All the Carville / Matalin relationship proves to me is if you make your cash shilling for a major party, you don't have to mean much of what you're saying.
If they did, the two would be on COPS or Forensic Files - not CNN and MSNBC. It's just proof that when it comes to "professional politicians" you're usually looking at someone that doesn't have as strong a belief as they put on.
Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war!
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 1
AMEN!!! And 3000 lb. metal death traps - people die everyday because some dumb ass didn't know how to drive, so we should outlaw those too! Right? I know you were using sarcasm, but I saw the point.
How about this, if what you are doing doesn't ruin anyone's life but your own, maybe it shouldn't be a law. You know we tried this whole "legistating morality" thing in the 30s all making drugs illegal does is make th criminals that deal them more likely to break other laws since if they get caught the book will be thrown at them anyway.
Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war!
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 1
"the general public wouldn't need guns, would they?"
Yes, because they would be involved as well - you seem to forget that the parent poster mentioned something happening that enough people were willing to revolt over (nothing in this day and age I can think of could get that many people upset beyond cancelling a television show or something in this country since the vast majority of populace already feels completely powerless, BUT...) so the revolting people would be working with the revolting military members. This could sway the battle(s) to one side or the other.
Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war!
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 1
We also have a populace that will cast more votes for who will win American Idol than who will lead the nation. - Who do we blame for that?
Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war!
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 1
Appearently you don't know that much about the rank and file military man and woman in America, trust me if push came to shove and an armed revolution against the government occurred it is a foredrawn conclusion that significant numbers of our soldiers, sailors, airman, and marines would be found on both sides of the conflict.
If this came about specifically due to government abuses of power and trampling of rights, I would even bet good money that the larger portion of the military would be on the uprising's side. Our military is not full of robots, but thinking breating human beings that tend to love family and freedom above politicians.
Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war!
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 1
Whenever it means a person, it says "a person" or "no person". When it means a citizen it says "a citizen" or "a citizen of these United States". So why does it say militia in the text of the second ammendment? Because they meant militias- the second ammendment was meant to be a right for the states, allowing them to have an army. If they meant any citizen could have a gun, they would have used the term person or citizen, not "well-ordered militia"
Uhhh.. read it again - "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Not "The right of the Militias, or the States" so yes, they did mean each person had the right, and that no law in the future would be allowed to infringe upon that right.
Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war!
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 1
Personally, I think civilians owning guns is not permitted by the constitution, and that militia means a state army.
Perhaps you should read it again:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
In the language of the day - well regulated was the same as saying "ready and able" meaning that when needed those with guns would already know how to use them. But, even if you believe it meant state milita's or armies, it is rather specific that the people own the right that is not to be infringed not regulated armies or militias.
Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war!
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 1
Uhhh... I believe that's called assault with a deadly weapon and there ARE constitutional laws on the books dealing with that.
However, what part of "congress shall make NO LAW" do you not grasp. The forefathers had just went through hell to throw off an oppressive government, and were concerned that in the future any government could become oppressive to it's people, and wanted to place safeguards to make that much more difficult in the new born nation. Congress is limited in it's powers to never pass a law against owning a firearm of any kind - or a knife, or a howitzer for that matter - it is beyond the scope of their powers.
Soapbox, Ballot Box, Ammo Box - in that order you maintain freedom!
If I don't think either choice presented by a "mainstream" party is a good choice, and I vote my conscience, I am not spoiling a damn thing - I am voting FOR something rather than choosing the lesser of two evils.
When it gets right down to the meat of the matter - voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for something I don't agree with, and that my friend is the most waste a vote can ever come to.
When did this country leave behind the ideal of voting FOR what you believe instead of AGAINST what you disagree with more? If more people were willing to forget the outcome, and vote for who they truly agree with, the two party system would collapse and voters would have real choices in front of them.
I will never understand those that say voting from the heart and mind for the candidate you feel is best qualified to lead is ever waste or spoiling - forget the polls, forget what mass media is telling you and do the right thing, vote for who YOU want to win the election.
I'm not saying either system is better, the problem I have with it being considered illegal to refuse to produce ID is that the law making it illegal is specifically banned by the highest law in the land.
When our government begins to ignore and bypass it's own limitations you begin the slide into totalitarianism. If the Government wants to make this kind of law, it should be through the ammendment processes which is the only way these laws could remain constitutional. When a law in the US is found to be against the Constitution in legal terms it becomes "Null and void" meaning it literally never existed.
A third-party candidate does not have to win to be a strong influence. Don't you see how both the Democrats and Republicans try to play to the middle and focus so strongly on the "swing-voters."
If a third party was able to capture say 15% of the popular vote it would send a message to the other parties that maybe they need to modify their actions to appeal to those voters if they plan to keep their job next go around.
This is why voting your conscience is never throwing a vote away.
Because the Constitution of the United States provides the RIGHT (Not a privilege granted by government, but a right that government cannot take away without modifying the Constitution) to be secure in ones Person, Papers, and Effects and to be protected from unreasonable search.
Making it a crime in and of itself to not produce ID upon demand is both a violation of the 4th, but also the 5th ammendment which provides us the RIGHT to avoid self-incrimination. Prior to this unjust ruling by the Supreme Court, you could be arrested for a crime other than not having your ID, but now it could be concievable that you could be guilty of a crime for forgetting your wallet at home.
The objection that I have against police knowing "who I am" is the risk of abuse when it can be considered a crime to not produce my papers on demand, and the fact that this sort of thing is specifically banned by the highest law of the land.
DAMN TAB KEY STUCK - PROPERLY FORMATTED: OK - let's try one last time, it's starting to bore me:
These are the FACTS not recognition phrases - FACTS. The quotes listed here and in the parents posts have never been called into question. 4 seperate facts supporting an opinion is not "thin on facts."
"John Kerry . . . said before he threw his medals over the fence: `I'm not doing this for any violent reasons, but for peace and justice, and to try to make this country wake up once and for all.'"
Ok that is a quote from The Boston Globe, April 24, 1971. It plainly states a reporter claims to have spoke with John Kerry before watching him throw the medals over the fence. With the assumption that Kerry has never denied this fact meaning that the event did happen we have the basis for the latter statements to be viewed against. This was considered by the protestors a giving back of medals to the gov't.
On Nov. 6, 1971 Kerry states he "gave back six, seven..." of his medals. This is the first public statement on the question.
Ok, flash forward to 1984 - Kerry states he did not throw his medals but the medals of another veteran. The reason he states he did not throw his medals was that he "disagreed with other protest leaders on throwing away medals."
Ok, now on to 1996 when he states when asked about the quote from 1984 "Why did you not throw away your medals?" the reason was he didn't have time to go get them from New York, so he threw two other veterans medals.
Now this year he states, when confronted with the fact that the quotes from 1996 and 1984 are in direct conflict with the quote in 1971 that he "threw his ribbons not his medals" and goes on to clarify that in his (and most military vets, myself included) there is "no distiction between medals and ribbons."
So the quotes from this year and 1971 cannot be true if the quotes from 1984 and 1996 are correct. If the first and last quote are true, the quotes in the middle are false and vice versa - this means that Kerry must have told at least two lies about this event on record. This is a FACT - you cannot argue otherwise without proving that the 4 quotes never occurred. This isn't reposonse. You asked him to quote the lie - and he did, the problem is without being at the scene of the incident you cannot be sure which of the items are the lie and which are the truth - but you can discern the fact that either two are lies, and two are true or all four are lies. This is the only possible outcome of examining this evidence.
Myself, and daveschroeder both provided you plenty of evidence - if you want to prove the evidence is real - Buy the reprints from the Boston Globe:
April 24, 1971 Oct. 15, 1984 Oct. 6, 1996
You could also consider contacting WRC-TV about the video in question from Nov. 6, 1971. I'm not going to waste the money on it for you.
Verify that they actually exist and that we aren't just pulling something out of our ass like you are. This isn't an experiment it's a fucking troll - and I'm done feeding you.
OK - let's try one last time, it's starting to bore me:
These are the FACTS not recognition phrases - FACTS. The quotes listed here and in the parents posts have never been called into question. 4 seperate facts supporting an opinion is not "thin on facts."
"John Kerry . . . said before he threw his medals over the fence: `I'm not doing this for any violent reasons, but for peace and justice, and to try to make this country wake up once and for all.'"
Ok that is a quote from The Boston Globe, April 24, 1971. It plainly states a reporter claims to have spoke with John Kerry before watching him throw the medals over the fence. With the assumption that Kerry has never denied this fact meaning that the event did happen we have the basis for the latter statements to be viewed against. This was considered by the protestors a giving back of medals to the gov't.
On Nov. 6, 1971 Kerry states he "gave back six, seven..." of his medals. This is the first public statement on the question.
Ok, flash forward to 1984 - Kerry states he did not throw his medals but the medals of another veteran. The reason he states he did not throw his medals was that he "disagreed with other protest leaders on throwing away medals."
Ok, now on to 1996 when he states when asked about the quote from 1984 "Why did you not throw away your medals?" the reason was he didn't have time to go get them from New York, so he threw two other veterans medals.
Now this year he states, when confronted with the fact that the quotes from 1996 and 1984 are in direct conflict with the quote in 1971 that he "threw his ribbons not his medals" and goes on to clarify that in his (and most military vets, myself included) there is "no distiction between medals and ribbons."
So the quotes from this year and 1971 cannot be true if the quotes from 1984 and 1996 are correct. If the first and last quote are true, the quotes in the middle are false and vice versa - this means that Kerry must have told at least two lies about this event on record. This is a FACT - you cannot argue otherwise without proving that the 4 quotes never occurred. This isn't reposonse. You asked him to quote the lie - and he did, the problem is without being at the scene of the incident you cannot be sure which of the items are the lie and which are the truth - but you can discern the fact that either two are lies, and two are true or all four are lies. This is the only possible outcome of examining this evidence.
Myself, and daveschroeder both provided you plenty of evidence - if you want to prove the evidence is real - Buy the reprints from the Boston Globe:
April 24, 1971
Oct. 15, 1984
Oct. 6, 1996
You could also consider contacting WRC-TV about the video in question from Nov. 6, 1971. I'm not going to waste the money on it for you.
Verify that they actually exist and that we aren't just pulling something out of our ass like you are. This isn't an experiment it's a fucking troll - and I'm done feeding you.
Enjoy the last word.
AMEN - Minority Report was the biggest product placing snooze fest I've ever allowed myself to sit through. Fuck the hive mind - you are dead on on that call!
Ok, Ohreally, please tell me where I am in the herd? A/.er posted a reply to a question that Khasim did not ask, nor was involved in, that fully answered the question asked.
Let's forget politics and use Software companies as an example - Someone asks a question about a software company, daveschroder answers question, khasim chimes in that daveschroder is clueless, and I thinking that the response that dave provided was valid and thoughtful.
Therefore I chime in with a statement which further clarifies the points that dave made - somehow this is considered a conditioned response trigger bypassing my cognative mind? WTF! This is the way public forums work. People state their beliefs and opinions and often support them with facts - this is herd mentality only if you consider the herd to be "Thinking, reasoning human beings" using you and Khasims arguement it would be impossible for anyone to defend any statement on these forums if another individual agrees with them.
Believe it or not, some people do have opinions that are alike, just as some have opinions that differ, My statements have been ignored by Khasim because he is refusing to accept the fact that I felt strongly that daveschroeder had a valid opinion and had presented facts to support his case which is how human beings do this thing called discussion when reasonable people are involved.
Should I just claim that you are a herd animal incapable of creating your own thoughts and opinions since you just jumped in the discussion to defend whatever point you claim you saw Khasim making? I would say that stance is just as valid as the one you just made against me.
We've had several experts in this thread explain that the ball needed for the superscripted th did not exist, or if it did it would not produce the image so clearly - the superscripted th also goes against USAF regulations on proper typing procedure.
The officer in question would likely have not had a secretary - higher ranks that Lt. Col. tend to be the ones who get those - and this is a "Memo to File" yet has nto a single peice of proper formatting (Where is the Unit Designation, the signature block, and why isn't it listed as "MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD" something I can find about 10 examples of here in my records, I've never seen a "Memo To File."
Now you would think that if a secretary typed this, who was willing to go to the trouble of changing out the ball of the typerwriter to add that superscripted th - she would have been enough of a stickler to follow official USAF Regulation on formatting and addressing the memo.
Look here and tell me that the document wasn't typed in Word.
Oh, and the guy who claims to have found this stuff, well, he has very little credibility so before you go bashing everyone - even a lot of people who want the memos to be real are saying it looks and smells fishy.
You're right we're not discussing anything because YOU chose to ignore anything but the nonsensical point you have about trigger phrases (I hear the tinfoil hats crinkling.)
You stated that daveschroeder did not point to a lie by Kerry - he did, you're refusal to accept the fact that daveschroeder did in fact DESCRIBE AN ACTUAL LIE AND WAS ABLE TO POINT IT OUT EXACTLY doesn't mean you're little trigger phrase crap is what this is about.
I responded to someone saying an intelligent post was worthless. Now, this discussion has become worthless because it obvious that I would have more intelligent and reasoned conversation with the GNAA because you aren't just trying to ignore the posts in the thread and interpet them in your own warped way, but are in fact claiming that my responses had nothing to do with cognative thought. That is insane.
YOU stated that dave was unable to point to a specific lie, that was in fact a falsehood, I pointed out your falsehood, and gave you the benefit of the doubt that you just weren't getting it - YOU are the prime example of why DISCUSSION of any kind is pretty much useless when the other person involved in the discussion has no interest or respect for the mind and opinions of others.
Good thing you have time to respond, since you're not you know running the country with the highest GNP in the world and trying to run a campaign at the same time.
Hmmm.. let's see Kerry stated that knowing all we know now about the WMDs he still would have voted for the use of force.
Can't have your cake and eat it too.
Either Kerry is as bad as Bush, OR like every other person on record before the war, he honestly believed they would find the WMDs that everyone knows he had. But you know most of you don't know jack-shit about chemical, or even conventional weapons for that matter, otherwise you would know that you could hide enough chemical agent to kill millions under the uninhabited areas of Iraq's deserts in a space smaller than a football field.
How do I know - because I was an instructor for NBC protection in the USAF, and a munitions troop for 6 years - I know a thing or two about chemical munitions and conventional explosives.
Slashdot Mirror
All the Carville / Matalin relationship proves to me is if you make your cash shilling for a major party, you don't have to mean much of what you're saying.
If they did, the two would be on COPS or Forensic Files - not CNN and MSNBC. It's just proof that when it comes to "professional politicians" you're usually looking at someone that doesn't have as strong a belief as they put on.
AMEN!!! And 3000 lb. metal death traps - people die everyday because some dumb ass didn't know how to drive, so we should outlaw those too! Right? I know you were using sarcasm, but I saw the point.
How about this, if what you are doing doesn't ruin anyone's life but your own, maybe it shouldn't be a law. You know we tried this whole "legistating morality" thing in the 30s all making drugs illegal does is make th criminals that deal them more likely to break other laws since if they get caught the book will be thrown at them anyway.
"the general public wouldn't need guns, would they?"
Yes, because they would be involved as well - you seem to forget that the parent poster mentioned something happening that enough people were willing to revolt over (nothing in this day and age I can think of could get that many people upset beyond cancelling a television show or something in this country since the vast majority of populace already feels completely powerless, BUT...) so the revolting people would be working with the revolting military members. This could sway the battle(s) to one side or the other.
We also have a populace that will cast more votes for who will win American Idol than who will lead the nation. - Who do we blame for that?
Appearently you don't know that much about the rank and file military man and woman in America, trust me if push came to shove and an armed revolution against the government occurred it is a foredrawn conclusion that significant numbers of our soldiers, sailors, airman, and marines would be found on both sides of the conflict.
If this came about specifically due to government abuses of power and trampling of rights, I would even bet good money that the larger portion of the military would be on the uprising's side. Our military is not full of robots, but thinking breating human beings that tend to love family and freedom above politicians.
Whenever it means a person, it says "a person" or "no person". When it means a citizen it says "a citizen" or "a citizen of these United States". So why does it say militia in the text of the second ammendment? Because they meant militias- the second ammendment was meant to be a right for the states, allowing them to have an army. If they meant any citizen could have a gun, they would have used the term person or citizen, not "well-ordered militia"
Uhhh.. read it again - "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Not "The right of the Militias, or the States" so yes, they did mean each person had the right, and that no law in the future would be allowed to infringe upon that right.
Personally, I think civilians owning guns is not permitted by the constitution, and that militia means a state army.
Perhaps you should read it again:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
In the language of the day - well regulated was the same as saying "ready and able" meaning that when needed those with guns would already know how to use them. But, even if you believe it meant state milita's or armies, it is rather specific that the people own the right that is not to be infringed not regulated armies or militias.
Uhhh... I believe that's called assault with a deadly weapon and there ARE constitutional laws on the books dealing with that.
However, what part of "congress shall make NO LAW" do you not grasp. The forefathers had just went through hell to throw off an oppressive government, and were concerned that in the future any government could become oppressive to it's people, and wanted to place safeguards to make that much more difficult in the new born nation. Congress is limited in it's powers to never pass a law against owning a firearm of any kind - or a knife, or a howitzer for that matter - it is beyond the scope of their powers.
Soapbox, Ballot Box, Ammo Box - in that order you maintain freedom!
If I don't think either choice presented by a "mainstream" party is a good choice, and I vote my conscience, I am not spoiling a damn thing - I am voting FOR something rather than choosing the lesser of two evils.
When it gets right down to the meat of the matter - voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for something I don't agree with, and that my friend is the most waste a vote can ever come to.
When did this country leave behind the ideal of voting FOR what you believe instead of AGAINST what you disagree with more? If more people were willing to forget the outcome, and vote for who they truly agree with, the two party system would collapse and voters would have real choices in front of them.
I will never understand those that say voting from the heart and mind for the candidate you feel is best qualified to lead is ever waste or spoiling - forget the polls, forget what mass media is telling you and do the right thing, vote for who YOU want to win the election.
I'm not saying either system is better, the problem I have with it being considered illegal to refuse to produce ID is that the law making it illegal is specifically banned by the highest law in the land.
When our government begins to ignore and bypass it's own limitations you begin the slide into totalitarianism. If the Government wants to make this kind of law, it should be through the ammendment processes which is the only way these laws could remain constitutional. When a law in the US is found to be against the Constitution in legal terms it becomes "Null and void" meaning it literally never existed.
A third-party candidate does not have to win to be a strong influence. Don't you see how both the Democrats and Republicans try to play to the middle and focus so strongly on the "swing-voters."
If a third party was able to capture say 15% of the popular vote it would send a message to the other parties that maybe they need to modify their actions to appeal to those voters if they plan to keep their job next go around.
This is why voting your conscience is never throwing a vote away.
Because the Constitution of the United States provides the RIGHT (Not a privilege granted by government, but a right that government cannot take away without modifying the Constitution) to be secure in ones Person, Papers, and Effects and to be protected from unreasonable search.
Making it a crime in and of itself to not produce ID upon demand is both a violation of the 4th, but also the 5th ammendment which provides us the RIGHT to avoid self-incrimination. Prior to this unjust ruling by the Supreme Court, you could be arrested for a crime other than not having your ID, but now it could be concievable that you could be guilty of a crime for forgetting your wallet at home.
The objection that I have against police knowing "who I am" is the risk of abuse when it can be considered a crime to not produce my papers on demand, and the fact that this sort of thing is specifically banned by the highest law of the land.
DAMN TAB KEY STUCK - PROPERLY FORMATTED:
OK - let's try one last time, it's starting to bore me:
These are the FACTS not recognition phrases - FACTS. The quotes listed here and in the parents posts have never been called into question. 4 seperate facts supporting an opinion is not "thin on facts."
"John Kerry . . . said before he threw his medals over the fence: `I'm not doing this for any violent reasons, but for peace and justice, and to try to make this country wake up once and for all.'"
Ok that is a quote from The Boston Globe, April 24, 1971. It plainly states a reporter claims to have spoke with John Kerry before watching him throw the medals over the fence. With the assumption that Kerry has never denied this fact meaning that the event did happen we have the basis for the latter statements to be viewed against. This was considered by the protestors a giving back of medals to the gov't.
On Nov. 6, 1971 Kerry states he "gave back six, seven..." of his medals. This is the first public statement on the question.
Ok, flash forward to 1984 - Kerry states he did not throw his medals but the medals of another veteran. The reason he states he did not throw his medals was that he "disagreed with other protest leaders on throwing away medals."
Ok, now on to 1996 when he states when asked about the quote from 1984 "Why did you not throw away your medals?" the reason was he didn't have time to go get them from New York, so he threw two other veterans medals.
Now this year he states, when confronted with the fact that the quotes from 1996 and 1984 are in direct conflict with the quote in 1971 that he "threw his ribbons not his medals" and goes on to clarify that in his (and most military vets, myself included) there is "no distiction between medals and ribbons."
So the quotes from this year and 1971 cannot be true if the quotes from 1984 and 1996 are correct. If the first and last quote are true, the quotes in the middle are false and vice versa - this means that Kerry must have told at least two lies about this event on record. This is a FACT - you cannot argue otherwise without proving that the 4 quotes never occurred. This isn't reposonse. You asked him to quote the lie - and he did, the problem is without being at the scene of the incident you cannot be sure which of the items are the lie and which are the truth - but you can discern the fact that either two are lies, and two are true or all four are lies. This is the only possible outcome of examining this evidence.
Myself, and daveschroeder both provided you plenty of evidence - if you want to prove the evidence is real - Buy the reprints from the Boston Globe:
April 24, 1971
Oct. 15, 1984
Oct. 6, 1996
You could also consider contacting WRC-TV about the video in question from Nov. 6, 1971. I'm not going to waste the money on it for you.
Verify that they actually exist and that we aren't just pulling something out of our ass like you are. This isn't an experiment it's a fucking troll - and I'm done feeding you.
Enjoy the last word.
OK - let's try one last time, it's starting to bore me: These are the FACTS not recognition phrases - FACTS. The quotes listed here and in the parents posts have never been called into question. 4 seperate facts supporting an opinion is not "thin on facts." "John Kerry . . . said before he threw his medals over the fence: `I'm not doing this for any violent reasons, but for peace and justice, and to try to make this country wake up once and for all.'" Ok that is a quote from The Boston Globe, April 24, 1971. It plainly states a reporter claims to have spoke with John Kerry before watching him throw the medals over the fence. With the assumption that Kerry has never denied this fact meaning that the event did happen we have the basis for the latter statements to be viewed against. This was considered by the protestors a giving back of medals to the gov't. On Nov. 6, 1971 Kerry states he "gave back six, seven..." of his medals. This is the first public statement on the question. Ok, flash forward to 1984 - Kerry states he did not throw his medals but the medals of another veteran. The reason he states he did not throw his medals was that he "disagreed with other protest leaders on throwing away medals." Ok, now on to 1996 when he states when asked about the quote from 1984 "Why did you not throw away your medals?" the reason was he didn't have time to go get them from New York, so he threw two other veterans medals. Now this year he states, when confronted with the fact that the quotes from 1996 and 1984 are in direct conflict with the quote in 1971 that he "threw his ribbons not his medals" and goes on to clarify that in his (and most military vets, myself included) there is "no distiction between medals and ribbons." So the quotes from this year and 1971 cannot be true if the quotes from 1984 and 1996 are correct. If the first and last quote are true, the quotes in the middle are false and vice versa - this means that Kerry must have told at least two lies about this event on record. This is a FACT - you cannot argue otherwise without proving that the 4 quotes never occurred. This isn't reposonse. You asked him to quote the lie - and he did, the problem is without being at the scene of the incident you cannot be sure which of the items are the lie and which are the truth - but you can discern the fact that either two are lies, and two are true or all four are lies. This is the only possible outcome of examining this evidence. Myself, and daveschroeder both provided you plenty of evidence - if you want to prove the evidence is real - Buy the reprints from the Boston Globe: April 24, 1971 Oct. 15, 1984 Oct. 6, 1996 You could also consider contacting WRC-TV about the video in question from Nov. 6, 1971. I'm not going to waste the money on it for you. Verify that they actually exist and that we aren't just pulling something out of our ass like you are. This isn't an experiment it's a fucking troll - and I'm done feeding you. Enjoy the last word.
AMEN - Minority Report was the biggest product placing snooze fest I've ever allowed myself to sit through. Fuck the hive mind - you are dead on on that call!
Each time I see the trailer I think - Gee.. when was the last time I played "Crimson Skies" and why isn't Microsoft suing the shit out them?
It's called a typo cocktard!
Are your forgetting the Air Force regulations state that when referring to a unit the "TH" is either assumed or CAPITALIZED (IE 35TH FIGHTER WING)?
Ok, Ohreally, please tell me where I am in the herd? A /.er posted a reply to a question that Khasim did not ask, nor was involved in, that fully answered the question asked.
Let's forget politics and use Software companies as an example - Someone asks a question about a software company, daveschroder answers question, khasim chimes in that daveschroder is clueless, and I thinking that the response that dave provided was valid and thoughtful.
Therefore I chime in with a statement which further clarifies the points that dave made - somehow this is considered a conditioned response trigger bypassing my cognative mind? WTF! This is the way public forums work. People state their beliefs and opinions and often support them with facts - this is herd mentality only if you consider the herd to be "Thinking, reasoning human beings" using you and Khasims arguement it would be impossible for anyone to defend any statement on these forums if another individual agrees with them.
Believe it or not, some people do have opinions that are alike, just as some have opinions that differ, My statements have been ignored by Khasim because he is refusing to accept the fact that I felt strongly that daveschroeder had a valid opinion and had presented facts to support his case which is how human beings do this thing called discussion when reasonable people are involved.
Should I just claim that you are a herd animal incapable of creating your own thoughts and opinions since you just jumped in the discussion to defend whatever point you claim you saw Khasim making? I would say that stance is just as valid as the one you just made against me.
We've had several experts in this thread explain that the ball needed for the superscripted th did not exist, or if it did it would not produce the image so clearly - the superscripted th also goes against USAF regulations on proper typing procedure.
The officer in question would likely have not had a secretary - higher ranks that Lt. Col. tend to be the ones who get those - and this is a "Memo to File" yet has nto a single peice of proper formatting (Where is the Unit Designation, the signature block, and why isn't it listed as "MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD" something I can find about 10 examples of here in my records, I've never seen a "Memo To File."
Now you would think that if a secretary typed this, who was willing to go to the trouble of changing out the ball of the typerwriter to add that superscripted th - she would have been enough of a stickler to follow official USAF Regulation on formatting and addressing the memo.
Look here and tell me that the document wasn't typed in Word.
Oh, and the guy who claims to have found this stuff, well, he has very little credibility so before you go bashing everyone - even a lot of people who want the memos to be real are saying it looks and smells fishy.
You're right we're not discussing anything because YOU chose to ignore anything but the nonsensical point you have about trigger phrases (I hear the tinfoil hats crinkling.)
You stated that daveschroeder did not point to a lie by Kerry - he did, you're refusal to accept the fact that daveschroeder did in fact DESCRIBE AN ACTUAL LIE AND WAS ABLE TO POINT IT OUT EXACTLY doesn't mean you're little trigger phrase crap is what this is about.
I responded to someone saying an intelligent post was worthless. Now, this discussion has become worthless because it obvious that I would have more intelligent and reasoned conversation with the GNAA because you aren't just trying to ignore the posts in the thread and interpet them in your own warped way, but are in fact claiming that my responses had nothing to do with cognative thought. That is insane.
YOU stated that dave was unable to point to a specific lie, that was in fact a falsehood, I pointed out your falsehood, and gave you the benefit of the doubt that you just weren't getting it - YOU are the prime example of why DISCUSSION of any kind is pretty much useless when the other person involved in the discussion has no interest or respect for the mind and opinions of others.
MODS PARENT IS WHAT YOU CALL A TROLL
Good thing you have time to respond, since you're not you know running the country with the highest GNP in the world and trying to run a campaign at the same time.
I have only one comment about your last post quote and reply....
OWN3D! Go Twirlip!
Hmmm.. let's see Kerry stated that knowing all we know now about the WMDs he still would have voted for the use of force.
Can't have your cake and eat it too.
Either Kerry is as bad as Bush, OR like every other person on record before the war, he honestly believed they would find the WMDs that everyone knows he had. But you know most of you don't know jack-shit about chemical, or even conventional weapons for that matter, otherwise you would know that you could hide enough chemical agent to kill millions under the uninhabited areas of Iraq's deserts in a space smaller than a football field.
How do I know - because I was an instructor for NBC protection in the USAF, and a munitions troop for 6 years - I know a thing or two about chemical munitions and conventional explosives.