Disqus - Latest Comments for icepyro

Re: 06/09/2017

icepyro — Fri, 09 Jun 2017 14:10:52 -0000

Justly proud of our accomplishments? Rarely ultranationalists? So do you think this comic is serious exaggeration or do you have any idea how many people are like this comic and unable to name any accomplishments to be proud of with any detail.

Re: 08/24/2016

icepyro — Wed, 24 Aug 2016 16:30:00 -0000

I have an app that does loyaly card barcodes and I have samsung pay. Both apps do some kinda cheaty behind the scenes things so they work when they have no business doing so (the barcode app actually sends IR of the inverse as if it reflected correctly and samsung pay signals the magswipe of card readers directly). I enjoy going places and being told my stuff can't possibly work and then blowing their mind when it does.

Well, sort of enjoy. If I hold up the line with my phone it's because of the clerks getting in my way (telling me it won't work but won't let me try either), or in the case of the movie theater, not understanding the concept of how card swipes work (put the flashlight of my phone to the card swipe... no that's above it.. no, don't swipe just hold it there... no, closer to the part where the card actually swipes... no, don't swipe it... give it here and let me lean over there).

Re: 01/29/2013

icepyro — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 13:31:30 -0000

Wow. Just wow. Now it should be noted that I grew up working full time in high school and college, and that I was willing to go to the next restaurant if I didn't like something. With the frequency of finding myself at a waffle house to hang out with friends and grab a bite, I have grown to find Waffle House as a reliable source of a good breakfast. It is now to the extent that I feel I must eat there at least once when on vacation, which is usually spent back in my hometown Atlanta suburb. So yeah, I gotta say that I'm very surprised at the general reaction here. The only time that is not time for Waffle House is Sunday morning before church because they are unbelievably packed. Also, they have their own tunes in the jukebox. What's not awesome about "844,739 Ways to Eat a Hamburger"

Re: 01/29/2013

icepyro — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 13:05:45 -0000

Waffle House is far better and far faster than any Denny's I have ever stepped foot in. They are also smaller and more frequent(? as in they build more of them to make up for being diner sized). Unless you go to the one that matches all the stereotypes. Again, luckily, there are more of them so just drive the extra mile to the next one.

Re: Obama on Healthcare

icepyro — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 16:25:03 -0000

I have several problems with this video. So I will go in order as they appear in the video.
For one, Obama is right. There is no silver bullet, quick fix, for anything. If there was this perfect solution, there would only be one country in the world. Obama wins the award for captain obvious. So what does this have to do with his plan? Nothing other than wanting us to listen as if he understands our problem and dismisses them right out.
For two, where does he think we *are* going in healthcare? Does anyone really think one day Star Trek will become how we live? I like the show, but it is just that, a show. I don't see us getting there and I don't want to live there either.
He is right. The system is broken. Our options are becoming limited. I feel, however, that the correct terms are that our options to have a state paid for plan are becoming limited. No one wants to acknowledge the cost in taxes we pay for a broken system and no one wants to acknowledge that there are solutions that don't involve the government tit. But as Obama said, "But that doesn't make sense".
I don't know where he gets his numbers for how much we will pay over someone in a foreign country, but I strongly doubt it was an unbiased research. Even so, some countries pay upwards of 60% of their income in taxes while we average 40%, so is 20% difference really equate to a couple thousand more? Nope.
Now I do agree that if we could get the inflation of medical cost to just match the inflation of other things, the problem would be solved. I just disagree with the delivery. I think of WE as the American people, and not the federal government.
I do not think the biggest driver of our deficit and debt is healthcare. I strongly feel that it may be throwing money at problems (i.e. bailouts) or perhaps its the DoD (how much do we spend in Iraq each day? Do you really feel that is less than how much grandma's hip replacement cost?

Now I also disagree with his use of current trends. Current trends cannot hold true. We are not paying $7/gallon for gas are we? But that was the trend at one time. Insurance companies cannot afford to lose 14000 a day forever. Eventually they run out of people, will have to suck up their losses and start over with a new strategy to get customers.
The only reason this has outlasted the gas price thing is probably because people are willing to pay more for their health than for their cars.
Do I have a solution? No, I don't. Do we need to do something about the current situation? Yes, we do. Obama is right that the deficit will get worse eventually.
I just really think if we continue to throw money we don't have at the problem, if we continue to rely on the government to fix the problems that we the people can, but refuse to, help fix (and that we did help create), if we continue down this road, then we will be making Obama correct when he says that the biggest contributor to our debt and deficit is medicaid/medicare.
The sad part is I think we can mark his words because all of the options I have seen any part of do lead there and any suggestion from him will also.

Re: “You can’t use reason to argue healthcare with a person who failed to do any research to arrive at their opinion.”

icepyro — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 18:11:57 -0000

On the 1000 page note, I remember joking with a friend on more than once that if I ever got elected into any office any bills I come across would be compared to the Constitution and if the bill was longer I would simply go 'tl;dr - no.'
My argument was that after all, why should a bill that covers such a small aspect of life be worded so much longer than the one that governs the very structure of the government voting on the issue?
I can see why this is not the case now, but seriously,it shouldn't be so longwinded that it gets voted on without reading it. We should all learn from past mistakes. Government should never say 'tl;dr - yes'.

Re: An Easy Test: How to See the Real Motive Behind the Healthcare Opposition

icepyro — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:18:22 -0000

I'll admit I am ignorant of the issue. I'll admit that I haven't been hanging around lately and have largely been ignoring the big picture. So maybe I am not the best person to be replying.
However, I would like to point out the fact that it could be that Hillary didn't get the nomination *because* of her health care plans. I know I voted against Hilary for this reason and kept my fingers crossed hoping she would not get nominated or elected for this reason.
Many of these "town hall" people were probably at a McCain rally, or an Obama rally. Both of these candidates did not want to "sink the economy" (at the time) by "giving away money" in what appeared would be "ineffective programs" such as trying to take on health care reform. Oh, wait.

Re: Moderate vs. Extremist Religion

icepyro — Fri, 15 May 2009 14:59:00 -0000

You set her up as a straw man. In fact to claim she is a moderate is rather humorous to me. Also, Christianity is not a single religion. There are many extremist Christians. David Koresh was a Christian. Was he extreme? He was very much so. Is this lady an extremist? I would claim so.
What makes an extremist Christian? I think anytime you put your 'faith' above common sense, good reason, and in some cases even above the Word of God that you claim to worship in the first place, you are on a dangerous path.

We could argue what defines common sense and good reason when it comes to religion until the day we die because those things are somewhat subjective to different cultures, beliefs, etc. To put yourself above your own beliefs is something a bit more tangible.
Is there a passage that shows people should ignore medicine and not help the sick? No. Is there passages in the Bible that shows people should help the sick? Yes. You would say if this person had her way she would implement policy to keep others from using medicine. I would say with that same certainty that she has cough medicine or vitamins in her medicine cabinets.

Re: Another Jesus Quote You’ll Never Hear in Church

icepyro — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:29:37 -0000

"2: A guard came by and broke the legs of the other two condemned to hasten the process, but left Jesus alone."
- except for the whole part where they chose to stab him instead, although I am sure you can argue that point too.

Anyway, here is a morality question for you all, but first a verse:
22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

Now my question is this: WHY is she grievously vexed with a devil? Perhaps it is because her and/or her mother made a 'deal with the devil' or some other questionable action. One could argue the lack of knowledge of the situation, but it is pretty pressing for me to hear of someone 'vexed by a devil' and assume innocence.

There may be even more to this on a cultural level, but even without that knowledge, there is obvious reason he doesn't want to help her just because she asked. Where would your morals stand if you could be 'fixed' by someone down the street anytime something goes wrong or you get sick if there are no repercussions?

Jesus decides to test her faith a bit to make sure she is really sorry for whatever caused the problem. He called her on just asking for help now that she is in trouble and she sunk to literal begging like a dog to show her faith. For being *that* willing (again I think there is cultural implications on top of the obvious), he healed her within the hour. I can't say for sure if it would have required that much debasement, but I like to think any show of real faith would have succeeded (although probably taken longer to convince).

Incidentally, this is why I hate government bailouts also.
Also incidentally, this is another Jesus quote I heard in church on several occasions.
I suddenly feel ironic for commenting like this when I don't attend church. *shrug*

Re: Shades of Astray: Why You Shouldn’t Be Calling Yourself Agnostic

icepyro — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 23:07:50 -0000

I spent my breaks at work contemplating a proper response only to come home and realize you have in fact redacted your stance in the comments and as such there is a lot less to say now.
But I do think I will just leave this here:
http://www.youtube.com/watc...
It has helped me prevent myself from playing the fool more than once recently. And I think I have still come up short.

Re: Are the Religious More Logical Than I Think?

icepyro — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 21:12:21 -0000

I have spent all day carefully considering how to respond to this debate. It has made me think some and justify my beliefs. I was raised Independent Baptist and the very first belief is that the Bible is *the* authority in religious belief. Having studied the Bible fairly well, and to take every passage in absolute literal truth, even at its furthest stretch and a little hyperbole on top, then by my calculations, Armageddon has already happened and we are a couple years into a millennium of peace. Ironically, one can look at the Bible again for an explanation of why that is not entirely the case.
My point is that I believe we are at another crossroads of belief. Just as the same Bible has accepted that the Earth revolves around the Sun, I believe it can still remain true and accept at least most of the theory of evolution. I say most to be safe because I have not independently researched it thoroughly. What I have read makes sense to me and can be and has been incorporated into my beliefs -- all while still maintaining that the Bibles account of creation can exist.
As a result of this crossroads, there is much bias and therefore hyperbole on both sides of the issue. To act on pure reaction quickly leads to breakdowns in relations and eventually a breakdown in society if left unchecked. However, the very fact that you debate this, the very fact that there are many people out there who know about this, proves that it will not go that far easily. Did the Inquisition or Holocaust or Crusades end civilization? No. And those are worst case scenarios. Even with the means, they will not return to that proportion. As I said on twitter once, "My conspiracy theory is that anyone involved in conspiracy theories is therefore set upon to not fulfill the theoretical future." History is doomed to repeat itself only if the story is never heard.
I have much longer I could write about this, (I almost did) but much of the rest has been covered by someone here I think or goes off on a tangent of these premises.

Re: The Jesus Quote You’ll Never Hear in Church

icepyro — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 15:06:52 -0000

Edit: I clearly am not in a state of mind to consider religious discussion calmly. Please see Fr33lanc3r's comment for something close to what I want to accomplish.

Re: Obama, You’re Disappointing Me a Bit

icepyro — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 14:47:31 -0000

Well you could always accept 'The Obama Deception' bit, but I don't entirely. I don't know why, but I am betting it has been made clear that if he upheld his campaign promises and actually brought about change on that level, he would be the next JFK in more ways than one and not even wait two years.
No proof, yes it's a conspiracy theory thing, but for some reason that is what my intuition keeps telling me.

Re: The Pope is Evil

icepyro — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:58:06 -0000

I... hope... that this was a farce based upon a misguided article found on a tabloid site.

Re: New Liberal Strategy: Accept and Promote Rush Limbaugh as the Head of the Republican Party

icepyro — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:50:53 -0000

I think that he's going for:
http://kevinchiu.org/emote/...
=D

Re: A Coffee Primer

icepyro — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 16:02:56 -0000

The Discovery channel has a show called How Stuff Works (based on the website) which did an episode about coffee. Most of what you just explained was mentioned.
As for the other article asking about brands, my uncle swears by Eight O'clock which he grinds himself and even stores the package in the freezer to help preserve freshness. I must say it's better than most nationally distributed brands, but I personally try to stick to local roasters for even fresher coffee. (The rest of my family somehow manages to get maxwell house black down their throats so they don't count imho). If I get if resh enough and ground it soon enough, it means I can enjoy espresso, altho usually I prefer a cafe breve (cappuccino made with half-n-half instead of milk).

Re: Arnold Rocks

icepyro — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:27:28 -0000

pulling the end quote out of context, I would like to point out that if we should agree with everything Obama wants to do, then there is no point for 2 branches of government.
I keep forgetting that the Governator is supposedly Republican. He runs this state like a slightly right democrat (right being contrasted by other democrats and not ideological center). And as stated, no wonder he likes the package. Any time the feds offer him money, it's a good idea since spending is so out of control.

Re: If The Problem Were Poor American Schools, Asian and Indian Kids Would Be Doing Poorly As Well

icepyro — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:47:23 -0000

I would just like to chime in and state that I do agree that a major issue is parenting in this situation. I also would point out that most liberals are championing the narrative of bias against blacks and hispanics. I haven't really seen "Oh please help this poor Asian kid" unless the kid is in an oppressive part of Asia. And as for the liberal who spoke, I feel there is a severe lack of culture in America in general when it comes to academia. Never did I see culture used as an excuse not to do something about it. There -is- something that can be done about it. Parenting can do something about culture. They can do something about the values. If parents teach their kids to value education this could go better. But I feel it is not like this. Watch the movie 'Traffic' sometime. If the person who works themselves to being in charge of fighting the war on drugs cannot see, help, or prevent their own kid from getting mixed up in drugs, then we are fighting the problem from the wrong direction. No kid is going to listen to a teacher they don't respect and they will not respect the teacher based on principle without already being taught said principle by someone more influential in their lives: parents.
Now I do agree that schools need more funding. If kids had access to the things at school that they need to succeed in life, things could be different too. The main issue I see however is time. If the teacher had better control over the students, they could be taught more and faster, but that won't happen without the kids respecting the teachers (see above). Of course, allowing a child to fail if he/she doesn't succeed would probably help keep motivation up as well. At least it would be a more accurate view of motivation/achievement than if you pass you succeed and if you do nothing you still move forward.

Re: The Snuggie

icepyro — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:01:48 -0000

Another parody (imo better) of the same commercial
the wtf blanket
http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Re: Why America Will Be Attacked Again Under Obama

icepyro — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:05:20 -0000

Timm brings up an interesting point, however I believe there is a middle ground to both sides. My sister owned a rottweiler. Our busy lives kept us from properly paying attention to him (and rottweilers demand a lot of attention). He started chewing/scratching up stuff he knew he wasn't supposed to, even window sills. At first we tried to discipline him, but that didn't seem to work, it seemed to encourage since at least then he was getting attention. Then we tried ignoring him, but that didn't work either as he would just spend his time finding what bugged us the most until we couldn't ignore him. In the end, we made time in our busy lives to properly play with him, and if he did pick up something he should not have, then we would get a toy and trade him.
My point here is as Daniel points out, punishing only makes them stronger, and as TIMM points out, we can't ignore them and hope they leave us alone. We need more. We need to be part of this world. We need to interact. Not say 'stop the WMD stuff and then we will talk'. We need not to say 'get these people out of your country and we will talk'. We do need to say let's talk about how we can make peace. I don't trust these people what do you know about them? Are you allowing them to do this because you don't like us or because you don't know what they are up to? If any nation is harboring terrorists, let's ask them and the rest of the world why that is and whether we support that. Yes its a precarious balance, but to tell people to do something without authority nor respect is a mistake in the same way that to tolerate other countries trying to tell us what to do is a mistake.
They will hate us, they will likely attack us, but we can prevail as long as we do not allow ourselves to be run by these people or their tactics. If other countries see that America does in fact respect them, they will respect and support us and that will be what makes the difference.

Re: More Variation in State IQ Scores = A More Democratic State

icepyro — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 16:11:19 -0000

I agree with CarlM on this one. The why is the same correlation as higher crime tends to involve more police. Whether accidental or not, democrats are more prone to see equality and feel there is something to be done about it, while Republicans tend to preach that the people should do something about their own situation and thus less inequality is observed. The cause is the why.
There is a difference between unjust inequality and complacent inequality.

Re: Believers Worry Less Than Non-Believers

icepyro — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:53:55 -0000

just a small observation on a point of interest. I went home to visit family back around Halloween. Home refering to Georgia, family in Alabama. The point about white people in the South who voted for Obama being less religious is pretty much entirely true. The couple I met who were white and going to vote for Obama would be considered far less religious by religious standards. Most whites in general were going so far as to make 'Let me talk to you about electing Obama' as an "oh that's a good one" joke. i.e., one would say the line and both would laugh so hard until the subject changed. I never thought I'd be glad to be back in California.
And if you agree/believe something, you should teach it to your kids, even if it is 'downright dangerous'. Although anyone who truly believes that teaching in its entirety is lying to themselves in someway in my opinion.
As for the overall point made, it has been my observation that the less stress goes back to the Serenity Prayer. Perhaps the sense of disconnect comes from worrying over something you have no control and seeing them be serene about it. Or maybe they have said control but feel they don't and still have a sense of calm although they say they hate the situation.
Also, even many Christians stress to unreasonable levels on some points. I have seen good Christians kill themselves because they thought they weren't good and he/she couldn't cope with the resulting stress. Those divorces mentioned usually comes from a disagreement on religion because you cannot live with someone of a different conviction and this reinforces my stance about believing that premise of "moderate religion".
At least these are my observations without research and any undue generalization is due to a lack of experience and not because I feel they are set in stone.

Re: Creationists Pwned Completely by One Video

icepyro — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 20:41:19 -0000

Weak sauce.
What you have here is someone completely convinced that the mere fact that humans are animals is enough to prove evolution is right and creation is wrong. One minute to prove that life could not descend from one organism and the rest of this ten minute tirade was devoted to proving humans are animals. It may not be epic, but it is FAIL.

Re: The Original Sin Was Committed by God, Not Man

icepyro — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 17:49:40 -0000

Let's assume that it was (as some claim) a red delicious apple on the Tree for Adam to (not) eat. What else was in the garden? Well, everything. So, Adam could have had a granny smith apple, or an orange, or a red delicious apple from a different tree. What made that tree different from all the others? God said He didn't want man to eat the fruit.
So it's not a choice between sweets and spinach. It is not a choice between eating and riding a bike. It is not a choice between eating and helping someone at a homeless shelter. Those are not true free will choices in the sense of all things equal. Now if you had a purpose to ride a bike and the choice was worth sacrificing your life for the greater good, then it still is not equal.
I also feel desires are what we make them. We place value in spinach because we know about vitamins and what the body needs. Our body does desire those vitamins so spinach does taste acceptable or even good. I am sure you can get those vitamins from other plants that we don't eat because they also have downsides of material we can't use or some such. We place value in sweets early in life because energy comes easiest from sugars, but also because they taste like fruit that can have other values. At least, I don't recall seeing sugar flavored candy, and I doubt we truly value it as such even though we adults look at many candies as that. So when it comes to food, our desires are based on the information we have programmed ourselves to believing.
There is some basics, but mostly it's programming. Whether it's the need to be the best, to be unique, to live a long, healthy life, to be a part of something that is not accepted by those that you don't wish to associate with, or even most of our programming is self induced and what isn't can be changed if you choose to do so. So it's only a matter of time before we clear up that last 1%.
As for those comments...
Just because Christianity wasn't uniformed, doesn't mean it did not exist. The texts are all older than that, so it's not like people sat down in 325AD and said, "Hey let's make up a story about a guy. Let's call his name Adam." That would be copying and reinventing. I don't think things went down like that.
Moving on, I don't know the purpose of baptizing babies either. And I'm Christian. Find an instance in a Bible where babies were baptized. Find an instance where anyone was baptized when they were not making the choice.
Of course, find proof that Adam is to blame for our choices too.
And find a rule made that we are not allowed to follow.

Re: One of the Primary Problems With America

icepyro — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 15:19:16 -0000

Having been born and raised in the South, I find this opinion slightly flawed. Debate in and of itself is not frowned upon as long as you can keep Godwin's law at bay. Respect goes a long way in the South, and also the sense of community and high moral values tends towards conformity, and debate by definition is to engage in an argument. However, if I disagree with something, I will debate it. I guess with areas of very similar moral and political values, an unneeded debate could be mistaken for an unwillingness to debate for the sake of debate.