Mainframe

That's right. What's my perspective, pray tell? I think that we should all take our own opinions on the war with a grain of salt. I'm not the one accusing Obama of being a lying, socialist, warmongering stooge. Accusations like that probably demonstrate more about your psychological disposition than the reality of the situation. I'm defending him for the sake of balanced argument, not because I have my head up his ass.

^Hold your horses chicken little. The situation is still not (and never will be) as black and white as "the few" people in here want it to be. In Obama's defense: who knows more about the situation in Afghanistan, who actually speaks to the military officials in command there as well as Afghan representatives? Is it you, or the president?...It's one thing to be critical of the president's decisions, another to get on a self-righteous high horse about it. People are allowed to change their mind when presented with compelling information/arguments. Edit: someone is probably going to say something sarcastic like "so if Obama has access to all this information, then everything he does must be right and we should all blindly abide by his decisions!" No, I don't believe anything like that, I'm just trying to give some perspective that is sorely lacking in here.

I copped a 40 of LASER last time I was in Detroit about a year ago, mostly because the label looked so dope. It tasted pretty average for a 40 and didn't get me faded at all. So yeah it still exists. Fun fact: the midwest has the biggest selection of 40's, I'm guessing because they're mostly brewed in Milwaukee.

Right, you were clear, I wasn't disputing anything, just trying to expand on what I said previously. I was also trying to clarify why I choose to stick with the "god" terminology. The idea of "God" as a being that either exists or does not exist just seems like such a limited view, and with the help of dicktards like Richard Dawkins it's become a completely overblown debate. I guess that's why we had the 'creator' thread.

I don't think that this interpretation of the word "god" is necessarily secular. It's risky to generalize about religions the world over, but I think many religious visionaries throughout history have had a similar definition. Aldous Huxley's "The Perennial Philosophy" is a pretty interesting examination of this. It's not exactly philosophically rigorous, but he demonstrates some convincing parallels between eastern and western religions that revolve around this "reality" based conception of god. I think the origins of gods, both in monotheistic and polytheistic traditions, arose out of reverence and awe of various aspects of the natural world, or, in monotheism, the entirety of reality itself. The abstraction of the idea of god from a sort of underlying, animating force to an actual being, a "creator" in the human sense seems like a perversion. I suppose I like to continue using the term "god" because of the timeless weight the word carries, despite its baggage.

Also, Dawkins is a douchebag. His science is fine, but he's too full of himself to realize that maybe the "flying spaghetti monster" view of god isn't what religion is really about. He's no better than his critics over in the ID camp as far as I'm concerned.

I think crooked pretty much broke it down. But, framing the argument as one of two options, God exists or God does not exist, is very restrictive. I believe in the concept of god, with a lower case g, but not in an omnipotent creator. I think Einstein put it very well: "The religious feeling engendered by experiencing the logical comprehensibility of profound interrelations is of a somewhat different sort from the feeling that one usually calls religious. It is more a feeling of awe at the scheme that is manifested in the material universe. It does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our own image - a personage who makes demands of us and who takes an interest in us as individuals. There is in this neither a will nor a goal, nor a must, but only sheer being. For this reason, people of our type see in morality a purely human matter, albeit the most important in the human sphere." I would say that this "awe at the scheme that is manifested in the material universe" refers to god, both in a secular and religious sense. The idea of an omnipotent being in the sky watching over us seems like left-over superstition from a time when mankind understood much less about the physical world than we do now, but I still think the roots of religious feeling lie in this same reverence, this same recognition of the essential mystery underlying existence. Everyone knows that science only gives us answers to "how" and not to "why." They even said that on South Park. There is no real incompatibility between science and religion. There is no fundamental reason or "logic" as to why the laws of physics work the way they do, there is only a self-consistent framework; god lies in the final, atavistic "why" that is beyond the reach of science. William Blake was a non-religious believer: "To see a world in a grain of sand And a heaven in a wild flower, Hold infinity in the palm of your hand And eternity in an hour."

Try doing these using the bench press bar, takes it to the next level. That goes for rolling extensions too. Also I've found that the decline is the way to go for the closed-grip bench.

That Cal win really helped salvage the season, it was a great game. I can't decide whether to root for Oregon State or Oregon, but I'm leaning towards the Ducks because I think they have a better chance of embarrassing bitch ass Ohio State in the rose bowl.

Yes. Also I don't like Seth Green that much but those shitbags made him look like jesus.

Haven't really looked at the article yet so I can't comment on it. Dude who wrote the article sounds like a douche though: "James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books including Welcome To Obamaland: I've Seen Your Future And It Doesn't Work, How To Be Right, and the Coward series of WWII adventure novels." Casek do you follow writers like this or do they just happen to be the ones you find that support your opinions when you do internet searches? Doesn't make me want to read it but I'll take a look later. Also I've never heard of the University of East Anglia.

I think the ultimate goal is probably still to bring them all home, but he can't (and shouldn't) just snap his fingers and make that happen immediately. He inherited a mess in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I don't think he wants to do anything rash to fuck the region up even more by pulling out and leaving a power vacuum. I'm not a military expert, but I think Obama is trying to take the advice of his experts and do what he thinks will work out the best; he's not just applying some abstract ideal to the situation. The situation is pretty complicated. Well do you really want a president who simply does things because he can? You're just saying he has the power to do some things YOU want him to do, and doesn't. Good for him, I'm glad he doesn't take rash, unilateral action on issues. He should take other perspectives into account and weigh the pros and cons, since his decisions are very important, and we don't live in a dictatorship. Remember the Ents... I agree that the entire war on drugs should end. But I understand it would be a hugely controversial and probably unpopular decision. Ending federal prosecution of medical marijuana was a long time coming. But our government acts slowly, and other drugs are still a much thornier issue. Remember, Bush started both wars. Obama inherited a very delicate situation. HUGE difference there. Well you're bringing a whole suite of preconceived notions to the table here that I can't even begin to address. I'm tempted to say this echoes Fox News, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Brown vs. Aldo on VS tonight, don't sleep.

I think this fact is being overlooked by a lot of people. We all learned about checks and balances in elementary school, and yet everyone expected Obama to be able to hammer through sweeping changes the second he got into office. He IS like Bush in that they both have had to come to terms with the reality of the institution of the presidency, which for the most part requires slow, careful compromise to get things done. I think what promises Obama did make while campaigning were taken and blown all out of proportional by the media and by his supporters. People projected their own beliefs and desires into the Obama campaign, but from the very beginning he has been more of a brooding, moderate intellectual type, not a vicious firebrand ready to change the world. I can remember articles from 2006 that painted him in a more moderate light, and this is the way I've viewed him the entire time. I didn't even vote though. Well, he never promised to pull out of Afghanistan, and to my knowledge he already pulled lots of troops out of Iraq, and is looking for ways to pull out of Afghanistan without totally fucking the place up. He also pulled the DEA off medical marijuana users/dispensers, which is a pretty huge deal where I live. Also healthcare and global warming aren't "stupid inefficient boondoggles" in my mind, but that's another argument entirely. To be clear, I'm not a major Obama supporter, but I think he's a pretty smart guy and he's still getting the hang of the presidency. I just think a lot of criticism in here is very unfair.

Thanks man. Carb cycling sounds pretty good, I've also heard cutting carbs out of the later half of the day is good too, since you tend to burn off everything you eat earlier. I'm gonna try some of what you recommended though. You're right that if I stopped drinking I'd probably shed a bunch of weight, but that's just how I get down. I have cut down since the days when I was gaining weight though. I also used to drink more liquor to cut calories because I tend to put away a lot of beer, but that's a whole different beast. Isn't liquor pretty high calorie too? Chased not mixed. Usually when I get to the liquor store I just say fuck it and pick up a few 40s or a pack anyway.

^Thank you. I've grown up around and taken numerous classes from professors at two elite universities at the forefront of climate research, and I've had a good deal of experience with relevant data/problem sets myself...but the universities are just being duped by the media and Al Gore, right?

*fart*

It's a double negative and it's considered nonstandard. I suppose it has some colloquial validity, but you can say that about a lot of questionable words. In any case your grammar stinks. I can't continue to argue with someone who has no appreciation for nuance. The world, especially the world of politics and global climate, is not so black and white. You're a self-righteous clown, and your ideas echo the type of short-sighted crap I might have taken seriously when I was 13. Welcome to my ignore list.

"A man carried a monkey about for a shew, & because he was a little wiser than the monkey, grew vain, and conceiv'd himself as much wiser than seven men. It is so with Swedenborg; he shews the folly of churches and exposes hypocrites, till he imagines that all are religious, & himself the single one on earth that ever broke a net." That's William Blake writing about Emanuel Swedenborg, but I think it applies to all you finger-pointers in here.

You're very quick to call people in the public eye money-grubbing and manipulative. Remember that (most) politicians are people too. Al Gore might speak in a boring monotone, and he might be naive with regard to the world of science and the issues he has chosen to champion, but I really don't get the picture that he's out for money and power. He already has that. He actually just put out a new book (Our Choice), for which he did a great deal of research and consulted a number of experts; I think he made a valiant effort to become educated on the subject of climate change and clean technology. I think whether or not he's totally correct about all of the science, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt as far as motives go. I don't see evidence for this. I think he made a few (minor) mistakes and people pounced on that and decided to call him a liar. This is an egregious exaggeration and your citing "the reports from scientists" is meaningless. Also, Gore doesn't "have access to the data," that's completely retarded. Do you understand how research works? Remember, the oil industry has waaaaay more clout as far as falsifying data and funding self-serving studies goes. Well this is just some tin-foil hat bullshit that I don't need to respond to. Also, "irregardless" isn't a word.

Well I gained about 20-25lbs two winters ago, I kind of stopped getting much exercise because I had a shoulder injury and I was living in a much colder climate and couldn't really get outside. Before that, I weighed about 205-10 (I'm 6'2) and I was almost as strong as I am now. I really only got back on track with the way I used to work out around last april/may, but my weight hasn't changed at all. Of course, I did put on a lot of muscle. Right now I'm a little over 230 and I figure I have maybe 5 lbs of muscle on my former self, so losing about 20 pounds or possibly putting on more muscle and losing a bit less total weight is what I want to do. You're right that I don't necessarily need to lose 20, that was just an estimate, but I know I want to lose some and get more cut. I don't play sports but I have been lifting for about 7 years and I'm not experienced with losing weight when I'm already in pretty good shape. I assumed it would come off more easily once I started lifting/biking again. I started using the stationary bike because I was mountain biking all summer and now it's getting colder/darker earlier and I can't fucking stand running on a treadmill. I go pretty hard on the stationary bike anyway. As far as diet goes my major vices are binge drinking large amounts of beer on the weekends, eating big dinners, and chips and salsa. Other than that I eat reasonably healthy things, and I supplement with around 30-40g of whey protein every day I lift. Bro story, cool. I was just looking for a new angle. If you maintain a calorie deficit but still eat a high-protein diet, will that help you burn fat and continue to build or at least maintain muscle?

I'm trying to lose about 20 pounds, but I've already built a lot of muscle over the last few years. What would you recommend for losing weight while making smaller strength gains or at least maintaining strength? I just started doing 30 minutes of on/off sprints on the stationary bike to replace some lighter riding I was doing after I lift, as well as eating oatmeal for breakfast 4 or 5 days a week and eating a bit less in general. What else can I do?

Well, there's no problem with that. It's one thing to be skeptical, but it's another thing entirely to call global warming a complete bullshit concoction. The whole problem is in the way global warming is presented in the media, which perhaps you recognize. My position is that expertise should not be under-appreciated. That means laypeople who read a bunch of news articles or watch documentaries should really take their own opinions with a grain of salt. Science is not politics, and the scientific community, while it can be influenced politically to a limited extent, is not a political body. If broad, international scientific consensus reaches a certain conclusion on specific issue, it's really not in the realm of anyone who is not an expert to dispute, no matter what type of facts and figures you can dig up. These can easily be self serving. Of course there are experts who dispute scientific consensus; this is good, many of them probably have valid points which can help further research. I had a Geochem professor who thought that the importance of CO2 is overstated and the causes of warming aren't entirely clear, but he still believed it is worthwhile and necessary to reduce emissions. I've had other professors who believed that warming is a real danger, but I think in general scientists take the holistic approach that it is really one of many problems related to our impact on the planet that demand serious attention. The point isn't really that we are going to melt the icecaps with CO2 and fuck up ocean levels and all that, it's that we need to be better stewards if we expect to continue to live on this planet. To me it is deeply ignorant to imbue political agendas on the scientific community as a whole, as some people here seem to be trying to do. However, with regards to Gore, I really don't get the picture that he's a selfish politician using and misrepresenting global warming to curry favor and profit. I think he finds it a fascinating, meaningful cause to uphold which he is unfortunately kind of under-qualified to represent. It seems that he continues to pursue knowledge in the (very broad) field of climate science and how it relates to human activity, and he is trying to use his clout to achieve what he perceives as meaningful progress. I really don't see much reason to call him a liar. I've already ranted about this here. Fuck it.

^You're an idiot. Plain and simple. Unfortunately this isn't the thread (or forum) for nuanced argument. Now if you're looking for paranoid conjecture and the regurgitation of ideas from various questionable internet documentaries, you've come to the right place.