User Profile: EgoLacuna


Member Since: January 23, 2013


123 To page: Go
  • September 30, 2014 at 10:48am

    Believe it or not, many people don’t do the things you mentioned. It isn’t uncommon for someone to be enrolled in Medicaid since birth, and also be “in the system” enough to receive social services without ever having an id. There are a great many people like that. These laws would disenfranchise them. Maybe that’s goal, but if it is be up front about it.

  • [1] September 30, 2014 at 10:44am

    I have read the bible (all of it), and I believe in God. I would only ask that you read the science. If you are smart it will be clear to you that the evidence is overwhelmingly strong in support of some of the things you mentioned. If you only read the bible, and don’t read the science you aren’t smart, you are willfully ignorant.

  • [-2] September 29, 2014 at 10:18pm

    What kind of idiots go for this logic?? Did you know that about 450 people die per year from falling out of bed? I suppose we should mandate bed rails for everyone. That is identically stupid logic to voter ID laws. Of course there are cases of voter fraud that would be stopped by voter ID requirements, but they are statistically insignificant…even less than insignificant. This article is about ONE person! Enacting laws that inconvenience that majority of people in order to target a tiny minority is ridiculous. It’s ridiculous with the gun laws as well. Virtually all gun owners are responsible citizens, yet the laws are a hardship on everyone.

    Responses (3) +
  • [-3] September 29, 2014 at 10:05pm

    Many of you are confusing the media narrative with the science. There are hundreds of thousands of pages in peer reviewed journals that do a pretty good job of making the case for climate change. I don’t believe that any intelligent person could read the primary sources (papers in Science, Nature and other top tier journals), and come away unconvinced. There is plenty of healthy debate within the scientific community about the extent of the changes, and the ability to slow them, and the prognosis, but there really is no significant debate on the basic premise that man-made climate change is real. It just isn’t the case that the data resembles other natural fluctuations, or that the land-ice is antartica is expanding, or that the tilt of the earth is the culprit, etc.. I would bet that very few of you have taken the time to really wade through the data in PRIMARY SOURCES. That means reading the actual original research, not what someone is telling you that it says. If you don’t have the background to understand the science at the level, that’s totally fine. Most people don’t. Although you need to realize that lacking that understanding, you cannot form an educated, well-informed opinion on the topic. You don’t have an opinion on the best method of internal sutures, or on Freudian versus Klinean psychodynamics, or on the metabolic function of sharks. Why? Because you realize that you don’t know about those things. This is no different. Read the science or ZIP IT UP!

    Responses (2) +
  • [1] September 26, 2014 at 10:18am

    If someone isn’t afraid of dying, there isn’t much that we could do that would make them frightened. They break ties with their families as well, so there is very little possibility of effective psychological manipulation.

    Responses (2) +
  • September 26, 2014 at 10:12am

    You are saying he would forcibly remove one of the sitting justices? What else is this group of scholars coming up with?

  • [1] September 25, 2014 at 10:54am

    Do you know anyone who has raped themselves? It seems complicated. Of course rape isn’t funny. Murder isn’t funny either, although it is frequently trivialized in the media. If references to rape are censored it will only succeed in recreating a secretive, shameful culture of “unmentionable acts.” Isn’t the whole point of bringing rape out of the shadows to allow a public dialogue? Well, the public isn’t always tasteful, and sometimes the public is offensive. You can’t have it both ways, either accept the consequences of higher awareness, or accept the consequences of staying silent on the topic.

  • September 22, 2014 at 10:11am

    It’s a shame that the politics is keeping so many of you from exploring the science. Sure, it isn’t as bad as the media says it is, but there is something going on related to human factors. I don’t know what the effects will be, but it is likely there will be some effect. The skepticism in the scientific community relates to how firmly the results have been stated, and the stated magnitude of the effect. Virtually NO scientists maintains that this is all just a sham. Please read the science…it will be informative, and it isn’t as politically polarizing as the media portrays.

    Responses (1) +
  • [-1] September 21, 2014 at 10:59am

    How can you accuse him of taking that text out of context, and also believe the the Quran quotes are IN context? Could you really be that hypocritical? There are so many violent passages in the bible. On a numbers basis, the bible wins easily. What about this gem from the bible…I provided all the text so there is no question about the “context.”

    that scoundrels among you are leading their fellow citizens astray by saying, ‘Let us go worship other gods’—gods you have not known before. 14 In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find that the report is true and such a detestable act has been committed among you, 15 you must attack that town and completely destroy[a] all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. 16 Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the open square and burn it. Burn the entire town as a burnt offering to the Lord your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. 17 Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the Lord will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a large nation, just as he swore to your ancestors.

  • September 21, 2014 at 10:42am

    You are right, Carl…there are two sides to this. Detention was excessive, but the school really does need to confront a difficult liability issue.

  • [-1] September 20, 2014 at 10:54am


    There is almost NOTHING socialist in the nazi party. Nazism was a specific brand of fascism. Hitler’s stated political enemy were the communists. You are proposing that all of the different political parties in Weimar Germany were socialist? I guess we should back-up…how are you defining socialist?

  • [-2] September 19, 2014 at 10:46am

    If you trusted the source, you are an idiot. Why do so many people here have to resort to nonsense in order to make a point. If you are saying anything worthwhile, shouldn’t you be able to produce something a bit stronger than something you kind of remember reading about some people meeting three decades ago! You are impossible to take seriously!

    Responses (2) +
  • [-2] September 19, 2014 at 10:39am

    Have you graduated high school? The OPPOSITION party to the Nazis were the Social Democrats. Neither party was especially similar to modern American democrats. The nazis, of course were organized around the Fuhrerprinzip, which like Italy and Spain was a form of fascism. The social democrats were much more similar to modern day democrats, although there were more differences than similarities. Nonetheless, the nazis were considered the “right” and social democrats were considered the “left.” The “socialist” in national socialist was a very calculated move to pull voters from the middle. Remember, the nazis never won a large majority of the popular vote within Germany.

    Responses (4) +
  • September 18, 2014 at 10:46am

    Wow! You guys don’t have many arrows in your quiver!

  • September 14, 2014 at 9:40am

    Your conclusions are incorrect. Imagine someone in prison, or even the military. In those situations people become accustom to, or even rely on patterns of behavior that we would find uncomfortable, or unacceptable if those behaviors occurred in the outside world. Imagine if your boss made you run laps, or sent you to isolation. In abuse situations people become used to terrible conditions, yet they also lack the perspective to accurately judge the severity of the situation. Hence, they stay. It isn’t accurate to infer that the situation has been resolved just because a person isn’t leaving.

  • [3] September 10, 2014 at 1:17pm


    When someone says the “rate of” they are referring to the “percent rate of occurrence.” In other words, the size of populations are irrelevant. How can you be walking around, and not know that? You must be frequently confused.

    As to the veracity of the statement, I’m skeptical that violent crime is higher among people who identify as Christian. I wouldn’t be shocked, but I’m skeptical…

    Responses (4) +
  • [3] September 10, 2014 at 1:08pm

    I don’t believe that you have friends in the military who believe that. Just think about it. Who would write such a plan? Who would carry it out? Would your “friends” follow those orders? If they would, they wouldn’t also be telling you about their suspicions. The government (or military) are not homogenous monoliths executing the will of the commander. They are more like ant colonies where the ants have the option to do their own thing, but usually choose to cooperate. If those ants (I’m not suggesting military men/women are ants!) were asked to carry out an order against their own towns, friends, and family, they wouldn’t comply. There are many existential threats to our country but the president becoming a dictator is not one of them.

    Responses (2) +
  • [2] September 6, 2014 at 11:21am

    I really like it when someone who clearly knows what he is talking about appears on the Internet and cuts through the BS. I find it restorative.

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] September 6, 2014 at 11:17am

    You would be incorrect.

  • [1] September 6, 2014 at 11:12am

    What is the “gay Marxist regime?” Are you just reading titles from your video collection?

    Responses (2) +
123 To page: Go