Mr. Madison (allonzo1), what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Not all British humor is dry. If you are interested in two excellent British shows I recommend "Coupling" and "The IT Crowd." Both shows are very funny and worth your time.

The recent reintroduction of 3d is similar to the switch from black and white to color. I am sure that some directors will be able to use 3d in effective ways to better express ideas/emotions/concepts then would otherwise be possible in 2d, and some will simply use 3d as a crutch to compensate for poor artistic vision and/or weak writing.

Just because a movie is predictable doesn’t mean it is bad (Road to Perdition). I agree the writing could have been better, and that some of the characters were one dimensional, but on the whole the move had a nice pace and kept me engaged.

Ted Olsen, a "conservative" lawyer fighting for Gay Marriage, had this to say on why he took the case:

"Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one’s own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it."

Alonso: Your “news” article is misleading, please read the actual opinion linked to below. The Court does inquire as to whether atheism is a religion, but only insofar as that designation may provide protection under the First Amendment. The Court writes about how a person’s sincerely held beliefs dealing with issues of "ultimate concern" occupy a place parallel to that filled by God in traditionally religious persons. “[W]hen the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all.” Therefore, the Court is not stating that atheism is a religion, but rather that atheism must be protected as is it was a religion.

I can’t believe that nobody has talked about the best argument against sitting down; the time factor. It is inherently faster for one man to pee standing up then it would be for that man sitting down. Furthermore, men peeing standing up allows public bathrooms install urinal instead of toilet stall. Architects can fit more urinals then toilet stalls into a given space, which allows more men use a single bathroom. The only downside to such a throughput argument is that it may lead to the dreaded trough. Luckily though, the vast majority of establishments opt for a user-friendly experience over bathroom efficiency. Some venues that still opt for the trough have the good sense to fill the trough with ice, which leads to the best user experience possible as you get to melt ice with your hot urine; a rare treat indeed.

The problem isn’t that Wall Street bankers are given bonuses; hard work and success should be rewarded. The problem is that many financial institutions had poorly crafted performance review and compensation packages. Traders were encouraged to make deals and accept extreme amount of financial risk in order to make a large amount of money in the short term, and to ignore the long term consequences of their new tenuous fiscal positions. Bowing to public outcry, Goldman Sachs Group recently announced that it was changing its bonus structure, and that now firm bonuses will vest over a four year period. Such a scheme should incentivize traders to weight both the short and long term position when they make a deal. Wall Street firms are still being rewarded for hard work and success, but now they are being rewarded for long term successes. That is good for everybody.

Courtesy flushing is a waste of water. If you are at home, all you need to do is light a match or a candle to kill any stench. Public bathrooms have the opposite benefit; namely that they smell bad all the time and that any smells you contribute are drowned out in the cacophony of stink. Regardless of the venue involved, there is no need to send another one to eight gallons into the sewer.

Not an argument against, only room for improvement. In the current arguehow system, each topic can only have one subject matter, which I believe is an unnecessary limit on the arguments. A user can sing the praises or condemn a subject easily enough, but a problem arises when the user would like to directly compare two subjects, X and Y. A system should be put into place to give users the choice between examining a subject isolated from other influences (the present system), or examining a subject through comparison to another subject. I am sure everybody likes Nikon SLRs and Cannon SLRs, but are Nikon SLRs better then Cannon SLRs? The cred/crud system of rating arguments can still be used without modification; bad arguments get crud, good arguments get cred. The only major change which would need to be done is to exchange the “FOR” field for topic X and the “AGAINST” field for topic Y.

Some might find that the comparison of three subjects will be necessary for a truly honest argument. Republican v. democrat v. green party? Vampires v. zombies v. Ditka? Such a problem is easily solved by expanding the above idea to encompass three subjects per topic. The only true limitation is screen space.

As a movie it’s fine, albeit about 45 minutes too long. As an adaptation of the Tolkien book of the same name, it’s a shameful conclusion to what might have otherwise been an excellent tribute to The Lord of the Rings. One of the primary reasons for the hobbits setting out on their quest was protection of their home, the Shire. Tolkien’s book ends with the Shire scoured and turned into an industrial wasteland, its citizens brutalized and murdered. Two lessons can be gleamed from such a tragic ending. The first lesson is a warning against reckless industrialization, a seemingly prophetic warning to today’s world of climate change and globalization. The second lesson is a message that war touches every aspect of our lives; the hobbits could never return to the home the loved, regardless of how hard they fought in the war. Without such a moving capstone, the movies just stand as a technical achievement with great special effects, not an artistic achievement with fully realized story arcs and rich metaphors.

There is nothing inherently wrong with breast implants or breast augmentation. If breast implants make a woman feel better about herself, more comfortable with her body image and sexuality, why should people condemn her? Breast implants are also commonly used in post mastectomy breast reconstruction. Many of the medical side effects seen with the old silicone implants have been resolved in later generations of breast implants, and the most recent silicone implants designs have significant improvements in safety, with lower potential for rupture.

Zombies are way scarier then the modern vampires which have arisen in the past 2 or 3 years, thanks in no small part to the Twilight series. Granted even the ‘new’ vampires kill people and drink their blood, they are no longer mysterious denizens of the night, striking without warning or remorse. Modern vampires are brooding teenagers who sparkle in the sunlight. Granted, I find brooding teenagers to be among the most annoying creatures on the planet, but I would never be terrified on one. Oddly enough, as vampires have gotten less scary, the opposite is true with Zombies. With recent films such as 28 Days Later, I Am Legend, etc. zombies are now intelligent and quick eaters of flesh.

Bankruptcy is not, in any sense of the term, an “easy way out.” The bankruptcy code was amended in 2005 to include, among other notable provisions, the “means test.” The means test simply calculates a chapter 7 debtor’s current monthly income, and if that income level is greater then the state median income, then the debtor is a presumed abuser and will be required to convert his/her case to a chapter 13 reorganization. Furthermore, the fraudulent conveyance preference provisions will let creditors undo transactions between the debtor and a third party aimed at hiding assets from creditors. Lastly, a debtor who fraudulent obtains credit, or who enters into bankruptcy in bad faith, may find his/her debts declared non-dischargeable, and will have to pay those debts in full.

Personal bankruptcies (chapter 7, chapter 13, and chapter 11) are effective tools for individuals to deal with crippling amount of unforeseen debt. Most bankruptcy cases are usually caused by a single polarizing event which transforms a healthy balance sheet into an unhealthy one. Studies done throughout the past decade show that most bankruptcy cases are either directly caused by illness or injury, or the debts incurred treating illness or injury. Through the bankruptcy process, otherwise hapless debtors are shielded be shielded from creditors foreclosing upon homes and automobiles.

One big incentive to being married is in the distribution of assets after the loss of a spouse. If a person is married and dies intestate (without a will), then most states give all of the estate to the spouse if there are no living children of the decedent (dead person); if there are living children of the decedent they split half of the estate while the remaining half is given to the surviving spouse. If the decedent was not married, and died intestate, it is likely the “life partner” would get nothing. In that case the estate would be distributed to the decedent’s closest family members, or absent living family members the estate would be given to the state.

People who ride motorcycles, and I am a former motorcycle rider, know the risks of riding without a helmet or other protective gear. Driving a car during a snow storm is also dangerous, but would you support a prohibition on driving during inclement weather? People get injured in professional motor-sport, should we ban that as well? New studies suggest that professional football players are suffering long term effects caused by head trauma, should the government outlaw the NFL because it is inherently dangerous? Clearly the answer to all of those questions must be “no.” People are free to decide how to live their lives, even if they make poor decisions. Mandatory helmet laws would simply be another arbitrary restriction on personal freedoms.

Otm_shank; are you seriously arguing that motorcyclists should wear helmets to protect others from EMOTIONAL DISTRESS? Are there any other personal autonomies we should disregard to ensure people have a nice day? Should we ask the state to pass laws against harsh language and loud clothing?

While in kindergarten I loved duck-duck-goose; however, once I mastered the whole run-in-a-circle thing I moved on to bigger and better games. Kickball is similar in that it teaches a few skills, but for grown-ups it’s a limited experience. The limited experience is evidenced in the lack of great plays or players. Who is the Michael Jordan, the Babe Ruth, or the Pelé of Kickball? There hasn’t been one because there can never be “great” Kickball players. The low athletic requirements to play Kickball, combined with the self-limiting rules of the game, mean that practically everybody can be a Kickball master. Therefore, adults who celebrate Kickball are simply celebrating mediocrity.

I used to drive a car which would run on regular or premium gas, and when I put premium in the tank I would get 4-6 additional miles per gallon. So from my experience it appears that premium gas allowed my engine to run more efficiently.

Trader Joe’s is awesome for a number of reasons. 1) For a “specialty supermarket” it really isn’t that much more expensive then other national chain markets; and a good number of items are actually a lot less expensive at Trader Joe’s. 2) The foods carried by Trader Joe's are, generally speaking, very tasty. 3) The people working at Trader Joe's are absurdly friendly and helpful, probably because they are paid above-union wages. 4) Peppermint Jo-Joe’s.

We need a new defensive package. The cover two just doesn't work without a healthy Urlacher.

A masters (or graduate) degree will not help you get a position for which a bachelor’s degree is required. Why? An employer is not going to subsidize your education when expertise is not necessary. Why purchase a thoroughbred when all you need is a cart horse? If you are looking for a position with a requisite base level of education, then obviously you will not find a job without the further schooling. Having said that; grad school is expensive and you are not guaranteed to find your dream job once you graduate, or for that matter find any job that lets you live comfortably while paying off student loans. With the economy in the toilet bowl it is difficult to get a job regardless of your level of education.