GENIUS FORUMS

.


Barack Obama - Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia (see photos)

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Obama

.

Did I read in the paper this morning that Obama smokes? WTF? What president ever smoked? That shows lack of judgement if nothing else.

.

-brokenhearted cries-
Did I read in the paper this morning that Obama smokes? WTF? What president ever smoked?


-Carl G replies-
Plenty. Check out this list of * Presidential Tobacco Preferences *

http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/CA ... 06,00.html




-brokenhearted intones-
That shows lack of judgement if nothing else.


-Carl G koans-
Are our mistresses really the fruits of conscious decision or are they the stepchildren of intrinsic weaknesses?

Judgement? I'll be the judge of that.

.



carl (the VW bus)
33rd parallel
North of Mason-Dixon line

.

Woodstock 1969



.

__________________
This space for rent

That's not funny, Carl!

I think it is quite funny, Carl is a parody genius.

He's supposed to have quit.

Obama is just another establishment stooge. Nothing will change under his rule. The hedge funders are among some of his biggest supporters:

University of California $909,283
Goldman Sachs $874,207
Harvard University $717,230
Microsoft Corp $714,108
Google Inc $701,099
JPMorgan Chase & Co $581,460
Citigroup Inc $581,216
National Amusements Inc $543,859
Time Warner $508,148
Sidley Austin LLP $492,445
Stanford University $481,199
Skadden, Arps et al $473,424
Wilmerhale Llp $466,679
UBS AG $454,795
Latham & Watkins $426,924
Columbia University $426,516
Morgan Stanley $425,102
IBM Corp $415,196
University of Chicago $414,555
US Government $400,819

A depression is coming America...this time next year, bringing with it government CONTROL of all major industries and financial institutions WORLD WIDE...in other words, enter the NEW WORLD ORDER...

z

Cigars don't count, Carl. You'd smoke cigars too if you could get Havanas any time you wanted.

.

Why the POTUS needs to be a natural-born citizen

-snip-

...Instead, under the pretext of visiting an ailing grandmother in Hawaii just days before the 2008 Presidential Election, Mr. Obama had his vaulted, original birth certificate sealed by Hawaii's governor, Linda Lingle (R). (see photo)

-Click URL for complete article.

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/ ... npotus.htm

.

.

Jackson "5" And Obama's Moonwalking

-snip-

And Barack Obama ("the wheels on the bus go thump, thump, thump") is calling for his friend Governor Blagojevich's resignation.

Instead as the Chicago Tribune's John Kass just wrote, the media "have been clinging to the ridiculous notion that Chicago is Camelot for months now. It must help them see Obama as some pristine creature, perhaps a gentle fawn of a magic forest, unstained by our grubby politics."

-Click URL for complete article-

http://www.rightwingnews.com/#post13761

.

Problem is people typically start smoking when they are children and then develop long-term nicotine addiction.

http://healthguide.howstuffworks.com/sm ... -depth.htm

"Some researchers feel nicotine is as addictive as heroin. In fact, nicotine has actions similar to heroin and cocaine, and the chemical affects the same area of the brain."

If I remember correctly this is the ventral tegmental area of dopaminergic reward system. Perhaps also the substantia nigra, though its probably in one of these articles.

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Rew ... _the_Brain

Part of the problem with decision-making and especially in childhood is that the Prefrontal Cortex responsible for forethought, planning, deliberation, called executive functions, isn't fully developed until approx. 23 years of age. It undergoes a process of synaptogenesis at approx. age 10. The process of synaptogenesis is the genesis of new synapses. New connections between extant nerve cells. Afterwards the synapses "fight" for Neural Growth Factor (NGF) and other Neurotrophins like (NT3 or BDNF). The effect is basically natural selection of synapses. However neuroplastic change involving neurotrophins continues throughout life. Unlike Artificial Neural Networks (ANN), the brain overproduces nerve cells and synapses and then lets unused cells die. Dr. Giedd call this "Pruning". So in effect children, adolescence and young adults haven't refined their self-control.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... giedd.html


Life is a learning process I guess. I've smoked since I was 13 or 14. I've tried to quit, but I've never got past 12 hours. Can't sleep, can't think about anything but this intense feeling of impending doom if I don't fulfill the desire. When I was 20 I smoked upwards of two packs a day. I smoked in enclosed spaces, at my computer. It courses through my veins and blackens my organs. I know more about it than most and it still has me. I think about it. Most people who quit and thats a small few, quit because something terrible has happened to them as a result. They may have also taken an opportunity in a new environment to quit, a lot of the withdrawal symptoms occur as a result of the body's compensatory response to conditioned environmental stimuli.

In a way you are correct though, in a colloquial sense that boils down to "poor judgment". On the other hand smoking has never affected my ability to live my life responsibly... other than buying cigarettes before buying food and that kind of thing. I personally think it should be removed from stores. Make me go somewhere else and get it if I really need it and that way its availability will hopefully decline. I don't know but once it gets ya, man its got ya. Its not like you get a reward for having a smoke, you do, but you also never get a reward unless you have a smoke. Its constant aggravation, not reward, ever. Because nicotine hijacks the reward system, as do other drugs. I don't know how to fix that for society, but I haven't worked out how to fix me yet, or I haven't wanted to. I started smoking in order to kill myself, at 14 I didn't realize I'd live to see the end of it.

Quitting smoking is easy! You've trapped yourself into thinking that it's hard and this only gives you another excuse to continue smoking.

The withdrawal effects are nothing terrible.

Heh, I've quit many times and that's why I keep on smoking! (this is an example of the other trap)

I don't think I've trapped myself into thinking its difficult. I knew it was difficult before I started. I've seen family die from it.

.

NEW OBAMA FUNNIES: The Adventures of Media, Lapdog for Obama

Full Funnies (six images)

http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewt ... highlight=

.

Animus wrote:I don't think I've trapped myself into thinking its difficult. I knew it was difficult before I started. I've seen family die from it.

Same thing. I've also had family die from it, but they died because they trapped themselves into thinking that it's difficult to quit. You can't get around this. I'll even give you a really good example taken out of real life:

My grandfather smoked for about 20 (maybe more) years. Back then, and in another country, the cigarettes were different (I'll grant you that), however, the same still applies. He knew they were bad for him, but he still smoked because a) he was addicted, and b) he didn't believe that he'd die from it. Anyway, one day he went to see his doctor because of some kind of pain which his doctor told him was a result of smoking, and if he didn't quit in that moment he would most likely die in the near future. Guess what happened? That's right - he quit without any problems and he hasn't smoked since.

Question: does the difficulty of not smoking disappear by the "in your face" reality of being told that you'll die very soon if you don't stop? Think about it. It isn't difficult to stop, but of course you must want to stop. Any smart person in this day and age would not be smoking cigarettes.

The reality of dying from something so stupid shows us the truth -- we make it difficult and that's all it is. If you didn't have such a strong belief in an addiction (the trap), then it wouldn't be such a problem to stop smoking. This has been proven, over and over...

brokenhead wrote:Did I read in the paper this morning that Obama smokes? WTF? What president ever smoked? That shows lack of judgement if nothing else.

Uncle Brokie,

After reading the later replies .. I've seen George W. Bush smoke cigarettes when he was running (but defeated in general election) for a U.S. House seat in 1978. It was at a nightclub in Sugar Land, Texas. We had a couple drinks etc. he was a rather pleasant fellow to be around. Even then, he had a serious cocaine habit. Dunno when he kicked the cigarette habit. His wife, Laura still smokes cigarettes.

Saw Bill Clinton smoking cigarettes in 1981, in Hope, Arkansas. It was in a car garage at some out-of-the-way gas station. Also. a few of us smoked a few joints together, and yes, he inhaled. At the time I was smoking Marlboro reds-box style. My understanding is that his allergies prompted him to switch to cigars. Never saw him do blow, though, it was so common in those days I wouldn't have noticed anyway. Hillary never smoked cigarettes but used to be a marijuana smoker bigtime.

Met an in-the-know fellow who told me that John Kennedy used to smoke both cigarettes and cigars up to the time of his death. Jackie pretty much smoked even when she was dying of smoking-related cancer. They were both into injection-style pharaceutical methamphetamine.

Reagan smoked the occasional cigar but always in private company.

Bush 41, Jimmy Carter both never smoked cigarettes.
.

.

Press scrambling to cover Obama's rear end

-snip-

And in the Byzantine world of Chicago politics, there were other connections, including their friendship with the now Illinois state treasurer Alexi Giannoulias who, as Vice President of the Broadway Bank in Chicago, aided both men despite his rather unsavory reputation of mingling with mobsters. Obama endorsed Giannoulias who turned around and raised gobs of money for both Obama and Blagojevich in their campaigns.

-Click URL for complete article-

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/200 ... _obam.html

.

.


Dictator Obama Puts His Enemies in Jail Even Before He Takes Office

by Nancy Goldfarb

-snip-

In Illinois, it is part of business as usual to abuse and loot non-profits. Of course, a few years ago Obama still paid to play. Just after his wife got the $350,000 a year no show job at the non-profit, Obama paid by granting a $1,000,000 earmark to the non-profit from the Illinois taxpayer.

-Click URL for complete article-

http://ngoldfarb.wordpress.com/2008/12/ ... kes-office
.

Alex once again I think there's very little progress being made in our discussion, for all the same reasons I've detailed before. I'm not going to reply to your previous post, I don't think it's likely to generate anything worthwhile, I've given up on the sex discussion, but there is another thing that I found potentially interesting:

Alex Jacob to guest_of_logic wrote:The bottom line is: I don't fucking know. The reason for that is because, like so many of us (my theory) we do not really grasp 'where we are'. We don't really understand this created world.

To put it bluntly: how the hell did you make the leap from not knowing where you are, and not understanding the world, to then attaching yourself to something as seemingly removed from that premise as Judeo-Christianity? Wouldn't skepticism or agnosticism be a better and more honest fit?

Alex Jacob wrote: ¤ø„¸¨°º¤ø„¸ ¸„ø¤º°¨¸„ø¤º°¨
¨°º¤ø¨Weisenheimer ¸„ø¤º°¨
¸„ø¤º° sends kisses``°º¤ø„¸
¸„ø¤º ``°º¤ø„¸ ¤ø„¸¨°º¤ø„¸¸„

The mohel created a fantastically stable perch out of Weisenheimer.(warning: nudity-weirdness)

zarathustra wrote:Obama is just another establishment stooge. Nothing will change under his rule. The hedge funders are among some of his biggest supporters:

Corporations will donate to a candidate who has a plausible chance of winning, and almost every candidate benefits some industry group, even if only by hurting their opposition.

If your criterion for an 'establishment stooge candidate' is that he or she received some form of financial support from the establishment, this simply means that, definitionally, the only non-stooge candidates by this criterion are either total nuts whom aren't helping anyone, or people who have absolutely no chance of winning.

vicdan wrote:If your criterion for an 'establishment stooge candidate' is that he or she received some form of financial support from the establishment, this simply means that, definitionally, the only non-stooge candidates by this criterion are either total nuts whom aren't helping anyone, or people who have absolutely no chance of winning.

This is the essential problem of politics in the US.

If someone is capable of becoming President through the current process, I will be opposed to them being President, almost by definition. It seems to always be a lesser-of-two-evils choice.

I really don't like voting for evil.

DHodges wrote:This is the essential problem of politics in the US.

If someone is capable of becoming President through the current process, I will be opposed to them being President, almost by definition. It seems to always be a lesser-of-two-evils choice.

This 'problem' is going to manifest in any political system where voting decides things, because men always seek to influence others, and men always seek power. However, I don't think it a problem, any more than I think the temperature of the fire to be a problem. It's more a question of how we use it.

I think the real issue here is a combination of unrealistic expectations, and a sort of self-conscious cynicism. Striking "a pox on both their houses!" pose is a very easy way to appear to have the high moral ground. "Look at me, look how far above these petty squabbles I am, how contemptible it all is in my wise, brimming-with-benevolence eyes!", the cynic implies. Cynicism is the lazy way out, in politics and in many other fields, a shortcut to unearned feeling of moral superiority, a bit like some of the modern "self-esteem" education in school.

This factor is squared when the poser is a rebel without a clue, apparently trying to down The Man simply because he is The Man. Reminds me of the "don't trust anyone over 30" idiocy. Some children remain children for a very long time, I suppose.

I disagree Vic. The problem is that money should not buy influence, because then those with the most money win. There is no reason whatsoever that our elections should not be free, run publicly with no private donations whatsoever. This would go along way toward creating or reestablishing a democracy in the US.

It isn't childish to reject both parties, because I do not think that it is done in the spirit of "Don't trust anyone over 30."
It is a serious problem, and I could just as well say that the enthusiastic participants of the status quo are in denial, or are like those tiresome, emotional people who really don't want a calm and sensible life, but want drama instead.

Iolaus wrote:I disagree Vic. The problem is that money should not buy influence, because then those with the most money win.

As do people with the most intelligence, charisma, education, etc. Are you going to suggest that those things shouldn't buy influence either? If so, then what is the key difference between them, and money, in terms of moral acceptability?

BTW, your point is actually totally wrong. Those with the most money don't win. Those who win, also collect the most money. This point was starkly demonstrated by a study which was done recently, which i will try to dig up. What that study did was analyze the results of self-financed candidates. Guess what? They don't usually do well.

if you take two candidates, one who raises $10M and one who uses his own $10M but can't raise anything, the former will almost assuredly win. In general, electoral money are useful, but by and large, they aren't what determines elections. They are more a way of keeping score, of gauging the enthusiasm and numbers of a given candidate's supporters.

Money doesn't buy elections -- but candidates who win elections for non-monetary reasons, are usually the sorts of candidates who can (and do) raise a lot of money.

There is no reason whatsoever that our elections should not be free, run publicly with no private donations whatsoever. This would go along way toward creating or reestablishing a democracy in the US.

You can't excise money out of the system, because money pervades our culture on all levels. if you have publicly financed elections, those willing to spend their money will simply find other ways to spend them -- say, buying the services of charismatic public figures and newspaper columnists. How many chains are you willing to impose on public discourse to achieve your unrealistic ideal?

Trying to ban the influence of money on elections is like trying to ban drugs. You could probably kinda sorta partially do it if you are willing to be draconian enough, but is it really worth it, to impose such strictures on our society for an end which cannot be attained anyway? At most, you will simply drive political money underground, moving out outside public scrutiny and legal regulation.

It isn't childish to reject both parties

Not always, no. I have met a couple of people who reject them reasonably, and not as a painfully transparent way to seize the unearned high moral ground. In my experience, however, the latter far outnumber the former.

It is a serious problem

which will not be addressed by rejecting the entire system. Revolutions rarely end up well.

Very reasonable, as always, Victor.