Giantkitty

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22445.html

"GOP, RNC to rebrand Democrats as 'Socialists'" (May 13, 2009)

First paragraph:

"A member of the Republican National Committee told me Tuesday that when the RNC meets in an extraordinary special session next week, it will approve a resolution rebranding Democrats as the “Democrat Socialist Party.”

Okay, why are they doing such a childish and futile thing at this time? You can't just rename another established organization (maybe you could pass a law, I suppose - will the Dem controlled Senate and Obama go for it?). Won't that make Congressional proceedings more complicated? Are the Dems really that Socialist? Don'y you have to be an adult to run for Congress?

Aren't there better things they could be doing? You know the economy and stuff (I want them to have real issue ideas to counter Obama's - that's what democracies do). This resolution should be thought of on a very slow news day, if at all. We're paying idiots hundreds of thousands of dollars to come up with this. Will the Dems counter by resolving to call them doody-heads?

At least Steele is against it (please +1 him if you get the chance), there's others too I can't remember. If you're at all involved with the Republican party, please do what you can to halt this. Tell everyone what a stupidity this is on so many levels.

"Jayge, you misspelled "Please". There's only one "e" in there, not seven. See me later."

    Another recommendation would be giving, um, I can't think of a better term, "snitch points," where someone correctly identifies someone that has a "bad" post.  Note it has to be an authentic snitch, and not just "I don't like him"
    Why have snitch points? Well, if someone wants to be a forum moderator, this can show how often they are on the boards and they can identify the bad posts and show a desire to get the situation corrected. This is basically what forum moderators do. Even if the higher ups don't actually give points, they'll at least be able to see the people who really care and can identify real problems, so when they have their secret elections, this can be used to help decide.
    And no people, don't abuse this to try to become a mod. Who wants a mod that comes down on people for everything? And one sure way not to become a mod is to bug the higher ups that you want to be one, cabals don't work that way.

What if you flag yourself? Do you get -2 karma points?

I would like an implementation of some kind of +1 system (so when scrolling down, I don't have to read through a bunch of "+1" "agree" "hell, yeah!" posts) - sometimes people just want to do that without too much comment. Some initial stipulations:

1. You can't +1 yourself - an admonishing Luchadeer should pop up
2. You can only +1 a post once
3. You should be limited to say, five a day - pick the 5 best posts and +1 them, if a sixth comes up, you can +1 it tomorrow. This helps prevent circle jerk enabling and people who compliment anything and brown nosing and "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" people.
   
4. This in no way "cancels" bad karma points. If someone posts an inappropriate post and a like minded troll +1's it, too bad, it gets handled the same way by the mods

Here's the failed Mortal Kombat / Broadway crossover:




The version you can only get in some parts of Europe:



Mortal Kutekat:

Would Catcher in the Rye be the first GTA? Remember when he wouldn't pay that prostitute?

Oliver Twist could be a Cooking mama rip off, except with gruel.

Teddy bears are too cute and fluffy to have one?

Here's the USA Today article from last Wednesday:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-02-18-gopstimulus_N.htm?csp=34

Republican Governors may reject at least some of the stimulus money.

It's LGBT at Wikipedia. I work at a top 10 university and that's the only way I heard it.

>People seem to forget that it is a theory of evolution, not a law. We have no absolute evidence yet and unfortunately,
>Why it's a theory? because it's never been proven?
>If the theory of evolution was widely accepted and proven, it would be a law

As a reminder, for something to be a scientific law, it has to be mathematically proven, otherwise it is still a theory. Some theories hold more "weight" or are more "true" than others. Evolution has been around for a while, it doesn't look like it's going away anytime soon (It's possible that it can be disproven, like if someone can prove a flying spaghetti monster "made evolution" as an elaborate hoax - good luck proving that). Take atomic theory, anyone hear about that atomic law?  Of course not, because how do you mathematically prove an atom is made of protons, neutrons, and electrons? But does anybody here don't think that's not true about atoms? Take quarks, it "builds upon' atomic theory. Evolution is a bit trickier, because you mostly can't set up an "evolution lab," so many tenets are observational, and living organisms don't behave like atoms. Anyways, evolution is widely accepted (except by Oral Roberts university students), even though we don't know everything about it or if there are things we might think are "true" now, but will be proven to be false later (these will be minor points and will not be "lynch pins" that creationists want you to believe will have evolution crashing on its ears)

>the fact that Parallel Lines never cut each other except in infinite limit. (as far as I'm concerned)

No, parallel lines are always equidistant from each other and never meeting, even at infinity. The series of numbers 1/2, 3/4, 5/6 ... approaches 1 at infinity, but you can see it gets closer and closer to 1 at each step. Pararell lines are always equidistant. Infinity is not a magic place where anything can happen.

>And we can take evolution as a proofless fact, but any logical man will deny it.

Evolution, a branch of science, is always "proving" itself. And no, you can't logically "deny" it, for that would be an appeal to ignorance (saying something is false because it hasn't been proved) - the same fallacy says you can't say it's absolutely true either.

>evolution takes faith,

Evolution takes theorizing, experimenting, rehashing, etc., but no "faith." Trust maybe, but not faith (which is something that takes no evidence to believe in - not very scientific)

>no definite absolute proof for anything in science

Laws are about as close to "absolute proof' without getting super-existential, like believing everything is an illusion or everything is a mean trick played on us.