I just did. Just copy all my posts on this thread and paste into an OpenOffice Text Doc and there it is! Click on File, Save As, and type in "Truly Genius Comments by ArcherB that I can not refute.odt"
How much barley production is lost to other more cash ready crops? DING-DING-DING! We have a winner!
It's not climate change that is causing the problem. It is what we are doing to combat climate change that is the problem. When corn prices go up for ethanol, more farmers switch from whatever they were growing to corn, because it makes more money. This means less of everything else and causes the price of everything else to go up as well!
Manhattan project complete. The big mushroom cloud you see is the giant earth-shattering KABOOM that is OPEC corporate heads exploding along with their profits. Uh, why don't we simply put something like a $30/barrel tax on this new oil we've just found and use that money to fund your renewable research? Oil usually costs about $15-30/barrel to extract, so a $30 tax should be very doable. We could do the same in ANWR as well and not only become energy independent until the oil runs out, but for eternity! Here is what I mean: Gear 1: pump all the oil out of American soil as humanly possible. Leave no stone unturned. ANWR, Gulf of Mexico, wherever it lies, we get it. Gear 2: Tax the shit out the oil gained from Gear 1. Spend 70% of the money on looking for alternative sources of energy. The final 30% goes into a fund to research efficiency and investigate further oil finds. Gear 3: Implement technologies achieved from gears 1 and 2 Gear 4: Export remaining oil, placing funds in general ledger Gear 5: Cruize!
I think the key you and these supposed "scholars" are missing is "...people to keep and bear..." Where do people keep things? Do people keep things in the armory? No. People keep things in their homes. What does it mean to bear something? It means to have it on your person and show it. The right of the people to keep and bear shall not be infringed.
What's not to understand? Now don't go find some liberal weenie academia type that can debate anything (like the definition of "is"). Read it for yourself and tell me what there is to honestly debate?
The ability to heal quickly and fight off almost any infection would be a huge adaptation for any animal even without the territory battles. The fact that alligators are one of the few (only?) animals to evolve this adaptation indicates that it comes with a hefty price.
The question is, can we leverage this adaptation for ourselves without incurring the price? If the price is energy expended to produce the ultra efficient immune system, that's fine; but if the price is directly tied to the effects themselves this may prove worthless. We are talking about antibiotics here. Saying that extracting the chemical that prevents infections in alligators may have reptilian side effects is like saying that extracting penicillin from orange mold will give humans an orange pulpy peel (with fur).
I believe that what we will see from this type of research is a pill that is not much different than what the many different antibiotics do today, only newer and stronger and kills viruses. The side affects will have to be judged, but they will be worked out. For example, leaving a metallic taste in your mouth or killing all the beneficial bacteria in your digestive tract is a small price to pay when compared to... say... a painful and miserable death caused by drowning in your own mucus!
Don't try to call me ignorant and then follow up with a ridiculous argument like yours.
It isn't mine. It's the argument of legal scholars that has existed for decades (probably centuries) and stood the test of time. But, yes, I'm sure you're correct, and have out-though generations of scholars. Congrats! You should write a paper, I'm sure many would love to read it! I don't need "scholars" to read for me as I learned to do that in the first grade.
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. I don't care what the "scholars" say. It seems pretty cut and dry to me. "Keep and Bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is pretty straight forward. The founding fathers even explained WHY and even threw in the word KEEP, which means I get to KEEP them in my home. I don't care how many years of school they took, they can not change what the words mean, no matter how hard they try.
And like I said before, arguing against the second amendment is no different than arguing against the first, third, forth, or any other. Saying I can't own a gun is no different than saying the government can search my house without a warrant, arrest me for something I have said or tell me what church I must or can't go to.
So is freedom of speech a "collective right"? What's the difference? They are both in the Bill of Rights,
No, freedom of speech is an individual right. A collective right is one that a group holds. ie, as a regulated militia, that militia has the right to keep and bear arms. As opposed to some jackass in a trailerpark. Go do a little reading, it might enlighten you. Sorry, but saying:
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. Is sole as a collective right is like saying that
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Does not mean a right to privacy.
Don't try to call me ignorant and then follow up with a ridiculous argument like yours. That trailer trash is just as much an American as any other American and has the same rights you elitist piece of shit!
Spend some time away from the yacht club, find a job and see how real people live. It may enlighten you.
That argument only works if you view gun ownership as a personal right. Not everyone believes that, including many US courts (which view the 2nd amendment as a collective right, not a personal one). So is freedom of speech a "collective right"? What's the difference? They are both in the Bill of Rights, they should be treated equally. If you are willing to give up the Right to Arms, then you should be just as willing to give up the right to speech, and religion and freedom of the press, and the right to remain silent and all the other rights that the Constitution affords us.
Normally I wouldn't comment on such a sad occasion but for Charlton Heston I make an exception. Cold, Dead Hands ??? - Finally. One less extremist in the world. No RIP, I hope he turns in his grave. You call someone who marched with Martin Luther King and stands up for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights an extremist?
I'm not going to say what I hope happens to your grave!
Something like a password that you've typed hundreds of times probably has a more regular pattern than you think, unless you regularly get interrupted in the half second i takes for you to type it... Muscle memory, etc That's all find and dandy until you break a finger, or get a hang nail or try to log in while holding a cup of coffee or any of the limitless things that can happen to slow, speed up, or change the rhythm of your typing.
Kinda hard to do without puncturing the tire. Read up on it: here. Michelin at least seems to mount it inside the laminas of the tire.
Of course you could always surround your tires in tin foil if you are THAT paranoid. I hear that microwaving your tires for 15 seconds each will also disable the RFID tags.
That's odd, I've never made any statements similar to the random comments you extruded from various random websites. Sorry, but MSNBC's primetime show is not exactly some "random website". Oh yeah, the same guy also did commentary for NBC Football. Not exactly someone outside the mainstream.
Yet you just made a statement upthread claiming that I and ALL of the other commentors over at DailyKos Hate America, and unless the Democratic party as a whole rejects DailyKos, they too Hate America. No, I said that many of the comments at Daily Kos and Huffpo are hate filled and bigoted. I also pointed out that no one on the left seems to mind. Besides, I wouldn't exactly call Markos Moulitsas some commentor on the Daily Kos. He's the founder! What was he said? What did the FOUNDER of daily Kos say when talking about Americans whose charred bodies were mutilated and hung from a bridge in Fallujah?
That said, I feel nothing over the death of merceneries [sic]. They aren't in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them. Of course, not all liberals agree with him. Juan Williams slammed him. However, there are WAY too many that think it's OK to say stupid shit like that. There are those out there who defend that kind of hate filled garbage. Congratulations! You are one of those people.
I just don't see the logic in all of this. It's hard to logically justify such hatred. That's why so many people on the FAR left vilify their opponents. That's why you hear so much "Bush is Hitler" talk. It's the only way they can justify such blind hatred.
And besides, don't you think it's possible that someone could do a search of right-wing websites and find similar comments? What would such a summary say about you? If you could find it, I would be the next to denounce it. I looked it up, why can't you? While I'm sure there is hateful things said from the right, they are not nearly as prevalent and others on the right are the first to slam them down. Also, you don't find these hate filled people from the right getting over a million hits on their blogs like the DailyKos.
(I was going to link to another story at Kos where the writer was hoping for America to be invaded, conquered and occupied, just so we'd know what it felt like and would become peace loving hippies. I figure, that has worked so well in Israel and the Palestinian territories that it has to be worth a shot. However, the story "can't be found", however, it has tags and 102 comments! I guess some things are too vile for Kos... Oh wait! It's an election year!)
I'm not sure you're aware of this, but Wright was actually quoting the comments of a former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq in that soundbite. How dare a pastor quote a leading expert on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East when discussing a consequence of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East...
Really? That ambassador said that white people in the US government invented AIDS to kill black people? That same ambassador said that the white led US government invented crack so that they could lock the black man up? That ambassador said that Hillary Clinton can't be president because she's never been called a ni... well, you get the idea. Sorry, that excuse is full of shit! It may explain one comment, but it does not explain what lack of class it took to say it the first Sunday after 9-11. People needed comforting, not to be accused.
McCain does want to stay in Iraq for 100 years subject to a specific condition (that it's within U.S. interests as he sees them).
OK, I have to call bullshit on this one... again. Why in the Hell would McCain WANT US forces in Iraq or anywhere else in the world? If it serves US interest, sure, he'll keep them there but he doesn't WANT them there. Just like doing the dishes serves my interest in getting laid, but that doesn't mean I WANT to do the dishes. Sorry, your stretch is pretty pathetic and well... it's bullshit. You have made yourself look stupid for even trying it. It even made me look stupid to respond to something so idiotic!
Being a Muslim isn't a position, and this portrayal of Obama as a Muslim is a misrepresentation of an immaterial fact meant to foment a bigoted response. He's never said anything to the effect that he is a Muslim and, if he were, it should have no impact on his suitability as a candidate to lead our country through a period of great domestic and diplomatic hardship.
Uh, he went to a Muslim school as a child and fucking name is Barak Hussein Obama! No, he's not a Muslim, but it is a fair question to ask.
Do you actually watch Fox news?
I pretty much watch all the network news outlets. Fox is the only one that shows two sides to a story.
In most of their attempts to "represent all sides" that I've seen, they put on some minor player on the "other side" with little or no experience in TV commentary and yell at them. Their purpose isn't to serve as some reasonable counterpoint, but to be lampooned and caricatured in order for the fringe right-wing audience to feel comfortable in their disdain of the center and left.
Uh, do YOU ever watch Fox News? May I recommend Hannity and Colmes. Maybe Geraldo's show where he calls Bill O'Reilly a racist bigot. As for liberals that look like jackasses on national TV, it is either because their position is indefensible or they are just not used to being challenged. They are not challenged on any OTHER network. We must also consider the possibility that maybe they are just jackasses.
Oh, and did you know that Rupert Murdoch donated to Hillary Clinton's campaign? Also Harold Ford Jr, Charles Schumer, John F. Kerry, Max Cleland, Edward J. Markey, Edward Kennedy, Bill Bradley and other Democrats. That right wing BASTARD!
Pray tell which "opposing view" has some traction in the non-crackpot scientific community, makes a distinction that is important to present, and can be clearly conveyed and properly qualified in a 2 minute dissent interview? Just because some wingnut disagrees with the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community doesn't mean he deserves national airtime, especially on a show like 60 minutes.
See, you've already set up your response. In your mind, any scientist who does not buy into GW is automatically a crackpot in your view. It doesn't matter if they were on the IPCC board like Chris Landsea Ph.D (here are some of his
Speaking of cake, a favorite joke of mine is to put a delicious looking cake in the office break room with "Happy April Fools Day" written in large letters in the frosting. Of course, the cake is perfectly fine and 100% edible, but no one will trust it. Its amusing seing people staring it down, debating, and daring each other to take a bite all day long. Next time, promise to bring pie and bring a cake with either the symbol or 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944... written on it.
Where did I imply that they were buddies? In fact, where did I even mention John McCain in the post that you replied to? You didn't say it directly, but you did compare Obama's preacher, Rev. Wright to Jerry Falwell. Obama and Wright were clearly buddies. Falwell and McCain are not.
What "malicious, misleading rant"? Are you sure you didn't mean to reply to the GP? I wasn't ranting -- I was providing contrast to his rants. He ranted about Dailykos/Moveon but somehow neglected to mention Fox, Drudge and Limbaugh. He ranted about Rev. Wright's intolerant comments but somehow forgot to mention Jerry Falwells. He pointed out an old white Democratic Senator from West Virgina who used to be a racist but didn't think of the old white former racist Republican Senator from South Carolina. By Fox, I assume you mean Fox News, which is not the same thing as MoveOn.org (a far left 527) or DailyKos (a hate filled far left site... the founder actually said "screw them" when talking about US contractors killed in Fallujah and hung from a bridge and posted a picture of Lieberman with a black face). Fox News is a cable news network. While you may not disagree with them because they are not as far left leaning as the rest of them, they do go out of their way to represent all sides and have never celebrated the deaths of Americans in Iraq. 60 minutes for example just did a puff piece on Al Gore and global warming. They did not post an opposing view, and there is plenty to choose from. Drudge is a news site that merely links to other news sites and Limbaugh is an entertainer and radio talk show host not much different than... say, Randy Rhodes of Air America (except people listen to Rush).
My post had no other purpose then to encourage a dialog and provide the left-wing point of view. You are the one who made a connection to John McCain that wasn't there. You are the one who drew a conclusion that I was somehow attacking "every Republican". You are the one who called my comment 'malicious'. I think my words speak for themselves and you are clearly more interested in encouraging an argument then any constructive dialog. Your post was fine, with the exception of the comparisons that I feel are invalid and I posted why I feel that way. Dialog is good and I appreciate your input. Downmodding because you disagree with posts is not. Neither is misrepresenting someone's position ("McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years" or "Obama is a Muslim") Neither is pushing hate onto the other side ("McCain is the enemy" as an earlier poster put it. GGGP or something).
Let's try that again...
So you are comparing what *you* say (or don't) to cherry-picked rantings from the Internet? You don't think if someone spends 10 minutes scanning the rantings of freepers or right-wing radio they can't come up with just as hateful stuff? Yes! What *I* say, what *I* do and how *I* feel. I was responding to the following:
Again, you need to look at yourself. You've become that which you claim to hate. Which is about *ME* directly!
I don't see the mainstream right denouncing Ann Coulter or Michael Savage any more than the mainstream left denouncing the voices of the "far-left". And, honestly, I think the far-right extremists are far more influential in the Republican Party than the far-left has with the Democrats. (Though I do think that may be soon to change.) I've never heard of Ann Coulter or Michael Savage wishing for the painful deaths of the families of prominent liberals, either. Your comparison is invalid.
So you are comparing what *you* say (or don't) to cherry-picked rantings from the Internet? You don't think if someone spends 10 minutes scanning the rantings of freepers or right-wing radio they can't come up with just as hateful stuff? Again, you need to look at yourself. You've become that which you claim to hate. Which is about *ME* directly!
I don't see the mainstream right denouncing Ann Coulter or Michael Savage any more than the mainstream left denouncing the voices of the "far-left". And, honestly, I think the far-right extremists are far more influential in the Republican Party than the far-left has with the Democrats. (Though I do think that may be soon to change.) I've never heard of Ann Coulter or Michael Savage wishing for the painful deaths of the families of prominent liberals, either. Your comparison is invalid.
You're right. Maybe I should have said "far left". You can not deny the raw hatred that comes from the far left of this country. Granted, I'm sure there is just as much from the far right (the KKK for example), but Republicans tend to distance themselves from that level of politics. I don't see a whole lot of Democrats calling Code Pink, ANSWER, MoveOn.org, Air America, Huffington Post, Daily Kos and so one what they truly are. You may want to look at yourself. This attack is laughable and shrieks of parody. I have. I have never compared Clinton to Hitler. Unfortunately, it's not just the "FAR" left that does it. Take a look at MSNBC's highest rated commentator comparing Bush to Hitler. At Huffington, you see comments like the following:
* "Like her evil husband, she has lived far too long. Here's hoping the hag suffers for several weeks, then croaks in the tub." * "The old bat will probably steal everything in the hospital room." * "I feel no pity for the b---- who took delight in watching thousands die of a horrible disease and watching the poor having to eat out of dumpsters because of her husband's political beliefs." They are speaking of Nancy Reagan when she was in the hospital.
You don't see me carrying signs calling for the forced sterilization of Democrats.
You don't see me comparing Democrats to Nazis.... Or calling for war against the US.
Other quotes from Huffington Post: (talking about Dick Cheney)
I'm embarrased that this guy hasn't had a heart-attack yet. The kind that end's life.
Get a rope for Dick..
hang cheney for war crimes this week. hang cheney for treason against america this week. hang cheney. And that is just page 1.
And that is just after about 2 minutes research....
Nope, sorry. I never called Clinton Hitler. I never called for the overthrow of our government when a Democrat was in office. I never accused our soldiers in Bosnia of war crimes. I've never hoped for the miserable death of anyone on the left side of the aisle (or their families!). Sorry, but I'm nothing like these people. Maybe you should remove your partisan colored glasses when you read Huffpo or any of the other left wing sites to see what I'm talking about. What I've offered here is just an sampling of the hate coming from the left. All of it is over the line and none of it is justified.
I didn't lie about him. McCain has made it clear he's not going to pull out of Iraq. The "100 years" quote is great because it nearly and succinctly describes McCain's actual position on Iraq. Not only does he not want to pull out, he wants to expand the war. He's talking seriously about us invading Iran. No, you actually said that McCain WANTS to be in Iraq for the next 100 years. That's a lie, plain and simple. Fact is, no one sane really WANTS war. However, many, like McCain realize that it is necessary when talking and sanctions don't work. Did Roosevelt WANT war? How about Churchill? If anyone in this election understands the horrors or war, it is John McCain. He knows first hand what is involved. I trust him to make the correct decisions and not take them lightly.
Yeah, damn straight he's the enemy at this election Adversary, maybe. Enemy? No. And that is the problem with so many like you. You consider everyone on the other side the "enemy". You'll make yourself believe whatever it takes to justify your raw hatred for them. I don't hate Obama nor Clinton. I do not see them as the enemy. I'll back whichever of the three make it the office because I love America more than a political party and partisanship. I can't say the same for people like you.
Mod parent up. This is not flame bait.
The South Koreans (at least all the ones I know) don't want us in South Korea Which ones are you talking to? When I was in Korea I didn't see any hostility towards our troops and the few people that I talked to were either supportive of us or neutral about it. I didn't meet anybody that seemed anxious for us to leave.
The Japanese don't want us in Okinawa Maybe that's why we are planning on leaving Okinawa and moving our forces there to Guam? We aren't occupying them -- it was a basing agreement that they signed willingly back in the day.
soldiers habitually raping 12 year-old girls might have something to do with that "Habitually"? I can think of three cases in the last 15 years. That's "habitually"?
I imagine the Germans would like us to leave straight away Think again. Our forces in Germany are a great economic benefit for those areas where they are stationed. A lot of Germans (in and out of Government) were disappointed when we announced that we'd be pulling upwards of 50% of them out of the country.
Typical of the left Why was that even necessary and what positive thing do you contribute to the conservation by taking that sort of swipe at "the left" (as if "the left" is one monolithic entity with a single agenda and battle-plan)? I think we'd all be a lot better off if the people on both sides of the political divide could at least respect each other and avoid taking those kinds of pot-shots at each other. You're right. Maybe I should have said "far left". You can not deny the raw hatred that comes from the far left of this country. Granted, I'm sure there is just as much from the far right (the KKK for example), but Republicans tend to distance themselves from that level of politics. I don't see a whole lot of Democrats calling Code Pink, ANSWER, MoveOn.org, Air America, Huffington Post, Daily Kos and so one what they truly are. Instead, I see people like Hillary Clinton taking credit for starting the smear organization Media Matters while speaking at a Daily Kos convention. I see Obama signs at Code Pink rallies and even Cuban flags with Che Guevara's face in an Obama campaign office. I see Obama's preacher of 20 years saying that the US brought on 9-11 itself and that the white led US gov't started AIDS to kill black people. Jerry Fallwell is a schmuck, but he's no racist, at least not publicly. Democrats, on the other hand, have a real life Klansman in their party as a respected senior senator from West Virginia. Obama even helped raise money for him!
The South Koreans (at least all the ones I know) don't want us in South Korea. And we don't want to be there. However, they'd prefer that we be there over getting invaded from the north.
The Japanese don't want us in Okinawa (soldiers habitually raping 12 year-old girls might have something to do with that). habitual is an exaggeration at best. You make it sound like it happens daily, when the truth is that it is extremely rare, much rarer in fact than from the general population. I googled "Japan soldier rape" and came up with many cases of Japanese soldiers gang raping women and one case of a US Marine charged with raping a 14-yr old girl. The charges were dropped.
We aren't wanted in the Philippines (again, gang-raping women while sporting a large array of weaponry might make us less than welcome there) Now I was able to find a rape case in the Philippines. That soldier got life. Much more than if he were a civilian (and he deserves 100% of it!).
I imagine the Germans would like us to leave straight away. The Germans are happy we are there. Ask anyone who lived in East Germany what they think of the US presence there. It may not be needed there as much as it used to be, but those that used to live under Soviet control are quite happy to see soldiers with American flags on their shoulders.
Of course, one difference between all of those places and Iraq is that we are actually blowing the shit out of Iraq. That might make for a greater sense of urgency, don't you think? Our job there is to help stop all the shit from getting blown up. Do you think that if we left, all the violence would stop? It would actually get much worse. Eventually, it would stop, once everyone is dead or under the uber-strict control we went there to break.
John McCain is the enemy. First, John McCain is not the enemy. America has many enemies. Osama Bin Laden would be a fine example of one. John McCain is not an enemy of America. For that matter, he's a true American hero. I'm not saying that qualifies him to president any more than it did John Kerry, but don't take an American hero and call him the "enemy". That's just hateful, partisan rhetoric. Enough of the hate speech already.
John McCain wants us to stay in Iraq for 100 more years. Typical of the left. Lying about their opponent and declaring them the "enemy". HERE is a video of what he said.
Notice he didn't say that he WANTED to be in Iraq for 100 years. He said he would do what it takes to protect America.
He then went on to note that we've had soldiers in Germany, Italy, Britain, Japan, South Korea and other places for over 50 years. If you are going to bitch about American soldiers being station over seas, you should start with these places where US forces have been stationed over 10X longer.
So please, stop lying about McCain. I didn't even finish the rest of your McCain rant. If you can't be honest about what he said in the first two sentences, you've lost all credibility over the rest.
You seem to think that we went into Iraq carpet bombing cities. Nothing can be further from the truth. I'm afraid you have been misled and you are passing on those lies...er... misinformation yourself.
How did you find them - digging up the ground to make space for the children you killed with cluster bombs? Show me a village, city or town where cluster bombs were used. You can't because we didn't. Cluster bombs were only used in open desert against military formations, and used sparingly at that.
The UN isn't a political entity, it's a debating forum and with an organization entirely controlled by the security council. What it does reflects the agreement of the security council's members, the US being the most powerful of them. The UN has a military force made up of its members. They usually use "local" military forces where UN military action is needed. The UN was formed to prevent genocide and atrocities like those committed during WWII. They failed that mandate in Rwanda and even admitted failure. UN military forces (the blue helmets) stood by and watched hundreds of thousands get butchered and did nothing. Just like they did in Darfur, just like they did in Iraq, just like they did in Afghanistan, just like they are doing in Tibet and just like they will continue to do around the world. If the UN could act as the world's police force, I would welcome them to that role. Unfortunately, they have a record of putting human rights abusers on the "human rights council" and has failed repeatedly.
No sorry, if you want me to debate your numbers, you need to have some first. OK, that's easy enough.
Its report, compiled with the co-operation of Iraq, is the first survey of child and maternal mortality since the end of the Gulf War in 1991.
In what it describes as an "ongoing humanitarian emergency", it shows a dramatic rise in child mortality rates in central and southern Iraq - areas controlled by Baghdad.
Unicef estimates that over the last 10 years at least 500,000 child deaths could have been prevented. That's 500,000 deaths due to Saddam Hussein and the UN oil for food program. These are just children's deaths. These do NOT include those that were killed actively by Saddam Hussein. These do NOT include the mass graves or those that were tortured to death in prison. The US led invasion of Iraq has NOT killed more than 500,000 people.
There are your numbers. Since you were too lazy to retrieve them yourselves, I did it for you. These numbers plainly show that we have actually saved lives by invading Iraq.
Ask her if she'd prefer her grandchildren were still alive, or if she prefers her ability to vote for a government which can only stay in power as long as the US occupation troops supports it. Most of the grandmothers I met were too busy thanking me for saving their grandchildren for me to ask them anything.
Did you go and apologize to the families of the ~100,000 Iraqi's *you* killed? I killed exactly ZERO. Even if I had killed 100,000, I would gladly accept the the thank you from the 1,000,000 parents whose children did not die from preventable diseases. You see, using your own numbers, 100,000 Iraqi adults is less than 500,000 kids.
Slashdot Mirror
I just did. Just copy all my posts on this thread and paste into an OpenOffice Text Doc and there it is! Click on File, Save As, and type in "Truly Genius Comments by ArcherB that I can not refute.odt"
It's not climate change that is causing the problem. It is what we are doing to combat climate change that is the problem. When corn prices go up for ethanol, more farmers switch from whatever they were growing to corn, because it makes more money. This means less of everything else and causes the price of everything else to go up as well!
It's simple supply and demand. Economics 101!
Here is what I mean:
Gear 1: pump all the oil out of American soil as humanly possible. Leave no stone unturned. ANWR, Gulf of Mexico, wherever it lies, we get it.
Gear 2: Tax the shit out the oil gained from Gear 1. Spend 70% of the money on looking for alternative sources of energy. The final 30% goes into a fund to research efficiency and investigate further oil finds.
Gear 3: Implement technologies achieved from gears 1 and 2
Gear 4: Export remaining oil, placing funds in general ledger
Gear 5: Cruize!
I think the key you and these supposed "scholars" are missing is "...people to keep and bear..." Where do people keep things? Do people keep things in the armory? No. People keep things in their homes. What does it mean to bear something? It means to have it on your person and show it. The right of the people to keep and bear shall not be infringed.
What's not to understand? Now don't go find some liberal weenie academia type that can debate anything (like the definition of "is"). Read it for yourself and tell me what there is to honestly debate?
The question is, can we leverage this adaptation for ourselves without incurring the price? If the price is energy expended to produce the ultra efficient immune system, that's fine; but if the price is directly tied to the effects themselves this may prove worthless. We are talking about antibiotics here. Saying that extracting the chemical that prevents infections in alligators may have reptilian side effects is like saying that extracting penicillin from orange mold will give humans an orange pulpy peel (with fur).
I believe that what we will see from this type of research is a pill that is not much different than what the many different antibiotics do today, only newer and stronger and kills viruses. The side affects will have to be judged, but they will be worked out. For example, leaving a metallic taste in your mouth or killing all the beneficial bacteria in your digestive tract is a small price to pay when compared to... say... a painful and miserable death caused by drowning in your own mucus!
It isn't mine. It's the argument of legal scholars that has existed for decades (probably centuries) and stood the test of time. But, yes, I'm sure you're correct, and have out-though generations of scholars. Congrats! You should write a paper, I'm sure many would love to read it! I don't need "scholars" to read for me as I learned to do that in the first grade. 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. I don't care what the "scholars" say. It seems pretty cut and dry to me. "Keep and Bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is pretty straight forward. The founding fathers even explained WHY and even threw in the word KEEP, which means I get to KEEP them in my home. I don't care how many years of school they took, they can not change what the words mean, no matter how hard they try.
And like I said before, arguing against the second amendment is no different than arguing against the first, third, forth, or any other. Saying I can't own a gun is no different than saying the government can search my house without a warrant, arrest me for something I have said or tell me what church I must or can't go to.
No, freedom of speech is an individual right. A collective right is one that a group holds. ie, as a regulated militia, that militia has the right to keep and bear arms. As opposed to some jackass in a trailerpark. Go do a little reading, it might enlighten you. Sorry, but saying: 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. Is sole as a collective right is like saying that The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Does not mean a right to privacy.
Don't try to call me ignorant and then follow up with a ridiculous argument like yours. That trailer trash is just as much an American as any other American and has the same rights you elitist piece of shit!
Spend some time away from the yacht club, find a job and see how real people live. It may enlighten you.
I'm not going to say what I hope happens to your grave!
Of course you could always surround your tires in tin foil if you are THAT paranoid. I hear that microwaving your tires for 15 seconds each will also disable the RFID tags.
(I was going to link to another story at Kos where the writer was hoping for America to be invaded, conquered and occupied, just so we'd know what it felt like and would become peace loving hippies. I figure, that has worked so well in Israel and the Palestinian territories that it has to be worth a shot. However, the story "can't be found", however, it has tags and 102 comments! I guess some things are too vile for Kos... Oh wait! It's an election year!)
I'm not sure you're aware of this, but Wright was actually quoting the comments of a former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq in that soundbite. How dare a pastor quote a leading expert on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East when discussing a consequence of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East...
Really? That ambassador said that white people in the US government invented AIDS to kill black people? That same ambassador said that the white led US government invented crack so that they could lock the black man up? That ambassador said that Hillary Clinton can't be president because she's never been called a ni... well, you get the idea.
Sorry, that excuse is full of shit! It may explain one comment, but it does not explain what lack of class it took to say it the first Sunday after 9-11. People needed comforting, not to be accused.
McCain does want to stay in Iraq for 100 years subject to a specific condition (that it's within U.S. interests as he sees them).
OK, I have to call bullshit on this one... again. Why in the Hell would McCain WANT US forces in Iraq or anywhere else in the world? If it serves US interest, sure, he'll keep them there but he doesn't WANT them there. Just like doing the dishes serves my interest in getting laid, but that doesn't mean I WANT to do the dishes. Sorry, your stretch is pretty pathetic and well... it's bullshit. You have made yourself look stupid for even trying it. It even made me look stupid to respond to something so idiotic!
Being a Muslim isn't a position, and this portrayal of Obama as a Muslim is a misrepresentation of an immaterial fact meant to foment a bigoted response. He's never said anything to the effect that he is a Muslim and, if he were, it should have no impact on his suitability as a candidate to lead our country through a period of great domestic and diplomatic hardship.
Uh, he went to a Muslim school as a child and fucking name is Barak Hussein Obama! No, he's not a Muslim, but it is a fair question to ask.
Do you actually watch Fox news?
I pretty much watch all the network news outlets. Fox is the only one that shows two sides to a story.
In most of their attempts to "represent all sides" that I've seen, they put on some minor player on the "other side" with little or no experience in TV commentary and yell at them. Their purpose isn't to serve as some reasonable counterpoint, but to be lampooned and caricatured in order for the fringe right-wing audience to feel comfortable in their disdain of the center and left.
Uh, do YOU ever watch Fox News? May I recommend Hannity and Colmes. Maybe Geraldo's show where he calls Bill O'Reilly a racist bigot.
As for liberals that look like jackasses on national TV, it is either because their position is indefensible or they are just not used to being challenged. They are not challenged on any OTHER network. We must also consider the possibility that maybe they are just jackasses.
Oh, and did you know that Rupert Murdoch donated to Hillary Clinton's campaign? Also Harold Ford Jr, Charles Schumer, John F. Kerry, Max Cleland, Edward J. Markey, Edward Kennedy, Bill Bradley and other Democrats. That right wing BASTARD!
Pray tell which "opposing view" has some traction in the non-crackpot scientific community, makes a distinction that is important to present, and can be clearly conveyed and properly qualified in a 2 minute dissent interview? Just because some wingnut disagrees with the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community doesn't mean he deserves national airtime, especially on a show like 60 minutes.
See, you've already set up your response. In your mind, any scientist who does not buy into GW is automatically a crackpot in your view. It doesn't matter if they were on the IPCC board like Chris Landsea Ph.D (here are some of his
* "The old bat will probably steal everything in the hospital room."
* "I feel no pity for the b---- who took delight in watching thousands die of a horrible disease and watching the poor having to eat out of dumpsters because of her husband's political beliefs." They are speaking of Nancy Reagan when she was in the hospital.
You don't see me carrying signs calling for the forced sterilization of Democrats.
You don't see me comparing Democrats to Nazis.
Or calling for war against the US.
Other quotes from Huffington Post:
(talking about Dick Cheney) I'm embarrased that this guy hasn't had a heart-attack yet. The kind that end's life.
Get a rope for Dick..
hang cheney for war crimes this week.
hang cheney for treason against america this week.
hang cheney. And that is just page 1.
And that is just after about 2 minutes research....
Nope, sorry. I never called Clinton Hitler. I never called for the overthrow of our government when a Democrat was in office. I never accused our soldiers in Bosnia of war crimes. I've never hoped for the miserable death of anyone on the left side of the aisle (or their families!). Sorry, but I'm nothing like these people. Maybe you should remove your partisan colored glasses when you read Huffpo or any of the other left wing sites to see what I'm talking about. What I've offered here is just an sampling of the hate coming from the left. All of it is over the line and none of it is justified.
Fact is, no one sane really WANTS war. However, many, like McCain realize that it is necessary when talking and sanctions don't work. Did Roosevelt WANT war? How about Churchill? If anyone in this election understands the horrors or war, it is John McCain. He knows first hand what is involved. I trust him to make the correct decisions and not take them lightly. Yeah, damn straight he's the enemy at this election Adversary, maybe. Enemy? No. And that is the problem with so many like you. You consider everyone on the other side the "enemy". You'll make yourself believe whatever it takes to justify your raw hatred for them. I don't hate Obama nor Clinton. I do not see them as the enemy. I'll back whichever of the three make it the office because I love America more than a political party and partisanship. I can't say the same for people like you.
Notice he didn't say that he WANTED to be in Iraq for 100 years. He said he would do what it takes to protect America.
He then went on to note that we've had soldiers in Germany, Italy, Britain, Japan, South Korea and other places for over 50 years. If you are going to bitch about American soldiers being station over seas, you should start with these places where US forces have been stationed over 10X longer.
So please, stop lying about McCain. I didn't even finish the rest of your McCain rant. If you can't be honest about what he said in the first two sentences, you've lost all credibility over the rest.
In what it describes as an "ongoing humanitarian emergency", it shows a dramatic rise in child mortality rates in central and southern Iraq - areas controlled by Baghdad.
Unicef estimates that over the last 10 years at least 500,000 child deaths could have been prevented. That's 500,000 deaths due to Saddam Hussein and the UN oil for food program. These are just children's deaths. These do NOT include those that were killed actively by Saddam Hussein. These do NOT include the mass graves or those that were tortured to death in prison.
The US led invasion of Iraq has NOT killed more than 500,000 people.
There are your numbers. Since you were too lazy to retrieve them yourselves, I did it for you. These numbers plainly show that we have actually saved lives by invading Iraq. Ask her if she'd prefer her grandchildren were still alive, or if she prefers her ability to vote for a government which can only stay in power as long as the US occupation troops supports it. Most of the grandmothers I met were too busy thanking me for saving their grandchildren for me to ask them anything. Did you go and apologize to the families of the ~100,000 Iraqi's *you* killed? I killed exactly ZERO. Even if I had killed 100,000, I would gladly accept the the thank you from the 1,000,000 parents whose children did not die from preventable diseases. You see, using your own numbers, 100,000 Iraqi adults is less than 500,000 kids.