saangels

Kind of ironic (per wikipedia): The university was chartered by an Act of Congress on February 24, 1893.  

Also: The Princeton Review voted American University the most politically active university in the country in 2008, 2010 and 2012.  

That really says a lot if students enrolled in the nation's most politically active university can't name a single senator...  

Where the hell is American University?  I've never heard of it.  

Cheap Seats

Love this trade.  

A douchebag IE Bro pretending to be a tortured, self-hating local OC pseudo-intellectual liberal?  F'ing bravo amigo.  Clap Clap Clap.

 

Since we are confessing, I am saangels.  If you've met the young man I hired to portray the role in person, his name is Thomas and he currently goes to Cal State Long Beach, he has never smoked pot, and has a lovely wife a two great kids.  Thanks Tom!

The real confession, I suppose, is that I, calscuf, suffer from a split personality disorder.  It's an ailment that I've grappled with in secret for some time.  I used to feel shame, bitterness, and resentment towards God for striking me with this seemingly debilitating condition.  But now I realize that I have nothing to feel sorry about.  On the contrary: both personalities are charismatic, original, and yet, simultaneously, one of a kind.  As I see it, some people have no personality; I have two.  

What's the problem?

lol 

Apparently we didn't learn our lesson with Hideki Matsui.  We don't need another slow, aging left handed DH to clog up the bases.  Granted, Ibanez has raked at Angel Stadium over his career, and had a good season last year; but how much longer can he continue to put up these numbers?  He's in his forties for crying out loud.  

There is so much opportunity out there and money to be had. I don't have any sympathy for these folks. 

Shouldn't you take it on a case by case basis?  Are you telling me you have no sympathy for the character TennAngelsfan outlined in his previous post?  Let's stop thinking in terms of stereotypes.  Every McDonald's worker isn't a dumb, fat, illiterate slob, contrary to the way some of you guys portray them.  Sure, there are people out there who lack ambition and are content making peanuts; but there are also people who are brought up in poverty and need to start working ASAP in order to support a family.  They don't have the time or resources for college; they don't have dress clothes to work--let alone even interview--at Nordstrom or Bloomingdales.  They need to put food on the table.  It's hard to save up and prepare for the future when you're making $8 an hour.  

Now, is it possible for these people to "make it"?  Yes, it is.  But let's not paint the picture of a one-dimensional idealized society where mere effort translates into immutable success.  Life is a lot more complicated than that.  

I guess Jack is going to have to make it 2 Tacos for 1.99.

Or downgrade from grade D- to grade F meat.  Those tacos are terrible.  

I admit that $15 an hour is a bit of a stretch, but these people do have a legit gripe.  Under no circumstance, in the wealthiest country in the world, should anybody have to work full time to earn below the poverty line.  

Karl Barx.  And if you get a cat, Chairman Meow. 

Welcome, Ken.  

"Most scholars admit that the Socialist control of a country's healthcare is the ultimate in central control of the people."

lol @ "most scholars." 

Most scholars would ask you to provide a link or some evidence in the name of research to back up that vague and grossly unfounded statement.  Do you have any idea how many scholars there are in the world?  Neither do I.  What kind of scholars are you talking about--economists, historians, philosophers, politicians...?  How many of x undefined scholars were surveyed in this poll of yours?  Exactly.  Get outta here with your "most scholars" b.s.  You have a right to your opinion, but don't just make sh*t up.      

Sorry for the delayed response.  I've been working a lot.  Finally found some time to sit down and look the thread over.  I'd like to make a few comments.  First, and most importantly, I've done some research on GMO's and, although it still seems that there are a number of unknown variables which have yet to be unveiled, I think I can say with confidence that I over-reacted and mispoke.  My views have changed.  I am still fervently against hormones in food; but insofar as GMO's are concerned, it appears that they are less harmful than I originally believed.  Laugh it up, point your finger, call me a hypocrite--I don't care.  I learned something.  I'm happy.  

To Brandon: I never claimed that Obama was anti-GMO.  I even went so far to say that I wouldn't be surprised to see that he was in favor of them.  So I dunno why you acted as though you'd slammed a volleyball in my face with that "game set match" quip.  But it's fine.  Other than that I had no problem with your comment.     

To Bruce: yes, Obama may be more of a dictator than any president before him excluding George W. Bush.  I'll give you that.

To everyone: I apologize for my ignorance on the matter of GMOs.      

Before you ask the question of , perhaps you should establish that conservatives are in fact supportive of corporations "right" to genetically modify food. Or we can try to slay the strawman I guess.

Again, it's a matter of regulating the free market.  Conservatives are opposed to regulating the free market.  The definition of a free market is: "an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses."  Note the word unrestricted.  There are no extenuating circumstances.

You got a problem?  Take it up with the dictionary.  

Ok, I think many spend too much time worrying about sides.

 

Regardless, I derive my opinion of Obama's point of view by his inaction.  Fair enough?

I think many spend too much time worrying about sides too.  Believe me, I harp on this topic more than anybody I know.  But to avoid discussing the fundamental principles that distinguish from one another our two current political parties would be ignorant.  They stand for certain things, republicans and democrats.  The politicians are all corrupt, but the philosophies don't have to be.      

Just think back to high school English. It means "To buttle again".

If every spelling error on this message board became a topic of concern we wouldn't get beyond the first page on any issue.  It's a great way to dodge the question and change the subject though.  I'll give Bruce that much credit.    

The reason I am asking conservatives to defend this issue is because it pertains to regulation of the free market.  

And who says that Obama doesn't have a problem with GMOs?  I mean, maybe he doesn't, but from where are you deriving this information?  

Huge win for USC.

I'm not a conservative. But couldn't you just not eat the food?

An intelligent and respectable response.  I try not to eat the food, but it's somewhat difficult.  The majority of the meat, dairy products, fruits, and vegetables that I have access to has been genetically modified.  Not all of it, but a lot of it.  I could, of course, buy exclusively from grocery stores like Mother's; but that food is expensive, and, unfortunately, I'm not rich.

Hope everything was spelled right.  I'm using my friend's computer.  Don't know how to run a spell check on a Mac.  Kinda worried about the words "exclusively" and "vegetable."  Something about them looks askew.  Fortunately spelling and common sense have relatively little to do with one another. 

Not to be argumentative, since I don't agree at all with the practice, but isn't there a liberal democrat in office right now?

What does that have to do with anything?  He's not a dictator. 

We would if we knew what "rebuttle" means.

Did I spell rebuttal wrong?  Wow.  That changes everything.  Forget the question that I asked, guys.  The meaning has been altered irrevocably. 

Would any conservative care to offer a rebuttle as to how and why they support the corporations' right to use genetically modified organisms to mass produce foods that may very likely adversely effect the status of their own health?   

What the hell is up with these unpredictable 4th and long fake punts deep in the opponents own territories?  

Great win for the Bruins, though.  I think they can handle Arizona State and SC.  But you never know.  Should be fun to watch.

Nobody ever completes the list.  I think that's the whole point.  Thomas Jefferson had sex with his slaves.  Jean Jacque Rousseau renounced his children.  That doesn't mean that these people were incompetent or void of insight. 

I often act based on emotion rather than reason.

Likewise.  Although, I must say, I tried to counteract that defect once by acting without emotion--that is, by making decisions purely based on reason--and that didn't turn out very well either.  To get rid of the up and downs I almost flatlined, emotionally speaking.  Difficult to find a balance.  I think a lot of it has to do with what you put into your head.  When I read Ayn Rand or listen to Too $hort or Suga Free I become callous and self-centered.  When I watch Seinfeld or South Park I feel light hearted and impetuous.  When I smoke cigarettes, and nicotine flows through my bloodstream, I feel like a failure.  When I exercise the endorphins circulate in my brain and I'm happy.  Of course at the end of the day we are who we are, but there is no doubt that our personalities are flexible and somewhat within our means to control.