seems quite clear to me that these latest comic, especially the last one, is filled to the brink with personal feelings that we're supposed to take seriouslyyyy... and that 'everyone who believes Bush won Ohio must be a freaking idiot thingamajig is rather unfounded, 140 k votes is quite a difference and your country seems to already suffer from quite a few conspiracy theories' Anyyyway I'm getting over my head. I'm just hoping Fairbanks can get back to drowning innocent Saudis and/or burn Mayflowers store. That would be so kewl.
The best of luck to you and your comic (and this thing loads really slow or something is stuck, I hope I'm not triple-posting)
-Toteone
By , at
1:22 PM
My personal favourite moment of the comic is where Fairbanks divulges to soldier-boy how he killed the two arab-looking people with his soup! *laughs 45!*
aaaanyyyywwwwayy that and the Fairbanks - Melody romance.
The thing is... I didn't take the drowning-with-soup thing seriously, and even if it had been, dude that was just hilarious!
But it seems quite clear to me that these latest comic, especially the last one, is filled to the brink with personal feelings that we're supposed to take seriouslyyyy... and that 'everyone who believes Bush won Ohio must be a freaking idiot thingamajig is rather unfounded, 140 k votes is quite a difference and your country seems to already suffer from quite a few conspiracy theories' Anyyyway I'm getting over my head. I'm just hoping Fairbanks can get back to drowning innocent Saudis and/or burn Mayflowers store. That would be so kewl.
-Toteone
By , at
1:24 PM
My personal favourite moment of the comic is where Fairbanks divulges to soldier-boy how he killed the two arab-looking people with his soup! *laughs 45!*
aaaanyyyywwwwayy that and the Fairbanks - Melody romance.
The thing is... I didn't take the drowning-with-soup thing seriously, and even if it had been, dude that was just hilarious!
But it seems quite clear to me that these latest comic, especially the last one, is filled to the brink with personal feelings that we're supposed to take seriouslyyyy... and that 'everyone who believes Bush won Ohio must be a freaking idiot thingamajig is rather unfounded, 140 k votes is quite a difference and your country seems to already suffer from quite a few conspiracy theories' Anyyyway I'm getting over my head. I'm just hoping Fairbanks can get back to drowning innocent Saudis and/or burn Mayflowers store. That would be so kewl.
The best of luck to you and your comic (and this thing loads really slow or something is stuck, I hope I'm not triple-posting)
-Toteone
By , at
1:25 PM
oooppppsss
sorry
-Toteone
By , at
2:00 PM
To completely abandon the topic of the blog and turn to the strip itself, I'm curious as to how to storyline would've been different if Kerry won. Would we have Cecania kicking Fairbanks in the stomach while he cried in a corner?
And, while I'm asking questions to the general public, I'll say that I'm a republican (and not a very well informed one) and wonder why so many other republican (judging from the comments here) read a comic where they are constantly bashed?
By , at
2:48 PM
Because the mis-representations of the republicans that get bashed are freaking hilarious. That and it helps your ego to know that republicans aren't that bad.
Trust me, republicans have gotten bashed so often as of late that the insults no longer phase most of us.
By , at
4:13 PM
You know, I know that the election was possibly more important than Grand Theft Auto and Halo 2. However, even USAtoday found time to comment on these games while reporting on the election. My contention remains, for a comic that purports itself to be a gaming/political comic, there has been absolutely no comments on the biggest gaming events and releases this year. Like I said, I know the election may be more important, but If I go to ESPN.com, they still are going to be focusing on the results of Monday Night football, because they are a Sports page. So, If you want a political comic, fine. Just don't advertise it as a gaming comic while blatantly ignoring events that gamers probably care about a lot more than our recent Pepsi Coke taste-off 2004. (I'll leave it to you to decide who was Pepsi and who was Coke.)
By , at
5:06 PM
One thing: Is Cecania not a pink-haired, outspoken, big-breasted, total and complete liberal representation?
Yeah, thought so.
By Kinneas - Your Friendly Reality Check, at
5:56 PM
Yep. she's probably the most normal charicter in the strip.
By , at
6:43 PM
Halo 2 isn't JUST any game. I don't even own an X Box, and i've never played EITHER Halo, but the scope of THAT game goes far beyond the realm of the norm, Halo 2 is boarderline a cultural event. Damn near every webcomic that I read has referenced the game at least twice in the last month alone. A comic thats supposedly specifically about GAMES (which, if i may add, has had one or two gaming references towards actual games the entire run of the comic), hasn't talked about it at all.. I don't know.. i tend to agree with the folks who say that its not a gaming comic at all, but a political satire.
Plus.. This goes to everyone whos still up in arms, and feels superior becuase of their political slantings..
People like you are the problem. Which problem? you name a problem, and i'm sure it's at least partially your fault. the nation is split into two halves because of people like you.
Things are how they are -- unless there was foul play in the election, there was one man who was elected, and one man who was not. Just because Dubyah won doesn't make any Bush supporter better. Its just as stupid as thinking that YOU are somehow better than the next guy becuase you really liked the Red Socks and he liked the Yankees.
Seems like vicariously living through someone else, if you get the impression that you're better because someone you indirectly supported (1 of what was it.. 8 million votes or something?) won.
By , at
8:21 PM
Since this is a comic based in a world of extremes, Mayflower has probably made the mistake of employing either a person with a beard or one with a tan. Fairbanks will alert the FBI and Mayflower will be busted for harbouring illegal immigrants or terrorists or something.
The scope of HALO 2 is truly a landmark for videogames, it is what FF11 should have been for the PS2. (What a ripoff that was!) Calling it a borderline cultural event is off the mark unless you visit E3 every year, however. It's true that video games, particularly with sports and wrestling games, have begun to become a more mainstream form of entertainment. It's still not nearly as popular as you say though, and as fun as HALO 2 is, it will be lost to far too many people, and still won't sell as well as the next pseudo-punk CD.
Now, I've stated my opinion in atheists vs. the faithful, Bush vs. anybody but Bush, and all political points in between, but I will NOT start an arguement over which gaming platform is better! Oh, no sir! Gamers are as loyal, if not more so, to their systems as women are to the form of feminine hygene products or birth control they use. (Also, take it from me, FF11 is just as effective a form of birth control as abstenence.) I'm pleading with you people not to start this arguement and just enjoy the damn games! Let's just stick to the usual biased arguements about whose party's dick is bigger than all the others, okay?
By , at
9:22 PM
Hi. My name's Mike. Just wanted to comment on Harmony wearing my team's logo on her shirt on Nov. *th. Go Roughriders, baby!!!! Saskatchewan is gonna take down those pansy arse B.C. Lions!!!!!
Anyhow, thanks for listening.
Oh yeah, democrecy is an illusion. Deal with it.
By , at
1:31 AM
Just a quick comment. I find it rediculous that the land of the free, home to such a mixture of people (race, religion etc.) are using anti-gay-marriages as a reason to vote for Bush. Who you are to marry should be a choice, individuals right to choose... thus making the US free. Saying that marriage is based on the bible, and using that as an excuse for banning homosexual marriages is also stupid... in that case people that dont believe in the bible shouldnt be allowed to get married either... marriage is a contract... it doesnt matter on skin color, religion, hair length or any of that... so why should it matter what sexuality... so many other countries allow gay marriages, and that in my opinion shows more tolerance and freedom than the US does, even if these countries dont allow "all" people to own a gun.
By , at
5:04 AM
5:42,
I agree wholheartedly, that's why I've been lobbying my congressman for months to pass a law that will recognize my marriage to my pet cat Whiskers. We have a wonderful and supportive marriage and there is no reason why she should be denied family benefits just because our relationship is non-traditional. I've started a lobbying group and we have many members with wonderful stories of alternative marriages. We even have one member who, in a private ceremony in Argentina, married his Compaq computer (I know it sounds crazy...I told him that she wasn't good enough for him and that there was a little Sony at Best Buy that had been giving him the eye, but love knows no bounds). He is now trying to get his company to pay for upgrades as preventative medicine under his health insurance benefits. After all, upgrades are necessary for a computer to survive obsoletion (ie. death). Please continue to lobby our government to recognize alternative marriages as legitimate.
Posted by Lucifer's Lawyer
Casting light on the ridiculous since 1973
By , at
7:58 AM
Pardon me...my previous post was directed at 5:04 not 5:42. The management apologizes for the error and will take measures aimed at assuring future similar mistakes will not take place.
-LL
By , at
8:52 AM
7:58-
Indeed it would be ridiculous if you were to marry your cat or your computer or anything else that cannot reciprocate your emotions in a human fashion. This is all very true, but it is also irrelevant. What applies to kitties and computers does not apply to human beings. Now tell me why in a secular government (we're not a theocracy yet, no matter how hard the "Republicans" try) homosexual people should not be allowed to marry? It's very interesting to me in so many ways, especially when people begin talking about civil unions that are "separate but equal." Does that sound familiar to anyone?
This is an observation, not an argument: When I was little and I was in history class and I read about segregation and "separate but equal" etc., I could never understand how people could be so full of hatred that they would try to hurt others just based on their skin color. I would look around at the other children with all different colors of skin and wonder why people would want to keep my friends from being happy, especially in a country that boasts the most rights and freedoms of any in the world. Now I wonder how long it's going to be before children read history books and wonder how our generation could be so filled with hatred towards gay people.
-Jubetas
By , at
10:21 AM
The reason our society does not condone the marriage of people to animals or toasters has nothing to do with the reciprocation of human emotions (there's thousands of legally recognized marriages where human emotion does not exist or is not reciprocated). The reason our society does not allow it is because a majority of Americans consider it deviant. Whether you like it or not that is still the case with homosexuality. Even when people are not vocal about it, they still consider homosexuals to be deviant (11 states voting down their right to marriage proves my point). As long as you keep attempting to convince people based on a purely moral viewpoint you will fail. People who believe the Bible don't believe you have any morals worth taking notice of.
Perhaps a different tactic is in order. Convince us that homosexuality is not a deviant practice using scientific evidence like our scientist ancestors did in convincing people that the world was round (Christians included) despite persecution from the church.
Point to parrallels by demonstrating that homosexual pair-bonding exists in other animal species that mate for life. Identify the genome responsible for "normal" homosexual reaction and demonstrate that all homosexuals have it and all heterosexuals do not. Use physiological mechanics to demonstrate that homosexual acts are natural and that are bodies are designed for them.
You could also launch a massive media campaign highlighting the many wonderful things that homosexuals have done for society...you ought to be able to get miles of positive spin out of the "Fab Five" alone.
As long as you stick to the tactic of trying to convince people that their faith is incorrect, you will fail. That's why they call it faith. It transcends the need for evidence in fact it IS the "evidence of things not seen". Right now homosexuality as normal is most definately "not seen" by a majority of Americans. Until you convince us that homosexuality is not deviant we'll keep voting to treat homosexuals in the same category as beastiality and vacuum cleaner humping.
Personally, I hope you keep on doing what your doing...tilting at windmills and screaming into the wind. My client enjoys the chaos created by your inane arguements. If you actually started using some logical rhetorical method to convince other people that you're right it would take all of the joy out of my position.
Posted by Lucifer's Lawyer
Throwing fuel on the fire since 1973
By , at
11:51 AM
Yep, grew up in a Christian family and had some of those prejudices handed down to me. I remember not approving of being gay, and I'm still with it being a sin of lust and that sort of thing (I used to be slightly more xenophobic as a child) and I will always believe so but gay people aren't any different then other people. There are plenty of nice, colorful and refreshing gay people just like with straight
As long as they don't demand to have the 'contract' made in Church (the Church can't hold a binding ceremony on something the bible holds to be wrong just as it can't ordain a priest who holds onto the same) I'm perfectly fine with them going for happiness.
Let's not forget THE NAZIS KILLING OF GAY PEOPLE during the second world war. A lot of the dislike directed towards gay people in general is purely based on fear of the unknown and deviating from the accepted social and biological standards.
Soooo uhhhh....
Ease up on gay people, they're not going to invade our congregations and start brainwashing children. We should be secure enough in our faiths to keep an open heart, or at least try to.
hmmmmmm - well I'll go ahead and post this -
Back to Sore Thumbs:
She has pink hair, of course she is a liberal. It might also be because her arch-conservative mother HateS her or something, eh?
And I want to see the cast of Sore Thumbs, or at the very least the core characters death match each other in HALO 2 with a final winner§! (and if so soldier-boy should totally frag everyone, and remember to make it gory and messy)
Do the authors read this blog btw. or is just hopeless to make comments on anything? Shouldn't they be catching on to like a large block of their readers tireing of the political um... bashing?
-Toteone
By , at
12:01 PM
LL-
First of all, you have created several logical fallacies. Telling me to prove scientifically that gay people are not deviants in a similar way to proving the world is round is both impossible and foolish. The world has been proven round by scientific method. There are no genomes that we know of that create any sort of sexuality. Homosexual pair-bonding in other species is not applicable in that we are not talking about other species. Humans are different from most other species in that we are self-aware and capable of higher thought. Even still, there are few species that mate for life regardless, and we certainly do not base our government off of them. We cannot prove gay people to be "normal" by scientific method. However, we can use formal logic, which is what I have been trying my best to use. You also said, "As long as you stick to the tactic of trying to convince people that their faith is incorrect, you will fail." This is true, but irrelevant, in that I was not employing a tactic of trying to convince people that their faith is incorrect. The question that I asked was, "Now tell me why in a secular government...homosexual people should not be allowed to marry?" This is something that you ignored. Also, you used several loaded terms, comparing homosexuality to bestiality and vacuum cleaner humping, as well as telling me to try and get positive spin out of the "Fab Five." Using these, you are able to create a false argument without having to truly defend your position. What you are doing is called using a "question-begging epithet," which is defined as "using strongly emotional language to force home an otherwise unsupported conclusion." (Engel 145) By citing the "Fab Five" as well as other references that may be seen as ridiculous, you have attempted to give my views an air of foolishness without truly having to refute them. This also applies to your statement, "It transcends the need for evidence in fact it IS the 'evidence of things not seen'." By using the word transcend, you imply that faith is beyond normal concrete evidence, whereas I could just as easily and accurately say that faith ignores the need for evidence. While both statements are true to a certain extent, neither apply when it comes to legal matters. We do not legislate based on matters of faith alone. Also, when you say, "...a majority of Americans consider [homosexuality] deviant" this is also true, but irrelevant as to whether or not it is the correct way for our society to operate. As an analogy, let's move back fifty years and replace homosexuality with interracial marriage. I argue that they are similar enough in that they both receive hostility often based out of Christianity and are persecuted on matters based out of faith. If you disagree, please tell me why. Now, I would appreciate it if you would do me the same courtesy I have given you from the start and not continue name-calling and telling me that my inane arguments are nothing more than me tilting at windmills and screaming into the wind. Also, please do not tell me that "People who believe the Bible don't believe you have any morals worth taking notice of" as this is a sweeping generalization and almost wholly untrue. As evidence, I offer you this: both of my best friends have been Christian since birth. One of them is the son of a Lutheran pastor. Both of them believe that I am a morally sound individual. Thus, your statement is untrue. You have challenged me to use scientific method, I decline because it does not apply. However, if I am to take anything you have to say as reasonable, please use the logical method you advocated that I should employ. I have done so in both of my posts, I expect you to respond in kind.
Works cited:
Engel, S. Morris. With Good Reason. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2000.
Also, as a side comment, many zoologists have found that there are quite a few animals (non-humans) that pair-bond with their own sex, especially in cases of animals that mate for life (wolves, swans, etc.). I do have personal experience in this, in that of my own pets, one of my female dogs appeared to be attracted to other female dogs.
-GodJesus, the other crucified robot-zombie
By , at
1:20 PM
Whoa. Intelligence. Keep it up while I take notes.
By Kinneas - Your Friendly Reality Check, at
2:14 PM
I gotta agree with anonymous.
The purely biological point of sex is to reproduce... if sex doesn't produce children then biologically speaking it's pointless. There's the mate-grooming aspect but well, that's secondary
uh oh gotta go to bed
By , at
2:18 PM
You are absolutely correcting in asserting that my previous post held no basis in logic, of course I never asserted that it did. I simply suggested that perhaps your arguement might be more effective if you chose a different tactic. You've proven me correct by restating your previous non-effective arguement again in your last post. You've brought nothing new to the table except accusations that I've used syntax to spin my statements in a more positive light (of course some would argue that comparing negative views on gay marriage to the Nazi persecution of homosexuals during WWII is the same thing). You've also somehow come up with the idea that I personally am against gay marriage when I have never stated my position on it one way or the other. I only pointed out the true reasoning behind the opposition opinion (ie. societies view of homosexuality as deviance). You've said nothing to refute that claim.
You are correct in stating that our society is not a theocracy, but it is a democratic repulic and that basically translates to the fact that the majority rules. As long as the majority of Americans believe that homosexuals are deviant individuals practicing a twisted fetish lifestyle then homosexuals will never be afforded the same rights as non-deviant citizens. Like it or not, if a large enough majority of Americans decided that we should have an amendment to the constitution that states that it's OK to kill homosexuals, then it would be open season. I'm not profering a moral opinion on the rightness or wrongness of those positions I'm merely pointing out that the method you are using to fix it isn't working. Truthfully, if someone had come on this blog with the opposing viewpoint and argued against homosexuality in a manner as illogical and non-effective as you have, I might very possible be making posts that you would agree with. My purpose is simply to irritate as many people as possible and thus initiate heated debate. Conflict based meme development is what I aim for.
Posted by Lucifer's Lawyer
Inciting mental riots since 1973
By , at
2:30 PM
In regards to comparing interracial relationships to homosexual ones as you have asked that I do (I forgot previously so I'll address it now). One could argue that a logical scientific arguement for interracial marriage is that by mixing races we eliminate negative reenforcement within the gene pool and thus make our species stronger. This cannot be said for homosexuality as the end effect of homosexuality is a lack of offspring which is something counter to the evolutionary drives that most people of the left seem to feel we are all beholden to. As for humans being special and unique in some way...that seems almost mystical and is certainly illogical. Can you explain to me what makes us better than our animal ancestors besides the power of speech? After all, even lab rats have shown that they can reason. If we are so special, why do you think that is. Could there possibly be some sort of divine spark within us that makes us special? If so, what are the implications of that?
Posted by Lucifer's Lawyer
Questioning the status quo since 1973
By , at
2:43 PM
Dude....your dog's a lesbian?! Do the male dogs fantasize about watching her with her girlfriend?
By , at
2:58 PM
Really, looking at homosexuality from a biological point of view is rather redundant nowadays - take a look at the world's population, currently standing at somewhere between 6 and 7 billion. I really don't think it's all that important any more if a few - or few hundred million, even - people are attracted to their own sex. There're billions more to take up the slack.
Perhaps 2000 years ago, when the population was much smaller, sex that didn't produce children mattered on the whole. Once we hit the steam age (100 years ago, more exactly) and the population fluctuated - people started living longer, having more children that survived, etc - not so much.
As for other species - dolphins, which are thought to be nearly as intelligent as humans (if not moreso), frequently engage in homosexual acts. So do the somewhat infamous Bonobo apes, which are really quite close genetically to humans - and who they sex rather than violence to solve conflicts (and if I remember right, not in a non-consenting manner, either).
And on a personal note, I think that folk should be allowed to do what they want, especially in matters of their personal life, as long as it's not hurting themselves or others. *shrug* Perhaps I'm just a crazy socialist/liberal Canuck for believing such, but...
~Dragon
By , at
8:35 PM
If you want to argue evolution, why are you forcing homosexuals to have sexual relations with members of the opposite gender? According to evolution (or at least natural selection) aren't they supposed to die out through a lack of breeding?
And what of technology? If you want to socially arbitrate sexuality just because we as humans are aware of natural selection, some firm limits need to be put on the use of technology.
By , at
2:14 AM
Try a search for the Darwin Awards.com and you'll see that despite our rapid 'evolution', some of us just can't survive without common sense. Darwin's theory worked fine on us until the physically weak and the smart people realized that they wouldn't mind surviving either. Luckily, instinct does not serve one as well as one with common sense nowadays. Like a man who cleans his gun while its loaded, or an old woman who removes the barricade and steps out into the street during the running of the bulls...
Even if we are curing diseases and whatnot, we're still very susceptable to Darwin's theory of evolution when we just don't use our latest evolutionary tool, common sense. As with cigarettes, guns, cars and anyone in Columbia who drunkenly decides to play soccer with a landmine, the ways we change our environment also provide the dumb and those lacking common sense new and often well-deserved ways to die.
A Darwin Award is rewarded to those noble individuals who eliminate themselves from the gene pool in a comedic or stupid way, thus entertaining the rest of us and improving the overall quality of our species. Of course, smart people cannot allow themselves to become arrogant, because an Atila the Hun demonstrated once, the smart are still often crushed by the strong, the armed and the dumb. Atila, by the way, is the recipiant of a Darwin because he died by getting into a drunken brawl and passing out into a puddle of his own blood, drowning himself.
Try as we may to avoid it, we humans will always be susceptable to Darwin's theory. Of course, this would not balance our species out, so to offset their lack of common sense, stupid people just procreate at a much faster rate so that their genes will survive even after they try car-surfing for the first time... I refuse to speculate as to which group I belong to because I will never have children, thus eliminating myself from contention for the awards before i trip over my cat at the top of the stairs again. Besides which, 'A fool doth think himself wise. A wise man doth know himself a fool'. If someone knows where that's from, please tell me, because I bet they never won a Darwin.
Also, to the author of the comic, tanks for not spoiling GTA:SA for those of us who have not had the chance to buy or play it and thanks for getting back to the gaming aspect of the comic. Still, I wonder which candidates would have voted to restrict the content of such video games...
Always assume nothing.
Always question everything.
Always believe in something,
Just not me.
- Infamous 370
By , at
6:00 AM
All right, I'm posting this expressly to start controversy, but hey...
With regards to the "no evolutionary basis for homosexuality" issue. I've thought about this occasionally and the best explanation I can come up with is that it's a sort of population-control failsafe mechanism built into the genetic code. That is, perhaps it's in our evolutionary best interests to have a certain percentage of the population *not* procreating, in case the human race starts to crowd itself too much and needs a non-catastrophic thinning. (Some would argue that this is happening now re: pollution, famine, etc.) The more people on earth, the more people not breeding. This would benefit the human race as a whole, if not necessarily the homosexuals themselves...but there's analagous "altruistic" behavior in other animals that likewise inconvenience individuals while contributing to the survival of the species.
So don't knock the homosexuals--they might just be saving our butts.
That's my opinion...please proceed to mercilessly deconstruct it.
By , at
6:31 AM
If homosexuality is for the purpose of population control, then we should be able to accelerate the pace by eliminating all homosexuals. This theory has them marked for extinction anyway so we should look at them as an evolutionary dead end and get rid of them before they use up any more of our valuable resources. Step right this way folks and pick up your line ticket for your appointment with Dr. Kevorkian.
By , at
6:48 AM
Killing off all the gay people won't control the population, it'll just force more people to hide their gayness and possibly do things with the opposite sex, and because of that: HAVING BABIES, even though they don't really want to. In other words, sure we'll lose 10% or so of our population RIGHT NOW, but in the future it will shoot up even more because of that.
And not everyone from the anti-Bush group is all "how could Kerry lose" and whining. I hate Bush and wish he'd just die and go to hell, but I do realize he won and it's too late to change anything. All we can do now is hope he doesn't start another 57 wars in countries that never did anything to us. (Afghanistan at least had a reason--Osama is {or actually WAS, until we had to announce it to the world BEFORE we went over there...} in Afghanistan, Osama's terrorists bombed us and killed thousands of people and destroyed one of our landmark buildings. That's a reason. Iraq was pointless though.)
By , at
7:24 AM
Excellent. This sounds like a student of my line of thought. It certainly makes sense to ME that if homosexuality is an evolutionary response to overpopulation then we SHOULD go ahead and get rid of the homosexuals (humanely of course). If the evolutionary process has identified them as a dead end then who are we to argue with the forces of nature? By all means lets cull the herd.
Posted by Lucifer's Lawyer
Going to extremes since 1973
By , at
7:28 AM
Well let me say this first and foremost you don't even know what the bible says. In the Torah it is said this "V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee." Now because language was diffrent than it was then we don't know what it means, literaly translated it means "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman" however that doesn't sound a bit like these diffrent bibles. It's called trying to fit cultral norms.
ESV: (English Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is abomination."
KJV: (King James Version): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination".
LB: (Living Bible): "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin"
Net Bible: "You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act." 1
NIV: (New International Version) "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
NLT: (New Living Translation): "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.
RSV: (Revised Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination .
Also, it's considered Ceremonial uncleanliness (unkosher) in Judiasm (I'm a reform Jew) examples of Unkosher things are eating birds of prey, eating shellfish, cross breeding livestock, picking up sticks on a Saturday, planting a mixture of seeds in a field, and wearing clothing that is a blend of two textiles are examples of acts of ritual impurity which made a Child of Israel unclean. Mostly these were to keep people protected (rabbis have alot of responsibility, much like a mayor or a village chief at that time)
Once again:
Moral sin: This is: "...a conscious, intentional, personal attitude and act. It originates in a corrupted heart, the seat of the will and understanding. It is religious, rebellion against God."
The base for my beliefs on Moral sin would be the 10 comandments. BTW now that I'm on the subject, that person who posted for the killing of all the gay people is seriously screwed up. Seriously, your condeming them for sining when you are ploting to commit one of the greatest offenses and sin(genocide)that anyone can do. Thou shalt not kill right?
Who said anything about sin...I thought we were talking about evolutionary dead wood.
By , at
11:12 AM
First thing; the study used to establish that homosexuality is genetic has been discredited. They studied identical twins on a large scale and recorded how often homosexual behavior occured. If it was genetic, there would be something very close to a one-to-one correlation in homosexuality, so that if one twin was homosexual, the other would be as well (there are very tiny genetic differences in twins that would keep it from being exactly perfect). The statistics didn't show anything even close to this. I am not saying that people don't have a predisposition to certain types of behaviour, I merely submit that to say people have no choice based on genetic factors is absurd. Regardless, a genetic predisposition not to breed would quickly disappear from the population. And the idea of a recurring mutation has no substance outside of the realm of speculation.
The second thing I want to get out in the open is the 10% gay statistic. It is just not true. The study, done in the 50's, was based on the cadavers of sexual deviants and criminals from a mental institute. By examining the corpses, the researcher determined the occurence of homosexuality in the population at large. No one takes the study seriously, and a proper one to replace it has never been undertaken. Even some homosexual advocates have admitted they knew the 10% statistic was a fabrication, and simply used for rhetorical purposes. Ten percent sounds nice and solid. The actual figure, based on recent estimates, hovers around 3% to 4%.
The thing that really bothers me about the homosexual debate is the way people focus their lives around sex. I'm not just talking about homosexuals; this applies to heterosexuals as well. It reduces us to the level of animals. I know it is highly darwinian to believe that reproduction (or sex) is the be all and end all of human existance. But is that all that it means to be human? Are we really nothing more than animals? That fact that I find this hard to say disturbs me, because it is only about sexual gratification. That road seems to lead into a very empty place.
Just a few things to think about. And I sincerely hope that you do.
-Tertullian
By , at
11:28 AM
Sex is the greatest thing a person can ever do and anybody who says otherwise must be bitter about not getting any or having a small penis or being impotent or something.
By , at
1:07 PM
So speaks a man controlled by his balls. Remember, you only have enough blood for your brain, or your penis. Try to let the upper half of your body have its fair share.
-Archimedes
By , at
1:12 PM
Hey LL. You do know you're a total Sophist, right?
By , at
1:21 PM
Sophist: Etymology: Latin sophista, from Greek sophistEs, literally, expert, wise man.
Thank you!!!
Posted by Lucifer's Lawyer
Irritating YOU since 2004
By , at
1:49 PM
Sophist: Any of a group of professional fifth-century B.C. Greek philosophers and teachers who speculated on theology, metaphysics, and the sciences, and who were later characterized by Plato as SUPERFICIAL MANIPULATORS OF RHETORIC AND DIALECTIC.
I don't think you're Greek, or that old, but I think I've made my point.
Sophist is a term of contempt, by the by. But you already knew that.
By , at
2:42 PM
Admenum. I'm not actually irritated. I'm just making sure you know. You could through it into your little blurb:
Spreading sophistry since someone said so! (Isn't alliteration fun?)
By , at
2:44 PM
correction. Throw, not through. Oopsie.
By , at
2:46 PM
I see, so now you've resorted to name calling. How mature.
-LL
By , at
2:50 PM
Uhh, there is honestly a misunderstanding here. I'm just giving you a fancy description for what you've already called yourself. You admitted that you were just doing this to stir the pot, because you like debate. That's what sophists DO. Everything else I've said has just been clowning around.
I'm sorry if I've offended you, and I apologize. That was honestly not my intention.
By , at
3:00 PM
I'm still just kidding too. Truthfully, everything I've said has been in good fun. I'm actually a huge advocate of individual freedoms, but I do like to "stir the pot" as you put it. That is not to say that I agree with any of YOUR opinions or disagree with any of the views that I've presented, I just think if a man's arguments are good enough to persuade government officials to pass a law, then they ought to be good enough to persuade individual Americans to act the way they think they should without being forced to by a law. If you can't convince people that you're right then you probably shouldn't have the laws. That's why I became a teacher. That's right folks....I'm out here somewhere and I'm teaching your children. Interestingly enough I teach American Government, AND debate. :)
Posted by Lucifer's Lawyer
Just having fun with you since 1973
Have a great weekend everyone!!! See ya' on Monday.
By , at
5:23 PM
Awwwwww c'mon!
Lucifer-dude is the closest thing to making me laugh in here!
Glad to see Sore Thumbs drag itself out of the ditch with the latest comic, I might just put it back in my favourites...
-Toteone
Aren't there more importan issues then homosexual marriages btw. it's my turn to stir the pot or whatever.
Who thinks the war in Iraq will be good for the country in the very long run? I believe removing Saddam Hussein has freed the Kurds and alleviated much of the opression the Shia minority was experiencing from the Sunnis. Not to mention Israel's borders are safer and less people are dying per day as compared to the days of Saddam Hussein ('cuz of the war with Iran).
These were my personal reasons for supporting the U.S.-led war and I still support it because the Kurds are now safer and Saddam is gone.
Must agree I was conned by anglo-american intelligence into believing the WMD accusations, but I was reluctant in taking that as a reason for invading. Sooo time for a provocative question:
Why is it OK to invade another country because the government/mad ruler wants/might/probably/does have WMD but it's not OK to invade because oppressed minorities are suffering?
BAAAAH OIL! At least I know who butters my bread.
Pax America!
(Thank you Lucy, this might be interesting...)
By , at
6:19 PM
oooohh and here's something nice to cool your troubled minds
http://www.photovault.com/Link/Food/Tabletop/Fruits/show.asp?tg=FTFVolume01/FTFV01P10_12.0953
By , at
6:20 PM
Yeah, I'd have to agree with part of that comment. The Kurds are far better off. That region has had little problems. The real bitch of the whole thing is that they'll get screwed again. They were already muscled out of interm prime misnister by bitching Shiites... They'll get screwed again too, because they aren't going out killing each other everyday.
Sweaky wheel gets the oil instead of getting thrown out in this case.
-Gabe
By , at
6:52 PM
I strongly suggest that people reconsider their views on why people voted for which candidate.
I am not smarter or dumber than anyone else because of who I voted for, and I did not vote for a particular candidate because I smart or dumb.
I hope that some of you might accept that, instead of saying that half of America must surely be stupid.
Maybe half of the country just views how the country should be run differently from the other half?
Better yet, what happened to tolerence? I'm free to do many things in this country, but apparantly, voting without criticism isn't one of them.
By , at
11:06 PM
You're right. You don't have the right to vote without critism nor should you.
I don't think half the country is stupid. I think that 90% of the country is ignorant, morally misguided and fearful of threats that pose simular theats as ghosts and monsters.
I wish it were only as simple as stupidity. There is something deeper causing people to disregard logic with such ease and readily buy emotional snake oil.
-Gabe
By , at
11:35 PM
The biggest farce of this election is how many people thought that it mattered who was elected and how much stock was put in the powers of the president of the United States. The president has little to do with the economy and is almost always limited by his own party. Yes, he does have power, but certainly not have as far reaching powers as the urgancy of the election suggested.
Both parties succeeded is controling the thoughts and actions of the majority of people. The majority of Americans thought that the parties were important, what was most important. That love of your country and government was what matters most in your life and not what you control within your own life. There wasn't an aspect of the human experience that they said they couldn't improve and that people believed that they would. All of it.
That's the key problem. When people start thinking that their government has such far reaching powers, they eventually come to terms with it and it eventually becomes true.
Having not voted in this election is the greatest sign of emotional and phycological health that I can think of.
-Gabe
By , at
11:44 PM
Aren't some of you ashamed of what you said, thought, or felt about other people during the election now that it's over?
By , at
11:46 PM
So hate against the Kurds is a general problem in Iraq, just like how Europe had a tendency to hate Jews and still do?
-Toteone
By , at
3:50 AM
I think it would be make far for sense for the Kurds to get their own nation in northern Iraq. It makes far more sense than it did to give the Jews part of Palistein.
Yes, I have given up on pretending that I know how to spell even simpliest words...
-Gabe
By , at
4:38 AM
Evolutionary dead wood? Evolution is a dead theory.
Radio-carbon dating is used to identify the age of rocks by measuring the decay of certain types of isotopes. Radio-carbon dating is accurate for about 5,000 years and can no longer detect the decay of isotopes after about 15,000 years. To date there has never been a rock sample that radio-carbon dating has failed to age. What this means is that the million year old fish that was found in million year old rock layers is ony eight or nine thousand years old.
Around ten years ago a Massachusets University ( I forget which, it's been a while since I researched this,) made a comuter program to determine how long it would take for a single celled organism to evolve into a human it would take over 3,000,000,000,000 years. ( three trillion ) According to evolutionary theory the earth is only 4.5 billion years old.
There are so many flaws to evolutionary theory. So stop useing it as an excuse for the existance of homosexuals.
By , at
11:21 AM
Gabe: One thing you might want to remember is that the average person who votes for a President is generally far less informed about the rest of the candidates for other positions on the ballot.
If one aligns himself in party affiliation with the presidential candidate, let's say George Bush, he is far more likely to vote for a Republican senator than a Democrat.
And Congress, as we all know, does have considerable influential power considering it legislates federal law.
So yes. It matters more than you might think.