Yes well if the Jack's hadn't stolen the election we would all be married to a gay person right nowApparently not everything is on the table.I am still pulling for the mandatory gay marriages.
MUHAHAHAHAHAHA!
|
How is it not? We make them do useless work of all kinds -- geometric proofs, etc. -- that they would never do of their own free will. Yes, they can refuse to turn in assignments (and fail), but they could just as easily refuse to do anything at the "community workshop" class as well (and fail that class). If the academic vs. active work is an important distinction for some reason, remember Phys Ed class -- also mandatory. And, yes, Michael Jordan got paid to play basketball, whereas our poor oppressed youth are being forced to do it for free! Why not abolish school altogether and really "give the kids their freedom back," and see what kind of adults they become?
"Work" in this context has a very specific meaning that should not be casually conflated with "a task requiring effort". Otherwise you devolve to a reductio ad absurdum of "It is work to get up to go to the bathroom. By not providing automatic bodily waste control, the government is forcing me to do work involuntarily!"
School is not labor.
It is not producing a product for sale no matter the individual mental or physical effort required for any specific task for any specific individual.
This is in direct contrast to the programs mentioned, all of which involve direct tasks to produce some result that would otherwise be marketable.
It is not producing a product for sale no matter the individual mental or physical effort required for any specific task for any specific individual. This is in direct contrast to the programs mentioned, all of which involve direct tasks to produce some result that would otherwise be marketable.
Like I said, playing basketball (unit in mandatory Phys Ed class) is a marketable activity -- look at the Bulls' salaries. Also, historical essays (as required in History class), baked goods (as required in Home Ec class), etc., etc. are otherwise marketable products. What you seem to be arguing is that we should "grandfather" in as allowable anything that's currently required that fits your definitions, but not allow the addition of anything new?
Well CF is Jack's veep.
Yes, but the Jacks and CJ himself have been pushing me away. I am debating resigning. I do not think I can continue on in good conscience with this administration.
[edited for spelling]
Conscious (adj.): 1. Awake; 2. Aware [of].
Conscience (n.): Sense of remorse for misdeeds.
Thank you, ma'am. I thought it looked wrong, but it got past my spell checker.
|
|
Like I said, playing basketball (unit in mandatory Phys Ed class) is a marketable activity -- look at the Bulls' salaries. Also, historical essays (as required in History class), baked goods (as required in Home Ec class), etc., etc. are otherwise marketable products. What you seem to be arguing is that we should "grandfather" in as allowable anything that's currently required that fits your definitions, but not allow the addition of anything new?
Playing professional basketball is a marketable activity.
Playing pick up games during a gym period is not.Playing at a level to qualify as a marketable product, and being so marketed, is never mandatory in a gym class.
A historical essay suitable for publication is a marketable product.
A historical essay submitted for a pre-college class is rarely marketable, and if it is, the student retains all rights to it anyone.
Writing at a level to qualify as a marketable product, and making such a sale, is never mandatory for any ordinary school essay.
Baked goods of suitable quality and quantity are marketable products.
Baked goods produced in the remaining Home Ec classes are rarely if either, and inevitably consumed immeditately and on site.
Assuming the class is manadatory, cooking at a marketable level is not.
What you are arguing is that similarity of appearance equates to similarity of marketability in an attempt to justify forced labor of an entirely different sort and scope. While a typical argument done to advance such proposals, it falls apart immediately upon any closer examination.
The labor to be performed in any of those organizations would otherwise have to be solicited on the open market. It is being replaced by involuntary service of minors. Shall we also force minors to work in factories and mines? How about sending them out to bring in the harvest? Should we also mandate indentured apprenticeships as well? Such is not that far from this.
Try and parse it however you like, but basic schoolwork is in no way the same as forced labor, however "voluntary" it may be suggested, and it in violates both the Constitution, basic due process, and the spirit of laws against child labor.
What network will the debate be on?
SpikeTV
|
|
While I totally back up Samuel that the 13th amendment clearly outlaws mandatory national service because it is involuntary servitude, there won't be much resistance if Obama gets such a requirement through Congress.
That is because the US Supreme Court in 1917 ruled that the draft(then the World War I Conscription Act) was constitutional. Basically Chief Justice White said in the ruling that citizens have a supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense and honor of the nation if there is a war, and so by definition that can't possibly be involuntary servitude.
Even if, you know, the person drafted doesn't want to serve. Basically the Supreme Court said that someone arguing that being drafted is slavery is making an utterly appalling argument, and because they find that argument apalling the person making that argument has therefore refuted themselves.
So rather than using any logic whatsoever, the Supreme Court explained that their feelings determined their ruling. Arguments which inspire feelings of repugnance, appallment or anger in Supreme Court justices hearing the argument are by definition not in line with the Constitution.
That refers to the draft and military service.
Extending that to school children should be no means be taken as a given.Also, you are confusing the final element of the ruling with the entire ruling.
This is it.
What they dismissed as illogical and self-refuting was this:
"Finally, as we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement."
That is, that the act of the nation declaring war and thus being able to the exercise of the power to draft people into the army for the defense of the nation was funcationall an act of creating a situation to permit involuntary servitude.
Indeed, I must agree. With no rational basis in any judicial theory, stating something so contrary to such reasoning must be taken as its own refutation.
For every other aspect, the ruling sets out clear and direct precedent and supporting legal theory, going back to the Anglo-Saxon fyrd, and up through the militia laws and drafts of the U.S. through colonial times, under the Articles of Confederation, and under the Constitution up to and through the Civil War, and up to the law applicable at that time.
Conversely, this case would be a threat as a precendet:
The corvee is Constitutional.
"Syllabus
The term involuntary servitude, as used in the Thirteenth Amendment, was intended to cover those forms of compulsory labor akin to African slavery which, in practical operation, would tend to produce like results, and not to interdict enforcement of duties owed by individuals to the state.
The great object of the Thirteenth Amendment was liberty under protection of effective government, and not destruction of the latter by depriving it of those essential powers which had always been properly exercised before its adoption.
The Fourteenth Amendment was intended to recognize and protect fundamental objects long recognized under the common law system.
Ancient usage and unanimity of judicial opinion justify the conclusion that, unless restrained by constitutional limitations, a state has inherent power to require every able-bodied man within its jurisdiction to labor for a reasonable period on public roads near his residence without direct compensation.
A reasonable amount of work on public roads near his residence is a part of the duty owed by able-bodied men to the public, and a requirement by a state to that effect does not amount to imposition of involuntary servitude otherwise than as a punishment for crime within the prohibition of the Thirteenth Amendment, nor does the enforcement of such requirement deprive persons of their liberty and property without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment."
Of course to cite that would require:
1. Proving a federal power to enact such a law (not established)
2. Proving such service is an essential power (not established)
3. Proving such service is a traditional power (not established)
4. Proving such service can reasonably be expected of all children, and not just able-bodied men (not established)
So it remains far from guaranteed to pass Constitutional muster.
Which of course is why they require a committee to investigate it, and another to figure out how to sell it, and yet another to figure out how to enforce it.
Oh, and note the precedent of the Florida statute referenced there.
People with money can buy their way out.
Playing professional basketball is a marketable activity.
Playing pick up games during a gym period is not.
Playing at a level to qualify as a marketable product, and being so marketed, is never mandatory in a gym class.The labor to be performed in any of those organizations would otherwise have to be solicited on the open market. It is being replaced by involuntary service of minors. Shall we also force minors to work in factories and mines? How about sending them out to bring in the harvest? Should we also mandate indentured apprenticeships as well? Such is not that far from this.
I'm trying to follow your logic and so arrive at sharing your conclusion, but still find myself at a different end point -- namely, that the determining factor is not one of skill or product output, but simply of precedence.
Miners, factory workers, and farmers are trained personnel, and hence have marketable skills. High school students typically lack these skills; if I put them in a spent mine to dig up valueless rock, there would be nothing marketable in terms of skill level or of product, and hence that would be OK? I disagree, obviously, and I think you do as well, but your arguments suggest otherwise. So the dividing line is really the fact that, currently, there is no mandatory Mining Technology class -- and hence one should not be added.
Marketable (paid) community service would likewise suggest some level of skill, experience, etc. that the "indentured" students would lack, so it's not a marketable level of skill or experience that's the issue there, either. Nor is it the final product, as we've seen with the abandoned mine -- there is not necessarily a defineable "end product". So what, really, is the determining factor? Again, the fact that there is currently no existing Civics class conducted outside the school grounds.
|
|
I'm trying to follow your logic and so arrive at sharing your conclusion, but still find myself at a different end point -- namely, that the determining factor is not one of skill or product output, but simply of precedence.
It is both.
Miners, factory workers, and farmers are trained personnel, and hence have marketable skills. High school students typically lack these skills; if I put them in a spent mine to dig up valueless rock, there would be nothing marketable in terms of skill level or of product, and hence that would be OK? I disagree, obviously, and I think you do as well, but your arguments suggest otherwise. So the dividing line is really the fact that, currently, there is no mandatory Mining Technology class -- and hence one should not be added.
It would not be okay, and my arguments have always stated so.
What is the purpose of putting them in said spent mine, other than to endanger their lives because of their of training?The only rational answer would be to clean the place up.
Such clean up is the purview of adults, hopefully trained ones.
That makes any such labor actual work.
Marketable (paid) community service would likewise suggest some level of skill, experience, etc. that the "indentured" students would lack, so it's not a marketable level of skill or experience that's the issue there, either. Nor is it the final product, as we've seen with the abandoned mine -- there is not necessarily a defineable "end product". So what, really, is the determining factor?
Incorrect.
Roaming around, cleaning up streets, picking up garbage, and similar activities while untrained or of limited training, are actively marketable. That is why so many workfare assignments for similar tasks required negotiations with unions overseeing cleaning.And there is a definable end product, a cleaned up site.
Again, the fact that there is currently no existing Civics class conducted outside the school grounds.
In what way does labor constitute education in civics?
If you want to suggest adding a classroom requirement in civics I would certainly support that. Such is sorely missing from the current schedule.It is however starkly different from some glorious labor projects for the Motherland, with delirious expectation of exceeding production norms.
If you want to suggest adding a classroom requirement in civics I would certainly support that. Such is sorely missing from the current schedule. It is however starkly different from some glorious labor projects for the Motherland, with delirious expectation of exceeding production norms.
You and I agree fairly closely, then, despite having different starting points (to me, if something teaches a useful skill, technique, or attitude, it might be required; if not, it should not be required). The wording of the bill makes it unclear whether the kids would be visiting old folks or picking up trash. In the former case, you and I might both be OK with it; in the latter case, neither you nor I would really approve -- you because it smacks of forced labor; me because a bunch of kids wandering around and pretrending to pick up trash aren't learning anything at all from the experience -- except maybe that litter is annoying.
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Bush-era Conservatives tend to be people who spend a lot of time in their trucks (hence the ubiquitousness of conservative talk radio),I know I tend to cling to my guns and my religion.
Generalizations are apparently only ok when you need to insult conservatives to continue making your point. Millions of dollars are spent telling black people, gay people, old people, hispanics, and agnostics that Republicans won't let them into their exclusive, stereotyping club. But it was Dean making the comment that Republicans couldn't get black people into a hotel ballroom unless it included the wait staff. It was liberal cartoonists that referred to Dr. Rice as a 'house nigga' in their cartoons. Liberals told the country that sexual harassment was a huge problem in government and the military when trumped up charges were brought against Clarence Thomas, but then circled the wagons around Bill Clinton and said 'Who cares? It's the economy!' (Not that CLinton had much to do with an improving economy, compared to the impact of welfare reform and a previous decade of tax cuts).
But, I know. When the facts are dragged out, suddenly we conservatives "all look alike" to liberals.
Bush-era Conservatives tend to be people who spend a lot of time in their trucks (hence the ubiquitousness of conservative talk radio)
Generalizations are apparently only ok when you need to insult conservatives to continue making your point. But, I know. When the facts are dragged out, suddenly we conservatives "all look alike" to liberals.
Is spending as lot of time in the truck an insult? The liberals I know spend all that time in their ivory towers instead, reading liberal newspapers. But, from personal acquaintance, the people I know who (a) drive their trucks next door in preference to walking; (b) drive their trucks an hour and a half to work, but still vote against public transportation; and (c) sit in their trucks for extended periods of time doing who knows what -- these people are, in a 1:1 ratio, also the people who can't seem to have a conversation about any topic you'd care to name without quoting Limbaugh, et al.. "My point" was simply that the predominant media in each case are appropriate to the people who want to hear the respective messages being given.
Of course a lot of conservatives look alike to me; most liberals look the same way. And both groups spend an inordinate amount of time crying martyr -- often about conversations that everyone else forgot about some months in the past.
Is spending as lot of time in the truck an insult?
Of course not Kirth. However, generalizing a whole group of people by a few that you know is not exactly scientific. As a scientist you should know that. I'll give you an example. The libs that I personally know are not for gay marriage. If I tried to make the assumption that most libs are not for gay marriage I would be wrong wouldn't I?
|
|
Is spending as lot of time in the truck an insult?Of course not Kirth. However, generalizing a whole group of people by a few that you know is not exactly scientific. As a scientist you should know that. The libs that I personally know are not for gay marriage. If I tried to make the assumption that most libs are not for gay marriage I would be wrong wouldn't I?
Are you sure they're really liberals? They might be slightly less conservative conservatives. I mean, you guys think Obama is a socialist, or even a communist *giggles* Sorry, that always cracks me up.
Is spending as lot of time in the truck an insult?Of course not Kirth. However, generalizing a whole group of people by a few that you know is not exactly scientific. As a scientist you should know that. The libs that I personally know are not for gay marriage. If I tried to make the assumption that most libs are not for gay marriage I would be wrong wouldn't I?Are you sure they're really liberals? They might be slightly less conservative conservatives. I mean, you guys think Obama is a socialist, or even a communist *giggles* Sorry, that always cracks me up.
** spoiler omitted **
Oh yeah, they're liberals. Republicans are evil, The wealthy don't pay enough taxes, Bush should be impeached, Bush is the worst president ever, blah, blah, blah. :)
However, generalizing a whole group of people by a few that you know is not exactly scientific. As a scientist you should know that.
True, I know it well. I also know, however, that in a random sample, if, say N=20 and factor A and B are found in conjunction with each other 19 out of 20 times, then it's straining coincidence a bit to assume that A and B do not correlate to some degree. One doesn't necessarily cause the other, of course, but there's a good chance something makes B more likely to be present if A is. I said "tend to be," and I'd say, for example, that 19/20 qualifies as a pretty strong tendency.
And the main thing is, I generalize about liberals AND conservatives, and I get a conservative rant about how "liberals like me" are "always generalizing about conservatives" ... and I'm also waiting for the inevitable liberal rant about "how dare you conservatives lump people together like that."
I guess the main point is, people of an extreme bent in either direction more often than not (but not always) assume anyone who doesn't share their personal standpoint is automatically an extemist of the other side.
|
Is spending as lot of time in the truck an insult?Of course not Kirth. However, generalizing a whole group of people by a few that you know is not exactly scientific. As a scientist you should know that. The libs that I personally know are not for gay marriage. If I tried to make the assumption that most libs are not for gay marriage I would be wrong wouldn't I?Are you sure they're really liberals? They might be slightly less conservative conservatives. I mean, you guys think Obama is a socialist, or even a communist *giggles* Sorry, that always cracks me up.
It depends on what you consider socialist. If you go by the dictionary definition "any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy," then Obama is certainly on his way, but then again so was George W. Bush. Just a few examples of Obama's socialist tendencies:
Car tsar
National health care
Executive compensation caps
Government spending is the only way to stimulate the economy
The president firing corporate CEOs
And that's just the list from the last two weeks.
|
|
And the main thing is, I generalize about liberals AND conservatives, and I get a conservative rant about how "liberals like me" are "always generalizing about conservatives" ... and I'm also waiting for the inevitable liberal rant about "how dare you conservatives lump people together like that."I guess the main point is, people of an extreme bent in either direction more often than not (but not always) assume anyone who doesn't share their personal standpoint is automatically an extemist of the other side.
How dare you demand something like objectivity and rational thought in politics!!!!! Everyone knows that you people down in Texas are just brain addled from too much time in the sun riding horses and lynching Mexicans who just want to live on the land that you stole from them. You texans are so full of fail that it is epic.
However, generalizing a whole group of people by a few that you know is not exactly scientific. As a scientist you should know that.True, I know it well. I also know, however, that in a random sample, if, say N=20 and factor A and B are found in conjunction with each other 19 out of 20 times, then it's straining coincidence a bit to assume that A and B do not correlate to some degree. One doesn't necessarily cause the other, of course, but there's a good chance something makes B more likely to be present if A is. I said "tend to be," and I'd say, for example, that 19/20 qualifies as a pretty strong tendency.
Well, in my personal sampling its probably about 2/10. You must live in the redneck part of Houston. :)
I guess the main point is, people of an extreme bent in either direction more often than not (but not always) assume anyone who doesn't share their personal standpoint is automatically an extemist of the other side.
I do agree with you on that. Look how many times Houstonderek has been accused of being a conservative for having the audacity to defend Christians and Republicans.
Everyone knows that you people down in Texas are just brain addled from too much time in the sun riding horses and lynching Mexicans who just want to live on the land that you stole from them. You texans are so full of fail that it is epic.
Uh,oh! Somebody just figured us out!
|
|
However, generalizing a whole group of people by a few that you know is not exactly scientific. As a scientist you should know that.True, I know it well. I also know, however, that in a random sample, if, say N=20 and factor A and B are found in conjunction with each other 19 out of 20 times, then it's straining coincidence a bit to assume that A and B do not correlate to some degree. One doesn't necessarily cause the other, of course, but there's a good chance something makes B more likely to be present if A is. I said "tend to be," and I'd say, for example, that 19/20 qualifies as a pretty strong tendency.Well, in my personal sampling its probably about 2/10. You must live in the redneck part of Houston. :)
I do agree with you on that. Look how many times Houstonderek has been accused of being a conservative for having the audacity to defend Christians and Republicans.I guess the main point is, people of an extreme bent in either direction more often than not (but not always) assume anyone who doesn't share their personal standpoint is automatically an extemist of the other side.
I thought my ears were ringing!
All I have to say is this: Dammit! I need a truck!
lynching Mexicans who just want to live on the land that you stole from them
That's the reason I didn't vote Kinky Friedman for governor...
Look how many times Houstonderek has been accused of being a conservative for having the audacity to defend Christians and Republicans.
But when he stands up for gays, he's obviously a bleedin'-heart liberal.
Get a rope!|
|
However, generalizing a whole group of people by a few that you know is not exactly scientific. As a scientist you should know that.True, I know it well. I also know, however, that in a random sample, if, say N=20 and factor A and B are found in conjunction with each other 19 out of 20 times, then it's straining coincidence a bit to assume that A and B do not correlate to some degree. One doesn't necessarily cause the other, of course, but there's a good chance something makes B more likely to be present if A is. I said "tend to be," and I'd say, for example, that 19/20 qualifies as a pretty strong tendency.Well, in my personal sampling its probably about 2/10. You must live in the redneck part of Houston. :)
I do agree with you on that. Look how many times Houstonderek has been accused of being a conservative for having the audacity to defend Christians and Republicans.I guess the main point is, people of an extreme bent in either direction more often than not (but not always) assume anyone who doesn't share their personal standpoint is automatically an extemist of the other side.
I thought my ears were ringing!
All I have to say is this: Dammit! I need a truck!
I used to work with a real redneck guy. He used to brag about driving his pickup home from work while chugging on a bottle of Jack and listening to Glenn Beck. Stupid hillbilly. ;p
I'm voting Joe Nemecheck for president.
During the debate, I'll make him say that he likes crepes. His whole campaign will fall apart, even if he softens it to "little pancakes."
|
|
And the main thing is, I generalize about liberals AND conservatives, and I get a conservative rant about how "liberals like me" are "always generalizing about conservatives" ... and I'm also waiting for the inevitable liberal rant about "how dare you conservatives lump people together like that."I guess the main point is, people of an extreme bent in either direction more often than not (but not always) assume anyone who doesn't share their personal standpoint is automatically an extemist of the other side.
How dare you demand something like objectivity and rational thought in politics!!!!! Everyone knows that you people down in Texas are just brain addled from too much time in the sun riding horses and lynching Mexicans who just want to live on the land that you stole from them. You texans are so full of fail that it is epic.
** spoiler omitted **
Howdy, Pilgrim. I reckon I should go for my six-shooters right now, but Buttercup's been kinda skittish since bein' spooked by that rattler in the sage this mornin', ridin' the fence line at the ranch. Damn, but that sun is hot.
I guess I'll have to show you some manners later, I gotta cut trails to catch them Messicans been usin' my ranch to cut across to that welfare office over yonder...
|
|
I'm voting Joe Nemecheck for president.During the debate, I'll make him say that he likes crepes. His whole campaign will fall apart, even if he softens it to "little pancakes."
I doubt that. He could just run an add showing the crash he had today, where he flipped his car and still managed to drive it off the track under it's own power. If he can do that with a race car, just imagine what he could do with a country.
|
|
I'm voting Joe Nemecheck for president.During the debate, I'll make him say that he likes crepes. His whole campaign will fall apart, even if he softens it to "little pancakes."
I prefer to think of infant Jesus. Eight pound, six ounce Baby Jesus. My best friend, though? He likes to think of Jesus as a Ninja...
|
|
And the main thing is, I generalize about liberals AND conservatives, and I get a conservative rant about how "liberals like me" are "always generalizing about conservatives" ... and I'm also waiting for the inevitable liberal rant about "how dare you conservatives lump people together like that."I guess the main point is, people of an extreme bent in either direction more often than not (but not always) assume anyone who doesn't share their personal standpoint is automatically an extemist of the other side.
How dare you demand something like objectivity and rational thought in politics!!!!! Everyone knows that you people down in Texas are just brain addled from too much time in the sun riding horses and lynching Mexicans who just want to live on the land that you stole from them. You texans are so full of fail that it is epic.
** spoiler omitted **
Howdy, Pilgrim. I reckon I should go for my six-shooters right now, but Buttercup's been kinda skittish since bein' spooked by that rattler in the sage this mornin', ridin' the fence line at the ranch. Damn, but that sun is hot.
I guess I'll have to show you some manners later, I gotta cut trails to catch them Messicans been usin' my ranch to cut across to that welfare office over yonder...
I've got a spot in my crew for a guy like you.
I prefer to think of infant Jesus.
I like the Christmas Jesus!
|
|
I prefer to think of infant Jesus. Eight pound, six ounce Baby Jesus. My best friend, though? He likes to think of Jesus as a Ninja...I'm voting Joe Nemecheck for president.During the debate, I'll make him say that he likes crepes. His whole campaign will fall apart, even if he softens it to "little pancakes."
Actually, Jesus was a pimp. I mean, dude travelled around with a bunch of women and twelve guys. How could he not be?
|
|
I prefer to think of infant Jesus. Eight pound, six ounce Baby Jesus. My best friend, though? He likes to think of Jesus as a Ninja...I'm voting Joe Nemecheck for president.During the debate, I'll make him say that he likes crepes. His whole campaign will fall apart, even if he softens it to "little pancakes."Actually, Jesus was a pimp. I mean, dude travelled around with a bunch of women and twelve guys. How could he not be?
** spoiler omitted **
Oh, kung-fu Jesus will hunt you down. You cannot hide from kung-fu Jesus.
The second coming has already occurred, and Jesus has taken a new name.
That name?
Evil doesn't stand a chance...
However, generalizing a whole group of people by a few that you know is not exactly scientific. As a scientist you should know that.True, I know it well. I also know, however, that in a random sample, if, say N=20 and factor A and B are found in conjunction with each other 19 out of 20 times, then it's straining coincidence a bit to assume that A and B do not correlate to some degree. One doesn't necessarily cause the other, of course, but there's a good chance something makes B more likely to be present if A is. I said "tend to be," and I'd say, for example, that 19/20 qualifies as a pretty strong tendency.Well, in my personal sampling its probably about 2/10. You must live in the redneck part of Houston. :)
I do agree with you on that. Look how many times Houstonderek has been accused of being a conservative for having the audacity to defend Christians and Republicans.I guess the main point is, people of an extreme bent in either direction more often than not (but not always) assume anyone who doesn't share their personal standpoint is automatically an extemist of the other side.
I thought my ears were ringing!
All I have to say is this: Dammit! I need a truck!
I do too. Currently, I screw up Kirth's view of conservatives. We can't have that now can we? ;)
Currently, I screw up Kirth's view of conservatives. We can't have that can we?
Currently, I've been branded a "dirty liberal," so now I'm screwing up my OWN view of liberals. If it makes you feel any better.
Currently, I screw up Kirth's view of conservatives. We can't have that can we?Currently, I've been branded a "dirty liberal," so now I'm screwing up my OWN view of liberals. If it makes you feel any better.
From whom? In my opinion you're a little left of center but I wouldn't put you in the "dirty liberal" category.
|
|
From whom? In my opinion you're a little left of center but I wouldn't put you in the "dirty liberal" category.Currently, I screw up Kirth's view of conservatives. We can't have that can we?Currently, I've been branded a "dirty liberal," so now I'm screwing up my OWN view of liberals. If it makes you feel any better.
You kidding? When we had our regular game on Sundays, everyone else showed up with dice and a PHB.
Kirth? Well, he always brought Mao's Little Red Book and spend five hours trying to "reeducate" us.
"A little left of center" my ass...
;)
Kirth? Well, he always brought Mao's Little Red Book and spend five hours trying to "reeducate" us.
Derek's just upset because I wanted him to play the game instead of salivating over the "Wealth by Level" tables.
From whom?
I foolishly mentioned to my boss that I was watching the John Adams miniseries. He said, "Oh, that's by HBO, so it's revisionist liberal propaganda." I tried to mention that a lot of the dialogue seemed to have been taken directly out of Adams' letters, and the rebuff was, "Well, I'd be much more aware of the left-wing slant than you obviously are." I gave up after that.