So in other words, someone of whom you share relation belonged to X-religion, and thus, you're biased.  And no, I hate no religion; you're putting words in my mouth, and I'd appreciate you not do that.  I do, however, understand religion, and I understand what it is used for, and how politicians use it to their advantage.  Mormonism just happens to have a soft spot in my heart for having the silliest conception of all common religion (and say what you will, 14,000,000+ mormons is not a small religion.  In comparison?  Sure.  Compared to the "religion" of me?  Well!--how could 14 million Mormons be wrong to my 1-member religion?)

And what makes you so sure I have a "particular denomination"?  I take offence to that.  Unlike those with "denominations", I prefer to ask my own questions and get my own answers.  This is what religion doesn't teach you.  But that's the tragedy of religion; if one were trained to think, as opposed to sponge, religion would cease to be.  There is no religion that will train you to be an individual.  There is only the religion, and what you can do for the religion (under the guise of helping yourself, too--but if you could help yourself, what good is religion?)  Having been raised under such circumstances, I simply hope you'll either know what I'm saying, or trust I know what I'm talking about.

For example:  Bill is a Christian.  Jane isn't; Jane isn't anything.  So what is Jane?  I guess she's just Jane.  And Bill?  Well, Bill's a Christian.

Now: because Bill is a Christian, we expect Bill to do Christian-like things.  Because that's what Bill subscribed to, and it shouldn't be over our heads to expect him to understand the word of Christ yadda yadda.  Jane?  Who fuckin knows, I guess you'll have to get to know her.  Since Jane's an individual, and has no such title (and by that, I mean, to those non-religious; any Theist will name anyone who is not a Theist an Atheist, as Theists love their titles and -isms) we can safely assume that she either knows better, or has yet to be converted.  To the religious, it must always be the latter--else, the religious individual is having second thoughts, which is, of course, preferable, signifying someone who stopped simply listening and spent some good, quality time thinking (and if it goes well, it always ends up with a discarding of said religion, if not all religion.)  To the non-religious, it can very well be both: and that's the difference between the two.

I really don't care if Romney was Mormon, Catholic, Jew, Islamic, or Hindu.  Because he subscribes to another man's logic (and again, I refer to the conception of Mormonism as the real killer here,) this says enough about his ability to lead.

And before you ask: no, I don't like Obama, either.  They're both completely terrible.  Say; did you know there's more than two candidates in every election?  And yet nobody can name the others (except for R. Paul.)  Why do you believe this is?  And why do both candidates always subscribe to the stupidity of the left, or the stupidity of the right?  And why is it--if we're to put the above to practice, about religion and being apart of something greater--always, always, always, those who are left, or those who are right, are religious?

Oddly enough, the assassins have decided to take a long, long vacation.  Not sure how these two correlate, what with Biden being living, and assassins, for some reason, targeting only peaceful intellectuals, but I'm sure they'll get around to killing some other type of person eventually.

I don't remember using Beanie Babies as money.

Does anyone else have any records of Beanie Babies being used as money?  Google doesn't seem to know what the fuck he's talking about, so I assume only he does.

They should. But they shouldn't be forced to.

I suppose supporters on either end of the spectrum will find any way they can to rationalize the bank-approved candidates for presidency.

Romney's a Mormon. He's even held positions in the cult's various churches. If that's not a red flag, all is explained.

Pizzaforcoins isn't selling pizza; they're selling a service. The surcharge is for their service, not so they can profit off someone's want to use BTC.

I like the motto: "Everyone gets the same rights, or nobody does." Jews don't get special treatment. Skinneads don't get special treatment. Blacks don't get special treatment. Whites don't get special treatment. But the government, in all its holiness, enables special treatment. It enables abuse; gives racists an excuse for their racism. Just another non-service the government provides.

Nobody should be forced one way or another. To believe it's okay to force, is to be a fascist. There's a surprising amount of those in a country which propagates freedom.

Skinheads are still around? That's amazing! Thought they went extinct like 90's pop music.

Anyway, a skinhead knows what he's getting into when he goes to a Jewish establishment. If the skinhead deems it appropriate, he's probably just looking for some eats. If he acts up, the owner should kick him out.

I don't understand "rights". The jewish owner should do what's best for his establishment. There is no right to kick a rowdy customer out; there is simply the most logical decision. Protect your current clientelle by keeping the peace. If, however, the skinhead eats and is peaceful and pays, it would be bad business to tell him not to come back. Of course you want him to come back; he's a paying customer, he's hungry, personal beliefs need not apply. If the Jewish owner wants to shoot himself in the foot, why does the government deem it inappropriate? It's already a hit to his business to turn clients away; if he has a good reason, he should do it.

Good news, everyone!  Ubuntu is releasing a mobile OS.  So if you've been saying "fuck windows" and "fuck apple" for some time now, I believe you'll be pleasantly surprised a completely open mobile OS is around the corner.  Joy.

Didn't know FB was trying to release a phone.  Hasn't everyone moved onto tumblr and twitter and whatever by now?

Where exactly are you getting this from?  And I don't mean this as a hypothetical; there must be some publication somewhere which has mislead you.  You should take a moment to actually understand; nobody who identifies with AnCap considers themselves anywhere close to either "wing".  If you've always laughed about it, it's troubling knowing you've been under a misconception for some time.  I'm well aware the current system we're under is slavery, which is why I advocate anarchism to begin with.  There's nothing I despise more than wage slavery; if the government sanctions on monopolies and oligarchies are torn down, you'll see the poor and the rich classes coincide and melt into one another; people work for themselves, not a boss, or their boss, or their boss.  The free market is exactly that: a market without government intervention.  How this translates into wage slavery is beyond me.

How much C#?

I'm gonna call them Mickeys.  $0.17 a Mickey doesn't sound expensive at all; it would be the new dollar, when BTC hit $1k a pop.  Most people don't buy whole gold bars; they'll buy ounces, whenever they can.  So it shouldn't seem all that expensive.

The only real politics are the politics that take place outside the farm.

It would be a pretty good idea.  But usually, if something's really bad, there will be an uproar.

Neat.  America's waking up.

Not much diff.  American democracy is totalitarianism in dress.

Go on.

Make sure the image is a square and small (around 200x200 max), upload it, then clear your cache.

Let this be a lesson to everyone.

I hear he was a total prick.  Never heard a thing about the vice.