If you need to B*tch about something... this is the place — Page 94

SilverWook said:

*Gives Frink a gigantic Wookiee hug*

 Aw, thanks man. :-)

TV's Frink said:

Shit, dude, my daughter died seven years ago.  Her future was taken from me right in front of my eyes.  It was fucking terrible, and still is, but I got/get through it.

When the uncontrollable happens, we are not defined by what happens to us, but how we choose to react to it.

 Wow....There are no words to express how sorry I am to hear that.  I am so sorry and I pray that the lord will be with you. So sorry:(

I know how Frink feels; to have a person's life taken before it could start, that the greatest injustice any person could recieve.

To anyone who thinks Hollywood isn't going out of it's way to cause me pain I present this...

http://www.blastr.com/2013-9-18/roland-emmerich-wants-do-what-now-asimovs-foundation

I feel like Bruce Lee just punched me in the gut.

SilverWook said:

*Gives Frink a gigantic Wookiee hug*

 ditto

Well I just don't believe that we should never question scientist or hold them to account when they are wrong.  if anything this country places so much faith in them that we never talk about it when they make a bad call and if something is seen as having the support of a scientist anyone who says "Hey let's not take this for granted and do more research" is shouted down for daring to question a scientist.  Never mind that scientists disagree on things all the time if a scientist says something you are not allowed to question it and if you do,then you are just an inbred moron who in on the payroll of the oil companies and the evil Christians and Republicans.

More and more news stories use phrases like "A scientist said" or "a scientific study proved" without going into any details beyond that like who said it beyond the fact it was a scientist or how the study was conducted or if anyone disagreed with the study. As if all you need to know is that someone calling themselves a scientist said it and you shouldn't have any other questions beyond that because they are perfect and can not be questioned.

It is getting to point where I am afraid that at some point in our life times scientists will be put in charge of defining what is and is not true and anyone who doesn't agree with them will lose rights such as voting or the right to free speech to make sure other people are not given incorrect information by these misguided and backwards people.

As for global warming unless we can get China and Mexico to cut down on their carbon footprint there is not a whole lot we can do.  That is not to say there are not steps we can take in this country for one i think the government should ban private citizens from owning cars so that people will start using mass transit and there should be limits put on how much electricity each citizen is allowed to use in a day,and meat should be taxed so that people will eat vegetables which have a smaller carbon footprint and are healthier,then if we banned all forms of air travel we would be getting somewhere.  All these things can be done by our government right now and they would set an example for the rest of the world to follow. Still being realistic it's both parties that would have a problem with these measures(Don't kid yourself the rich left uses just as much oil as the rich right and it's one reason I don't support either of them)and it would do little to help on a world wide scale unless other countries like China join in and they are unlikely to do this.

DrCrowTStarwars said:

As for global warming unless we can get China and Mexico to cut down on their carbon footprint there is not a whole lot we can do.  That is not to say there are not steps we can take in this country for one i think the government should ban private citizens from owning cars so that people will start using mass transit and there should be limits put on how much electricity each citizen is allowed to use in a day,and meat should be taxed so that people will eat vegetables which have a smaller carbon footprint and are healthier,then if we banned all forms of air travel we would be getting somewhere.  All these things can be done by our government right now and they would set an example for the rest of the world to follow. Still being realistic it's both parties that would have a problem with these measures(Don't kid yourself the rich left uses just as much oil as the rich right and it's one reason I don't support either of them)and it would do little to help on a world wide scale unless other countries like China join in and they are unlikely to do this.

 The US can and should be the world leader in these things. Marching off to hell because "China's doing it too" isn't a great idea. 

Taxing meat to encourage people to eat less of it makes sense on so many different levels it's not even funny. But in America we can't even have our politicians have these discussions, because for some strange reason the Conservative party is required to not believe in environmental science. 

Taxing meat would be asinine.  This is a susposed to be a free country.  You can't have a free country when the government is telling you what foods you can and can't eat.  It is as stupid as boobberg's ban on large softdrinks.

TheBoost said:

DrCrowTStarwars said:

As for global warming unless we can get China and Mexico to cut down on their carbon footprint there is not a whole lot we can do.  That is not to say there are not steps we can take in this country for one i think the government should ban private citizens from owning cars so that people will start using mass transit and there should be limits put on how much electricity each citizen is allowed to use in a day,and meat should be taxed so that people will eat vegetables which have a smaller carbon footprint and are healthier,then if we banned all forms of air travel we would be getting somewhere.  All these things can be done by our government right now and they would set an example for the rest of the world to follow. Still being realistic it's both parties that would have a problem with these measures(Don't kid yourself the rich left uses just as much oil as the rich right and it's one reason I don't support either of them)and it would do little to help on a world wide scale unless other countries like China join in and they are unlikely to do this.

 The US can and should be the world leader in these things. Marching off to hell because "China's doing it too" isn't a great idea. 

Taxing meat to encourage people to eat less of it makes sense on so many different levels it's not even funny. But in America we can't even have our politicians have these discussions, because for some strange reason the Conservative party is required to not believe in environmental science. 

 I didn't say we shouldn't do these things,I was just saying that they will not have a large impact on global warming as a whole if china doesn't do them as well.  I was simply being realistic,that is all.

Another thing we should do is start trying to shrink the population of this country. Instead of giving people tax breaks for having kids we should be taxing them for having kids. If we made everyone pay say five thousand dollars a year for every kid they have people would stop having kids or limit themselves to just one and we would shrink both our carbon footprint and unemployment.  Also if we made married couples pay a special tax that would be a huge help in reducing the number of people in this massively over populated country.

Warbler said:

Taxing meat would be asinine.  This is a susposed to be a free country.  You can't have a free country when the government is telling you what foods you can and can't eat.  It is as stupid as boobberg's ban on large softdrinks.

 He had the right idea,after all the government has to pay for all the health problems meat and junk food cause so why shouldn't the government be allowed to tax or ban them?  How is this any different then smoking or drug,we ban and tax those because they are bad for people,why can't we do the same with certain foods?

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

I'm beginning to think the only reason we don't also hear phrases like "these general relativity people", or "these evolution people", or "these black hole people", is that those topics don't currently threaten a certain political constituent. 

 First: Not specific enough.

Second: We certainly do hear that one.  Evolution is under attack as well.

Third: Too racist.

Warbler said:

Taxing meat would be asinine.  This is a susposed to be a free country.  You can't have a free country when the government is telling you what foods you can and can't eat.  It is as stupid as boobberg's ban on large softdrinks.

 I take it you have a problem with the cigarette tax then?

JEDIT: As the good doctor already said.

I'm actually okay with a child penalty instead of credit, but why tax married people further?

TV's Frink said:

I'm actually okay with a child penalty instead of credit, but why tax married people further?

 Because they are more likely to have kids,if people stopped getting married the population would go down.

Another idea is to tax people for how much television they watch and how many hours they spend on a computer each day.  This would have a two fold effect. First people would use less electricity and thus reduce our carbon footprint and second people would spend more time outside and they would be healthier.  if we added a requirement that every citizen grow some of their own vegetables in garden so they are feeding themselves to some extent this would further reduce carbon and make people healthier.

Also i think the government should place a limit on how many video games and movies can be released each year,that way again we would reduce carbon since we would be using less to make games and movies and people would spend more time outside.

These are both common sense solutions to the biggest problems facing this country at this point and I have no idea why we are not doing any of these things.

DrCrowTStarwars said:

TV's Frink said:

I'm actually okay with a child penalty instead of credit, but why tax married people further?

 Because they are more likely to have kids,if people stopped getting married the population would go down.

 Citation needed.

Just look around and see who you know who has more kids,married people or single people. Also a tax on marriage would make sure that only people who really wanted to get married would be getting married and we would have fewer divorce cases taking up time and money in our court system.

Also Christians should not be allowed to raise kids,if they have kids the kids should be raised by the state that way they are not being brainwashed from birth. Also no one under 18 should be allowed to enter a church or read a bible. If they want to do it once they reach the age of 18 that is fine and nothing should be done to stop them but if they do it before then they are being brainwashed and told what to think,since they are not old enough to think for themselves.

DrCrowTStarwars said:

Warbler said:

Taxing meat would be asinine.  This is a susposed to be a free country.  You can't have a free country when the government is telling you what foods you can and can't eat.  It is as stupid as boobberg's ban on large softdrinks.

 He had the right idea,after all the government has to pay for all the health problems meat and junk food cause so why shouldn't the government be allowed to tax or ban them?  How is this any different then smoking or drug,we ban and tax those because they are bad for people,why can't we do the same with certain foods?

 Then I guess the goverment should tax you everytime you take a walk.  You could always injure yourself on a walk.   Families should be taxed everytime they let their kids play outside, the kids could always injure themselves.  Afterall, the government has to pay for these health problems too, doesn't it?

SilverWook said:

DrCrowTStarwars said:

Another idea is to tax people for how much television they watch and how many hours they spend on a computer each day.  This would have a two fold effect. First people would use less electricity and thus reduce our carbon footprint and second people would spend more time outside and they would be healthier.  if we added a requirement that every citizen grow some of their own vegetables in garden so they are feeding themselves to some extent this would further reduce carbon and make people healthier.

Also i think the government should place a limit on how many video games and movies can be released each year,that way again we would reduce carbon since we would be using less to make games and movies and people would spend more time outside.

These are both common sense solutions to the biggest problems facing this country at this point and I have no idea why we are not doing any of these things.

 Who decides how much is too much? How would you implement such a thing without more privacy going up in smoke? If someone can roll back the odometer on a car, they can get around this. I presume those of us who use a PC for work get a waiver, so long as nobody plays freecell between 9-5? Under that scenario, sites like this would wither and die. ;)

Modern tv's and PC's are pretty energy efficient. My electric bill has been pretty modest since upgrading both in my household.

Growing your own food was a great idea during WWII, but more people live in cities than ever, and a lot of those are lucky if they even have a patio big enough to put a couple lawn chairs on.

Again, who decides how many movies and games are too much? Both industries are dependent on putting new product out there. Squelch that, and people are going to lose jobs, and some studios may close.

 Demolish abandoned buildings in the cities and turned the spaces into community gardens.  Take places like central park that serve no useful purpose other then looking pretty and turn them into massive gardens that the citizens work in.  Have scientific studies taken to decide how much is too much and use that as the guidelines.  People are always out of work and it's not like making games or movies is a dependable profession,so I don't see the negative there.

Too many people live in the cities and it is adding to the amount of carbon we put out.  As for cars as I said private citizens owning cars should be against the law since they should be using mass transit. 

Just have programs installed on computers that stop them from people used for anything other then productive tasks that help the community.

DrCrowTStarwars said:

Just look around and see who you know who has more kids,married people or single people.

 We don't live in a world where people have to get married to have kids anymore.  And this is a logical fallacy anyway.