heyrabbit

YOUR GAY! most of your favorite MGB songs were probably written on acoustics. if you think they're gay, you're probbaly not passionate enough about guitar to learn to be a good player. my advise is, just buy something that is decent enough to stay in tune. When i first started learning, I spent way too much time re-tuning. But other than that, who gives a fuck. if you really want to learn, you'll learn. if you play an acoustic you'll build calluses faster and your mechanics will be stronger. it's like, if you get used to running barefoot on rocks, when you pick up those nice shoes (guitar) youll be awsome. you'd be surprised at the shit guitars rock stars learned on. just fuckin mash on anything till you're good. a lot of people would be happy to have an epiphone as a learner.

the 3 most important things are diet, sleep and form. if you don't do those things right, don't even bother workin out.

it's impossible to work all your muscles at once. if you do, you're pretty much wasting time. different muscles heal at different rates. most muscles dont need more than 48 hours rest. your biceps heal the fastest and your ass heals the slowest. your biceps shouldn't need more than 48 hours, max. you can still workout when they are sore. your schedule is arlight, except you wont make much gains with chest/triceps AND shoulders on the same day. i do, typically, not necessarily in this order, back/biceps on the same day, chest/triceps legs ( I can't do my abs at the same time, because my hip flexor always tries to do too much when I do abs and legs on the same day, can't isolate them) shoulders + something else, ( an extra biceps workout, or triceps, or any thing that needs work) I fit abs and cardio in all over the place

I'll kick your ass in squash. I'm addicted to the gym and running. running for hours, it's the greatest feeling. and pushing yourself beyong where you thought you could go. it's great for health, fun, and for building discipline. once I leg-pressed 1000 pounds, then ate an entire chicken while watching the punisher. those were the days. everyone should read arnolds encyclopedia.

I watch this show. yeah I know it's sad. They display their myriad of "diverse" contestants, all posessing "something different". it almost looks like a commercial for ethnic diversity, which is fitting I suppose considering the contest takes place in toronto. it comes of as being racist and offensive in my view. it's not like most shows, where there's just a token black guy. This show has a token red-head,philipino, molatto, asian, latina, fat person, preppy, punky, gay person, you name it. Who cares about intelligence or personality. we don't have someone with big curly hair, let's hire them! inspite of the fact that their efforts are focused on being deliberately "unprejudiced", they always have good finalists. But they still always pick image as the deciding factor. Devon is living proof of that. He had the the coolest image at the time. Forget that he can't talk, let alone do an interview. His hair was cool,but now it's becoming increasingly combed over and we're left with just a bad VJ with a bad image. they'll probably make the same mistake this time.

good call. it wasn't that bad, but you're right. My friends thought it was funny when I found out it was about gay cowboys instead of regular ones,during the movie, and they wanted to know where I'd been for the past few months. they should have worn ass-less chaps, or played B.E.P's "my hump" during the sex scenes.

Brand new, signed and sealed in the box. 2 12 inch speakers, 3 channels, 100 watts, pre in and out, etc. the cheapest retail price is 375, I'll sell it for 275. here

Who's making the decision? people make those decisions. And since the entire earths populus will never agree on anything, there will always be a power struggle. that's the way it's always been and that's the way it has to be. that's assuming of course that there's no omnipotent ruler of the earth who can decide for everyone. you could argue about what is morally right and wrong, but then the question would be , according to who's morals and who's opinions?

yeah, but human behavior is predominantly irrational. a collective opinion in that scale is unrealistic. Since resources simply exist, as you said yourself, there are no definitive owners. suggesting that people should be given resources, or that we should all just agree to be equal is impractical, unfair and communistic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what you meant when you said that we need to "decide who owns resources". we're talking about wealth here. labour without resources produces nothing, technically, but that's irrelevant and it's sort of a loaded statement. the world is made of resources. so you weren't born on a diamond mine, that's life. the collective is nothing more than a group of individuals, so I don't see how it's any more or less legit. nobody has the unearned right to resources but that doesn't matter because wealth can be earned. everyone has the ability to control their own actions.you can choose to sell one drink from one lemon and build a capital. that's the beauty of capitalism. Everyone has access to resources no matter how simple they are. people hold intermittent ownership over resources, and wealth is determined by the value cultures place on productivity. that's how it works and that's how it will always be. whether you rob a bank or inherit millions, it's irrelevant to the fact that all wealth has to be earned and can be earned by everyone. It's more easy for some than others, and that's not fair. life has never been fair. the moral principle that I support is not that everyone should be given equal wealth, it's that you should be allowed to keep your wealth once you've earned it. everyones opinions are influenced by their personal experience and culture, that's what makes them different. everyone's moral judgement is different, that's why we're all debating.

This is my standpoint. I'm an atheist, pragmatist and a realist. The first step in the process of reasoning is to establish axioms whereby you can evolve and revolve your opinions. You need to establish truths and work around that, because ultimately that's all you have to work with if. that's how I work. you've desribed to a utopian anarchist society. i won't bother much with the flaws of idealism, but none of these ideas account for human nature. the gentleman who mention this above hit the nailr ight on the head. that is one of the only conistent things through time and anarchism discounts that.

it's wrong. first of all there's two guitars so it won't sound the same no matter how you play it. but his tab is still wrong. if all you want is a way to play it for one guitar ill just tab taht for you

It's more of paradox than an ideology or even a "way of life".everything about it is hypocritical. Anarchism only "works" if it has a political system to exploit, which doesn't make any sense because the whole point of anarchy is to abolish government. it doesn't even work on paper, so there's no point in even entertaining the idea. not only is anarchism not the same thing as socialism, it's completely opposite in many ways. you need to understand that no matter what government or lack of government exists, there's always ownership.you can't just make make things disappear. The world is basically just a bunch of objects and people spend their entire lives levying over them. individualism and "true freedom" is completely dependant on the first and most important law of nature; the right to life. After that comes the right to property, but the right to live -in other words, "own yourself" - is something that everyone subscribes to. You say that Anarchists are against domination and objectification, but you wouldn't feel that way unless you valued yourself as an object. the only reason why you suggest that socialism is the only gateway to anarchism is because it's less absurd to think that anarchism can be born out of a society of individuals who earn their product than one that redistributes it's wealth to the undeserving. In other words, the similarity between socialism and anarchism that you've alluded to is nothing more than "I don't wanna work I just want to bang on my drum all day". Both socialism and anarchism demand unearned wealth. That's why hierarchy, capitalism and free markets don't appeal to you. The only way you can achieve this is by leetching off of societies who've naturally form governments and created a product. You want the product, but you don't like authority. That's why I said that anarchists are hypocrites. With all do respect, anyone who doesn't like our government can go live in a forest somewhere and enjoy a life of no rules, and complete ownership over nothing... until normal people come and want ownership over your land. Anarchists do exist, they're called bums. But even they aren't true anarchists because every sidewalk is owned by someone. I think i'm a jackass.

put up a link and I'll check. the beginning and verses are pretty much E, F, G and the chorus is.. F Am C G avalanche started inside of me

Economic Left/Right: 3.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.05 right libertarian I'm not surprised that most of are left-libs.that's how people like trudeau and chretien get into office. I was the only right-lib in my political science class aswell. I'm also not surprised that you got left/lib when you didn't understand the questions. that's how it works where I'm from. If you don't understand politics, just vote liberal! That's because most of the questions are loaded in socialisms favor. half of the answers aren't cut and dry as they make it seem. I like this one. "It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society." What the hell does that mean? "A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies." A genuine free market wouldn't require restrictions. by definition anarchists are definitely not socialists. in reality anarchists a lot like jesus; they're either hypocrites or they don't exist. If you "don't believe in rule", what are you doing living in society run by a government or relying on one for survival. if you believe in collective ownership you're jsut a socialist... and a jackass. people get confused with anarchism because the ideology list goes in a circle, not in a straight line.

it does exaggerate characteristics. if you're mellow, you get more mellow, if you're angry, you get more angry. etc

they must be incestuous polygamists, like everyone in Lord of the Rings. that would explain why they're all blue and deformed with sock heads. who wouldn't want to gangbang liv tyler.

Leafs fans deserve it. the leafs have more fans than any team, by far. most of ontario roots for them, as does the eastern provinces. ( their farm team was in st.johns). And anytime the leafs are in Buffalo there are more leafs fans than sabers fans, same scenario with ottawa. Even in cities like Dallas you see more Leafs jerseys than Stars jerseys. CBC headquarters is also in Toronto. hockey night is tradition

boo hoo, I guess I'llhave to stick with p diddy to get my fix of bad cover songs.

as much as I hate nasally whining I dont hate them asmuch as simple plan.

their witty and wordy conversations sound so real and unscripted. ;) rory gets pretty boy boyfriend > lame conflict > let's see how fast we can read philisophical girly yammering i had to edit to say that I like rory's butt

don't think too critically now. that's probably a sin

Avalanche is a great song but it was stretched longer than it had to be and I think that made it less effective. the outro didn't seem to fit with the rest of the song, which is important because the outro is the last impression you're given.like much of the song, the outro appeared to be added on just to make the song longer. Near fantastica is the same story, the chorus kind of, went on . if you onlyhave enough material for a 4 minute song it should stay that way. There will always be people who proclaim "masterpiece" just because it's 7 minutes long and decent. If you want to single out one masterpiece it would have to be prime time. that song is solid from beginning to end. it has better flow than any other mg song. As for apparitions, it IS one of the best songs Matt's ever written. you guys are confusing "over-rated" with "over played". Songs like suburbia and failing the rorschach test, one of my favorites, have added dark horse appeal simply because they're not poplular. If FTRT was a single instead of apparitions, you'd get sick of it in the exact same way and apparitions would probably be even more of a dark horse. Apparitions is one of the strongest songs on underdogs and one of the strongest matt's ever written. it still holds up after being overplayed to death. If you don't agree with me, keep in mind that half of you who're voting against apparitions can't even spell it.

you make more money than the majority of the other workers

since 98/99 the leafs have been about 2 decent defensemen away from a stanley cup. their offence and goaltending were so great, (joseph then belfour) that they still made the semi finals, what, 3 or 4 times? but the ownership was too cheap. maple leafs sports and entertainment brings in twice as much money as the next most profitable franchise. they could have bought a team easily, especially considering that a large chunk of the best players in the world are from southern ontario and want to play for the leafs. thats why i stopped supporting the leafs. belfour helped the leafs win over 100 points with like 1.5 defensemen. comparing him to cloutier is a joke,.cloutier had one of the better Ds in the west and he still has only 10 or 11 playoffs wins.

he stole the closing lyric from failing the rorschach test. the old school theme song is better.. you've got to reaach out take hold of my hand, you got to reach out till your safe on dry lannd