Quoi_Tu

Imagine if you attempted to avoid getting close to all those who played video games just because you don't agree with video games. This is unrealistic, to say the least. You might be able to avoid the obvious gamers -- those stereotypical geeks who socialize only by means of 'player chat' -- but for the rest of the population, some of which you may already be close with, it will be difficult to tell, let alone avoid all of them. :lol: Yeah, that might be a bit hard considering everyone plays video games these days. Not to be sexist, but I guess a person like that would be stuck with a lot of women... :thumbsup: ?

Spar Wid Me - English Beat Service

You just made yourself sound like a major [wagon] :roll: We're all an [wagon] at one point or another :roll: I sit on my assish tendencies.

Isn't that what the world does with muslims. A few muslims commit a terrorist act and then suddenly all muslims become terrorists? You are correct, sir!

This is an incredibly diverse population of people, as you said. How do you expect to differentiate users from non-users? Most of them, especially without the anonymity of the internet, will not tell you upfront about what they do in their own time. Your prejudice is comparable to early homophobia; it's an unrealistic aversion to an entire population of people (very few of whom fit the stereotype) based on their different beliefs and their "immoral" actions behind closed doors. The prejudice is no worse than avoiding becoming friends with jocks if you don't like sports or partiers if you don't like to party or gamers if you don't like to play video games. Those aren't necessarily right, but they don't necessarily have any malintent behind them. For example, I never become friends with prolific drug users because I don't do drugs. So, I don't know if I would compare it to homophobia; that seems a little extreme. Unless Saidin is saying something that I missed.

Then clearly you read my post in the wrong manner because such a generalization doesn't exist. If you're referring to the title, it's just that these terrorists HAPPEN to be American, thus "American Terrorists", not, "All Americans Are Terrorists". Moreover, this is also about that movie that is being sent around in people's mailboxes. My next door neighbor has already received two copies of them... Generalization: I think you just worded your post wrong. Individuals commit a crime and you say what is wrong with the country and we're gassing muslims. Maybe you should ask what is wrong with them not the place they live. Unless, of course, you are suggesting I am gassing Muslims?

I agree. There's a good reason I don't date smokers. Although, I've always been somehow connected to the "drugee" crowd (by that, I mean soft drug users with the occaisional hard drug user). I don't know why, since I barely even drink, but something about that type of person can be rather attractive. I hope you're being sarcastic with this...alcohol can kill you a lot faster than cigarettes can. You can't get nicotine poisoning, and being addicted to cigarettes is a lot better than being an alcoholic. You can get nicotine poisoning. Nicotine is a poison.

Wait, so let me get this straight. An american commits a terrorist act and suddenly all Americans are terrorists. Damn, where have I heard that type of generalization before? Clearly, people are overreacting.

How many push-ups do you do a day?

This topic kind of reminds me of the book, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Highly recommended read. For those who aren't familar with the book, the movie Blade Runner was based on it.

Not my cup of tea, and the only only dance club near me is a gay/lesbian club.

I own a 1978 Ross racing bike I found in the dumpster and restored. As for BMX biking, I never really did any of that. 45 pounds!? That seems a little heavy. The above mentioned bike weighs about that and it is all chrome and steel and built for >6' riders.

In the middle of explaining the Existence and Uniqueness theorem, my math prof started telling a joke about a drunk looking for a watch. It was a variation of this: Late at night, a drunk was on his knees beneath a street-light, evidently looking for something. A passer-by, being a good Samaritan, offered to help. What is it you have lost? he asked. My watch, replied the drunk. It fell off when I tripped over the pavement. The passer-by joined in the search but after a quarter of an hour, there was still no sign of the watch. Where exactly did you trip? asked the passer-by. About half a block up the street, replied the drunk. Then why are you looking for your watch here if you lost it half a block up the street? The drunk said: Because the lights a lot better here. I just wanted to post that joke...

I was there last April for the classic car show. : I might go again this year, especially since it was pouring that Saturday.

Local raceway? Only racing classes we have here are how to race sled dogs. Isn't there a raceway in Fairbanks? And I'm not sure about Anchorage, but there might be one there too. Of course, I don't know where you live, so that could be really far away from you. I'm too used to North Carolina where you don't have to drive more than an hour and a half to get to a race track. But we have the moonshine runner history behind us. Not that I know anything about moonshine... :thumbsup:

I'm not interested in NASCAR, but if you like the driving part of it, then I highly recommend taking a performance/high speed driving class that is most likely offered at your local raceway.

Agreed On topic: I wear jeans because I don't like wearing other types of long pants out in public. I like my jeans loose, faded, and slightly torn. Yes, I'm the kind of guy who buys jeans that look like they've been worn many times. Though I do have a few pairs that aren't like that, usually worn at events where comfort isn't what you're aiming for. You could do a lot of that yourself if you have access to a dremel or any other motorized grinding tool. Use that to create abraisions and tears, then sand paper to texture. Coffee and motor oil can be used to stain. Or bleech (if you like white...). I've never tried any of that, but I can't imagine it would take more than a Saturday afternoon, not to mention it would be really cheap.

[/hide] [hide=] [/hide] You seem to be pointing the finger of blame at the Clinton Administration when the Bush administration didn't do anything until after August 2007. Not to mention the Fed practically ignored the issue until about the same time.

When I was little, maybe 6-7 years old, I was deathly afraid of the deep end of the pool. I wouldn't go in that section of pool unless I had an inner tube.

Ideologically, if the impression you are getting is that I'm against laissez-faire capitalism, for the very situation we are in, then yes, that is the correct impression you are receiving. I assure you, Condoleezza Rice coming on British TV and telling us there is no alternative to laissez-faire capitalism was equally as irksome. As for the deal, I'm not particularly overjoyed with the deal on the table. If I was American, I wouldn't be happy about bailing the banks when their bosses earned bucket-loads in the first place for a "good job". So, if I understand correctly, you're against the current US administration's application of economic policy (which I think is a rather corrupted version of capitalism) rather than capitalism itself. If that's the case, then I agree. From what I understand, the banks actually won't be making that much money from the bailout, but will see their net worth go up. The government's going to buy the bad assets of the banks, which are worth a lot less than they should be. Once the economy rebounds (whenever that happens) a lot of those assets should gain their original worth back and the government will not have lost too significant amount of money. Of course, that's just the theory, which has a chance of falling to shreds.

[hide=all the times President Bush warned] [/hide] Kind of reminds me of what happened to Hoover in the Great Depression. And one reason he might not have been able to get that much done was because he wasn't, as far that list goes, trying to fix the source of the problem, sub-prime mortgages. This problem has stemmed from that lack of regulation. Who would've thought giving mortgages to people with bad credit could ever turn out disastrous?

Or even better, cargo shorts! Whenever I've been wearing jeans then put on a pair of caro shorts, it feels like I'm wearing nothing at all. Probably one of the main reasons I wear shorts throughout winter.

Fixed. You sound like a broken record or a socialist spouting rhetoric. Capitalism works just fine, but it does need regulation. The current US administration believes in low taxes, high spending, and a laissez-faire policy for many things with subsidiaries for "friends." None of that is economically smart and makes you wonder what the US population was thinking these past 8 years... The fact I mentioned the word capitalism doesn't make it some piece of socialist propaganda. I stated a fact, not an opinion. This is the worst crisis in a capitalist economy for 70 years. It's not my fault that touches a nerve with some people. True it is fact, but you mention this fact quite often, always labeling it capitalism. Meaning you're making a point about it being bad. Hence the "broken record" and "rhetoric" part of my post. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the impression I've been getting from a lot of your posts. Of course, I'm kind of dragging this off-topic, so I'll stop from here on out. I found it kind of curious that the republican pundit on CNN basically called Obama weak because of this. Apparently being a strong leader means being a stubborn leader.

Fixed. You sound like a broken record or a socialist spouting rhetoric. Capitalism works just fine, but it does need regulation. The current US administration believes in low taxes, high spending, and a laissez-faire policy for many things with subsidiaries for "friends." None of that is economically smart and makes you wonder what the US population was thinking these past 8 years...

Obama did really well in the debate, especially on the economy. McCain visibly struggled with the economy, but did really well during the second half, especially on foreign policy. I tried to watch it in a non-biased manner and, honestly, I think Obama took the lead with this one. McCain needed to work on his economic plan a bit more to since he is weak in that area. Can't wait for the next one! Round 1 Obama: 1 McCain: 0