Web sites that makes us laugh, cry, or both

[JonSetanta]

sigma: Yeah, I know, they make medication for that.

Unless you mean some form of panic-suppressant (and they have their own constellation of unwanted sideeffects) there is no medication for autism. At least not yet. Like fucking hell SSRIs or stimulants work; I've been on either at times and it's SHITTY.
Read more on the subject.. unless you believe you know enough, in which case it's pointless trying to convey the sense of permanency an eye-contact aversion problem is.

[Crissa]

I mean some sort of panic suppressant, yes.

Because if you're aware of your action, you can use tools (like medicines) to overcome (but not cure) disabilities. It's no different than using a muscle relaxant when you don't want a muscle to twitch or an analgesic to suppress a pain.

-Crissa

[Count Arioch the 28th]

I used to take Ativan to ward off panic attacks. They seemed to work okay.

[JonSetanta]

I'm considering an extremely low dose of Valium, if such a thing can be acquired for "social panic" caused by "google eyes".

One consideration for inherent phenotype differences concerning asperger/autism and medication: if there were a pill to "cure gay" or in the Count's case "become a sprinting, hulking, raping virile human sexmonster", would you take it? Consider.

I liken the whole situation to that of the movie Equilibrium, but in reverse. People in this Western culture take pills to bring them to a sociable level of excitability rather than sober rational acceptance.
I laughed in parts of Bale's acting in that movie since, well, I act like that quite often WITHOUT any meds.
Can't wait to show my girlfriend that movie, she'll be leaning over in my face doing a fake chinrub going "HMMM THAT LOOKS FAMILIAR!!!" as she does when comparing personality traits to known individuals during movies as she is so eagerly inclined.

[Crissa]

Pills don't do that, though, so I refuse to engage in such talk.

-Crissa

[Crissa]

This story makes me cry.

Not that being born in Kenya would stop him from being an American citizen.

-Crissa

[Maxus]

It gets better.

They're claiming that because his father was a Kenyan citizen at the time of his birth, that Obama is in, fact, a UK citizen by birth, Kenya being under the UK control at the time.

Or some bullshit.

Nevermind that his mother is from motherfucking Kansas. Nevermind that he was born in Hawaii and has lived the majority of his life in the United States.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

A couple of things on U.S. citizenship I dug up that agree with Crissa

U.S. Code Title 8, Chapter XII, Subchapter III, Part I, Section 1401[/url] (whew, and bolding mine)]The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal
tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair
or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom
are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of
its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a
citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying
possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom
is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of
the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions
for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until
shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of
parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth
of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or
periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen
years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or
periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as
that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such
citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member
of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in
section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement
of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24,
1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and
jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States
who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

Cornell University Legal Information Institute[/url] (bolding mine)]All Presidents since and including Martin Van Buren were born in the United States subsequent to the Declaration of Independence. The only issue with regard to the qualifications set out in this clause, which appears to be susceptible of argument, is whether a child born abroad of American parents is “a natural born citizen” in the sense of the clause. Such a child is a citizen as a consequence of statute.94 Whatever the term “natural born” means, it no doubt does not include a person who is “naturalized.” Thus, the answer to the question might be seen to turn on the interpretation of the first sentence of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, providing that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States” are citizens.95 Significantly, however, Congress, in which a number of Framers sat, provided in the Naturalization act of 1790 that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, . . . shall be considered as natural born citizens. . . .”96 This phrasing followed the literal terms of British statutes, beginning in 1350, under which persons born abroad, whose parents were both British subjects, would enjoy the same rights of inheritance as those born in England; beginning with laws in 1709 and 1731, these statutes expressly provided that such persons were natural–born subjects of the crown.97 There is reason to believe, therefore, that the phrase includes persons who become citizens at birth by statute because of their status in being born abroad of American citizens.98 Whether the Supreme Court would decide the issue should it ever arise in a “case or controversy” as well as how it might decide it can only be speculated about.

[cthulhu]

People also think the hawaii birth certificate was faked. People are retards.

[Calibron]

This case is actually more bizarre than that. Donofrio doesn't argue that Obama was born outside the US. He claims (from Steve M's blog): citizenship must be passed on by the constitutionally pertinent principle of natural law, which assumes that citizenship is inherited from one's father's citizenship

lol wut? I had no idea we were still that sexist(for someone to be able say something like that without being socially[or literally in some circles] stoned to death.).

[Absentminded_Wizard]

So he's asserting that some sort of "natural law" of patrolinear citizenship trumps the U.S. Congress' statutes on the matter?

[Edit: I shouldn't post when I'm tired. I make the kinds of word mix ups that annoy me when others do it.]

[Maxus]

Apparently. But I doubt whether that's applicable today, what with these new fangled rules like 'gender equality' and the like.

...Actually, looking for stories about this, I found one about a 1880's Supreme Court Case which went like this:

--A Chinese couple came over to the US as workers.

--They never became citizens.

--They had a son.

--At the time, China and its people were not well-liked were not well-liked, to put it mildly.

--Their son visited China twice for a couple of months at a time--once in his teens, and once when he was 21.

--On his return to the US after the second visit, immigration officials tried to bar his entry into the US.

--This dispute went to the Supreme Court, who ruled that he was, indeed, a natural-born citizen of the United States, with all the rights thereof. Or something like that.

The man's name was Wong, and the case was in 1882 or something like that.

So if we take that as a clue as to how the Supreme Court feels about natural-born citizens, it seems to be an issue of geography and on which side of the line you were born.

Which would tally with what I've heard before, that a noticeable portion of the illegal immigrants come to the US to have their children on US soil, thus granting them US citizenship, which seems to be a pretty good deal.

[Crissa]

Maxus, the current Supreme Court takes a dim view of any rulings prior to 1980.

They dislike Roe vs Wade, Loving vs Virginia, and I don't remember the names but there was court case in 1942 vs Nazi sympathizers and another in the 1920s vs immigrants being locked up instead of being allowed into the States.

The bush administration is blatantly violating all of them, but the court doesn't want to step in, because they like what the administration has been doing. They'll make shit up (like this year's someone vs the district of columbia on firearms in private homes) to cover if they can.

I'd like to further point out that McCain was born in a hospital in Panama City.

(And no, no noticeable portion unless you notice one in several hundred comes to the US to birth children).

-Crissa

[Absentminded_Wizard]

Even though it's not a huge number of illegals, I still hate the asymmetry of the rules. Basically, a child of American citizens whose parents are vacationing overseas doesn't lose U.S. citizenship, but a child of a Mexican woman who sneaks across the border the night it's born becomes an American citizen. I would much prefer that only the children of legal U.S. residents (not citizens only, as some conservatives would prefer) become natural-born citizens if born on U.S. soil.

[Crissa]

That's how we do things. Because we're the good guys. The place people escape to.

I'd tell you the fuck to get out of the country if I thought for a moment you didn't say that out of ignorance. You, your parents, your parents' parents - none of them came here with a visa. None of them stand on ground they developed a civilization upon.

Why would we change those rules now? They've let you come here.

-Crissa

[ckafrica]

Wait Crissa, are you suggesting that were my hypothetical pregnant wife just in the US on a visit when she went into labor, that my child should get citizenship?

If so that is just one more reason I'd never want a pregnant wife to ever step foot in the US (medical insurance being the other, and my fear she might actually like it and start hassling me to try to move there).

[Crissa]

I hate ignorant white people whining about others coming to this country.

We've accepted people from others shores for hundreds of years. By force or out of kindness. For good or ill.

I don't think we should change now, just because they're the ones with the land.

-Crissa

[Absentminded_Wizard]

That's how we do things. Because we're the good guys. The place people escape to.

And we can still be that place by just letting more people in through legal channels.

I'd tell you the fuck to get out of the country if I thought for a moment you didn't say that out of ignorance. You, your parents, your parents' parents - none of them came here with a visa. None of them stand on ground they developed a civilization upon.

Actually, my parents and grandparents were all born here. And when my forbears came some time in the 18th century, there was no INS. There also was also no Social Security, no drivers' licenses, and no other regulations that make it more necessary to have people documented.

Why would we change those rules now? They've let you come here.

Actually, we changed those rules a hundred years or more ago, IIRC. Of course, the interesting thing is that the U.S.'s first immigration restrictions had no quotas for Mexicans. I wouldn't mind if we went back to saying "Come on over. Just make sure to let us process you first."

[ckafrica]

AW: That's how I read your previous post it had no feel of a "shoot them at the boarder" type of mentality.

[IGTN]

Citizenship is automatic by being born in the US because the alternative is to deport people who have never lived outside the country.

[Crissa]

That's how we do things. Because we're the good guys.

Actually, my parents and grandparents were all born here.

Yes, without the permission of those living here already. My point exactly.

And when my forbears came some time in the 18th century, there was no INS. There also was also no Social Security, no drivers' licenses, and no other regulations that make it more necessary to have people documented.

Those things which you cannot get benefits for without being documented. So it's not a valid argument for why they shouldn't be here.

-Crissa

PS, Absent, you have an extra quote tag.

[Judging__Eagle]

J_E: I'd probably be very uncomfortable talking with you in person unless you had some glasses on or at least accept that, whenever you spoke to me, I do something... like... turn away and continue listening.
I'm far from shy, and I'm quick to prove doubters otherwise; it's pretty much just the staring eyes... which are disturbingly common here. It's something that I tend to be more aware of than most others in the same area, and while they find excuses such as "creepy" or "just can't understand you" it hurts sometimes that such deep-set differences could be so obvious and yet at the same time so ignored.

Well, I wear glasses. All the time.

I've got a rather high prescription needed for both my eyes, and my myopia is so bad that I've been told by my new optometrist to have the insides of my eyes examined for rips and tears every time I get my eyes examined. Which is something that my old optometrist failed to mention.

However, my eyes normalized some time during the last 4-5 years and the prescription that I picked up in may (and finally got glasses made for in august) is only a tweak to my old prescription.

Also, I don't do the dead-pan stare all the time. Usually I'm working on something or looking at something else when I'm talking. If I'm looking at something, I'm usually trying to give it my full attention.

And for Psychic Robot, my demon eyes. I'm vurry tired.



That was from a few days ago. I've been without a lot of sleep this last month. School and non-school related stress. The 12th will be awesome, but I'm hoping that I get everything done and on time. Prospects are looking not so good though.

[TarkisFlux]

Random quiz a friend forwarded to me. I was amused, and it seemed appropriate:
http://www.mentalfloss.com/quiz/quiz.php?q=282

[Bigode]

http://www.ladiesagainstwomen.com/index.html
http://www.rent-a-negro.com/negroabout.html (read entire page before flaming)
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/Hoax ... ai_Kitten/ (interestingly, I think much the same of having domestic animals at all - before I get accused of enjoying animal torture)
http://web.archive.org/web/200010201749 ... oryID=9795
http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~reynard/la_ ... heeze.html
http://la.cacophony.org/CS_cement.html
http://web.archive.org/web/200602282103 ... rrior.com/
http://www.zug.com/pranks/powerbook/
http://www.getafirstlife.com/

(The latter 2 aren't aimed at Crissa in any way.)

[shirak]

I found out a site with fundamentalist quotes. I've been laughing for a couple of hours now. Here's the Top 100

[continuing his hard-on for the KJV]

If your original Hebrew disagrees with my original King James --- your original Hebrew is wrong. If your original Hebrew agrees with my original King James, your original Hebrew is right.

One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it. [emphasis added]