decomposinglight

I'm sorry that I don't know how to help you. I hope it works out.

I say it's right to buy things from China, not because we help them by doing so or hurt them by not doing so, but because it's pointless. You're not going to get a large scale boycott against buying things made in China. Trade with China just benefits the West too much. For example, a year ago Canada was the U.S.' #1 trading partner; now, it's China. I mean, come on, even people making more than 100k sometimes go to Wal-Mart. I don't even think we're speaking for the Chinese workers here. Whether it's the only job available or they tried to get out and they can't, it's not going to change through some protesting or boycotting. I can bet you that they want the money they make. Now, that said, a puny boycott will not hurt their salaries. But a large boycott would. The company will keep working them for less and less if it gets that bad, until the co. doesn't have enough men to work. Then, other men will be hired. It's a rule of salaries. Pay only just above what they won't take. While this situation requires a lot of trickle-down and is far off, if even slightly likely, it's not going to fix things for Chinese workers. And the Olympics thing is bullshit. I think it's a protester's right to go out there and say "boo hoo," as is Stephen Spielburg's if you know what I mean. But seriously, how many other countries don't care about Sudan or Tibet? How many are actively helping them? And what do you expect from a country that teeters between communism and capitalism? I expect it to act in its own self-interest, just like every other country. Thusly, especially in the case of Tibet, China will do nothing for oppressed people. Now, I can see what some people are saying about pollution and waste. China does a shit ton of that. People in China think rivers are supposed to be BLACK. They grow up with cancer and the government might give them U.S.$267 if they're lucky enough to have someone fighting for them. But this stuff is not going to end through boycotts. It's going to end through negotiation. It's going to end because in order for China to become more of a superpower, and be accepted as such by democratic governments that claim to hail humanitarianism, they will HAVE to end these deplorable practices. Speaking of superpowers, have no fear. China is not going to take over the world. And if you really think that they're starting it off by trying to poison us with bad toothpaste or baby toys, you need your head checked. Financially, you might have some evidence in your favour, but for now, the U.S. still has the biggest economy in the world with a GDP of $13.3 trillion, adjusted for PPP. Sorry though Canadians, your GDP is about 1 tril, China's is 10 tril. Oops. Finally, let's remember, China isn't the only one doing this. Check all of your "made in" stickers for more information. ;)

Oh my god my friends are going to piss themselves at this. Personally, I fell asleep to Army of Darkness..

the Colbert Report. I turned it off when I realized the interview was with the guy who wrote "5 people you will meet in heaven."

It is supposed to be standalone, yep. Don't know "when" it takes place, though. And I actually like the name. It has a nice ring to it. Oh, the nostalgia!!

Toilets Flushing!

Klondike Reeses!

They have these really nice 100+ dollar ones at thinkgeek.com. And they used to have some at Sharper Image with interchangeable coloured ends, but now Sharper Image is in the toilet...

I've said it how many times now, rabbit? I'm not going to say it again. I'm tired of arguing with you. Do what you feel is best, and don't whine (making subtle jabs about how you'll post if you're "allowed" doesn't help you, either - you just sound snide). Maybe if you didn't try to turn every thread into a philosophical argument, people wouldn't complain about you. Case in point: in "What's the Last Thing You've Eaten?" Posted on: Apr 6 2008, 12:36 AM "come one. we can discuss anything. why are we listing the last thing we put in our mouths? I hate this thread and everything it stands for. sandwich..." It's funny because not only did you conform to write "sandwich," but here in this thread, you state that you have no problem with such things - "That's how lots of the other threads in this forum operate. i.e. To the question:"What's your favorite food", people might respond with "PIZZZXCA", "SPAGHETTI", "CHICKEN". That's fine in the open discussion forum." Change of heart? Now, I guess I can be just as guilty as you for responding to your antics (no one did in the "What's the Last Thing You've Eaten?" thread, not to my surprise - that thread is mindless), but seriously, you've got some nerve with the things you write. Unfortunately, half of the time, you're right on the money (ex: your "Smart people shouldn't be fat" argument). My suggestion: Just be a little more tactful. Absolutism in claims doesn't broaden your audience, it diminishes it. In response to other things, the fact that they candidates are saying the same things Gore and Bush did reminds me of the "Testify" RATM video ( ), which compiles quotes from both parties... saying exactly the same thing. While I think that there are some distinctions to be made, especially between Gore and Bush in 2000, and RATM exaggerates things heavily, they have a point about the lack of choice when it comes to politicians. I'm assuming part of this is because during the campaign, they just talk about change and hope and experience and all of these buzzwords, which don't really mean anything. I totally agree that you've got to look at the voting record, but speeches and other things do give a nice added accent to round off the votes that make the man/woman. They at least let you know what he or she is willing to promise, not just what they're willing to put their name on. It's not a huge indicator, but like Moonlight said, it can be inspiring. Talking the talk is all around us, though. Example: The two-faced-ness of candidates when discussing NAFTA. Both Clinton and Obama want to renegotiate, but would not stop the agreement all together. Despite what the people are calling for (jobs wah wah jobs, and even Clinton and Obama are whining with false loss statistics), the candidates know they're not going to fuck with it. Better to omit than to lie or create a bad image, no? Especially since people who don't want NAFTA are amiss when it comes to economics. Unfortunately, having to explain fiscal policy to your neighbour is a lost cause. I guess we'll see what happens for all of the promises when someone is elected, as usual. It's hard to find information about campaign finance. All I got from a quick search is the usual "Obama gets cash from young people online, uses small meetings in addition to galas, grassroots campaign trumps Hillary's fundraising tactics, and won't accept from lobbyists" and "Hilary holds huge gala to get cash." Care to enlighten us on anything interesting you've found, Moonlight? Lastly, Anderson Cooper doesn't bring anything to the table from my experience. He was kind of cute in "Planet in Peril" (he fell slightly down a fissure in ice in Greenland and screamed "FUCK!"), but honestly, I don't find him to be that intelligent. He just paraphrases; he doesn't make insightful comments. Stephen Colbert makes a more striking analysis on the Colbert Report.

It was more than a cameo; I just couldn't think of a word to represent a few small scenes. I've never seen the movie, and all I know is that the character is often called "The Kid." As for the amount, I don't really care. The point is, he gets money, like the members of MGB probably do at times. Thanks for the information, though. It does help to have a gf in the film industry..

Cookies and cream ice cream.

Ace Ventura: Pet Detective.

Harvey Birdman: Attourney at Law.

I think rabbit has too much time on his hands. If religion distinctively bred pedophilia then all religious people would be pedophiles, no? Or be repressing pedo tendencies? Now, what makes the people you listed pedophiles? Their own nature and their sexual repression (the fact that they did it in order to be a priest does not make religion the cause of pedophilia). You have no way of proving otherwise; your evidence is made up of things you link as casual without any backing. Give me a study that says 99.99% of religious people want to fuck babies, dream about fucking kids, and get it on with any little one they can - then I'll buy your argument. Until then, know that anyone can be a weird fuck. And anyone can repress their sex drive. As you should also know, the majority of convicted pedophiles are just regular dudes who can't get some. Then again, a surprising amount of people on those state pedo databases are just dudes who touched a younger girl or peed in public in front of some kids. Now they're sex offenders. Oh snap. You prove nothing with that article except that there is injustice in the world, and things suck. I've seen too many articles (and Oprahs) like that to care about the situation. I don't care if their free will has been repressed by beatings and scripture alike - grow some backbone and you'll be able to get out of marrying your daddy. Apparently hiking and cocaine also help.

But how do we know they AREN'T getting royalties? They probably are. I know of a dude who has a cameo in X-men 2 and he gets $2000 checks every time it comes on TV. The movie industry is probably a little different, but I'd wager there were agreements made, even if everyone was pissy back then.

I just made 700 posts. haww.

That doesn't have to be a causation of Genn leaving the band, though. Matt could have just changed his style, which I think is apparent with every record. I agree with you, though. The lot of them were a band, so it's obvious that some things could be more of a collaboration than we've been told. Still, Matt can do what he wants in releasing/performing the old material, and I'm glad for it. To Litzi: We don't prevent artists from performing covers in concerts or on cds, especially if credit is given. This is no different.

I hope you're right, but it seems like the news media are really exploiting the "bitter" comments. Did you also find Hillary's recent comments about "feeling God's presence" to be fabricated?

If Christianity were not ingrained in much of culture, there would be no reason to accept the Bible as a new book, let alone a good one. People today would be too secularly-focused to accept Christianity as a new religion. Although, you would have to make an exception if people had access to the Old Testament and just not the New Testament; it would make everything I just said null. People might be more likely to accept the ideas if there was a strong foundation in Judaism to this day. If you're just talking about book content, on the other hand, I think that without a tie to religion and historical context, the Bible and its allegories make no sense as a literary work. Besides, why would the Bible, citing Christ as the messiah, be released ~2000 years after his death? That makes it sound like the Bible is a science fiction novel of sorts.

Speaking of which, the Robot Chicken SW is cooler than SW. But the fact that Chewy doesn't get a medal really does bother me... I watched 4 and 5 over the weekend on Spike. Some of the edits don't bother me, but the edits in 6 are the worst. guhh. >.<

Harold and Kumar... Overhyped but enjoyable when you have nothing else to do.

I don't see how I was being humble or not humble, rabbit. In reference to your continuing posts that are just really amounting to a burden, there is a difference between discussing philosophy in broad terms and in discussing the specifics of the race for the U.S. presidency. Again, this thread is not about whether religion is evil, capitalism is too socialist, or the like. Making everything into a broad argument is something that is wearing down this thread. People don't want to talk about that. This is the most intense section of the Bored, and yet still nobody comes here to debate philosophy. You're wrong, OK? Get over it. To those actually willing to discuss the current events of the race, I didn't see that forum, unfortunately. What do you guys thing of Hillary's Bosnia comments or Barack's comments about bitter working-class Americans? Will either hurt their campaign?

pedophilia is a natural consequence of religion? Either you've got some dangling modifiers or you're going to back that shit up. lol.

"literally a primitive philosophy" "they should be laughed out of the room" "like admitting you talk to aliens, or that you're an astrologer; it is the admission of a psychological weak point and should be a red flag in the eyes of everyone; it is an indication that that person is incapable of basic critical thinking." "that their stupid and evil ideas might influence on their decision making" "based on the same stupid premises and the same moral code - altruism" "the evils of religion" You said these things. They imply that you think religious people are stupid because they believe in an ideology that is stupid, let alone evil. I never said that it was right to believe in a god because the majority of the world does, I know that's a fallacy; I just said you're not going to win in your lifetime. If religion fades away with secularism, it won't be soon. If you don't want to worship, don't, but insulting religious people everywhere is not going to make you many friends. Anyway, I'm bored with this. By the way, I'm not religious in the slightest. ^^

Well you sure think highly of yourself. :angry: Now use that intellect to talk about the race (12 days until Pennsylvania!!), your race predictions, the candidates' policies, etc. - not the so-called idiocy of religious people (see http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/08/rol...rtin/index.html - "In other words, ignore the churchgoing folks and you don't stand a prayer of winning") or the inconsistencies in "capitalist" societies today. Such is ;) Let's get back on the on-topic train. KTHNX to all.