"extremely serious errors" = things YOU disagree with
Holy shit the pigheaded delusional ignorance of you freedom hating Bush supporters is un fucking believable.
He said that Saddam had mass quantities of WMDs that he knew exactly where were. He said Saddam was a grave and imminent threat to us. These have been proven to be lies. It has been proven that he knew they were lies when he said them. The fucking CIA told him not to spew the lies he spewed in his state of the union because they knew they were not true.
It's not a question of agreement or disagreement you ignorant fuckhole. It is a fact the he lied his god damned ass off.
It is a fact that he pulled our assetts off of terrorism to fight pornography and dirty words on the radio and then we were attacked. If you don't know that that was a mistake, then you have such a fucked sense of priorities it's unbelievable.
You people can't accuse Bush of being divisive, and then claim that the country is a monolith against him. If that were true, what would be the point of these debates?
I never said that he was divisive, although after lying about being a uniter, he proceeded to do everything in his power to divide the nation. I never claimed the nation was a monolith against him. I said that everybody knows he made mistakes. Is this untrue. Are you going to claim that he is perfect and has made no mistakes?
You obviously live in a much different America than I do. In fact, from the tone of your post, you would be one of the first people to jump all over the President if he actually did admit an error, and rapidly interpret the admission and extend the admission into ways the President would not have meant.
That's crazy. The tone of my post is based on the fact that he has repeatedly been unable to come up with a single error he has ever made. Any normal sane human being will, when faced with new information, take this into their analysis of a given situation. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that various things Bush stated as absolutely proven facts not only aren't true, but weren't even believable at the time given the information he had at his disposal.
Were he able to change his mind based on new evidence, that would certainly elevate my opinion of him somewhat. Instead, he refuses to change his mind even theough the facts overwhelmingly demonstrate that he was absolutely wrong.
Now you can't do that, only make vague claims that he should, and even borderline lie by claiming he'd increase his "credibility" (presumably with you, since that's the only person you can talk about) by doing so. Like hell he would. You wouldn't consider him any more credible if he did come clean. That's exactly what I'm talking about.
Again, see what I said above. It's truly bizarre that you think you know what I think, how I think it, and how I would react to any given situation. "Borderline lie" what the fuck is wrong with you?
(For a lot of people, most likely including you though I can't be 100% on this, he could come out with proof positive of everything he has said, and produce unassailable proof that he could not release this info earlier or troops would have died, and you still would not consider him credible. Your mind is made up.)
Now, you're just creating fantasy situations. I would certainly consider him more credible than I do now were this to happen. The thing your missing out on is that it isn't even theoretically possible. Unassailable proof is already here that he was wrong, that he knew full well he was wrong at the time he said it and that he did it anyway. You seem to feel that the simple basic facts of the situation should be ignored in the interests of... What. I don't know some deluded idea of impartiality.
Here's a hot litte tip for you. Facts are not biased. Facts are not partisan.
My mind is made up based on the facts of the situation. The facts are not going to change.
He made an error in saying the exact copy that he had of the memo was the actual one.
In years past, that would be enough. None of the rest of what you say would erase that. Especially after he stuck to his guns and insulted nearly the entire rest of the country in the process for questioning him.
In years past, there wouldn't even have been need of a memo. In years past, reporters wrote stories that they had proven to their own satisfaction were true. That is nearly the entire advantage of having a free press. They do not have to prove anything beyond the shadow of a doubt in a court of law.
See, Dan Rather is right 95% of the time and it's "disgusting" that people attack him.
You're being delusional again. I said that it was disgusting that a reporter having an identical copy of an actual document proving various extremely critical and relevant facts about the President of the United States lack of fitness is more of a story than the actual facts presented due to the fact that it was a different piece of paper.
Bush is right 95% of the time, and by golly, get him the hell out of here.
Bush made up a bunch of lies that have led to 10s of thousands of deaths and the greatest debt this country has ever seen. He has repeatedlydone everything in his power to destroy the transparancy upon which a free society absolutely depends (FOIA
I've been thinking about this lately, and I don't think that's it. I think the problem is that we as Americans are holding all of our leaders to unreasonably high standards, in many cases exceeding even "perfection".
That has absolutely nothing to do with it. Bush has made many extremely serious errors while in office. Everybody knows it, and they are completely out in the open. He has nothing to lose by admitting the simple facts that everybody knows and much to lose (like any credibility he had left).
This is a non-partisan observation, and indeed it extends past politics; in previous eras Dan Rather would be out of a job, now he stands on his "facts" for a few weeks, mumbles a vague and unsatisfying apology, and hopes for the best, which AFAIK he is getting.
The really sickening thing about this issue is how it has ended up being about Dan Rather. He made an error in saying the exact copy that he had of the memo was the actual one. What has been completely lost in the ruckus over that is that regardless of the origin of that particular piece of paper, is that what was reported was absolutely factual, and has been backed up by the people who would know. In fact it was backed up by the person who typed the freaking real memo originally.
I suppose you missed Rather's interview with the secretary who stated that she did not type the memo? He asked her if she typed similar ones: YES. Heasked her if she types ones identical in content: YES.
So the facts are not in any way in dispute. Bush deserted his unit and failed to show up for duty. The president of the United States has proven himself to be untrustworthy. He has proven himself incapable of fulfilling an oath. He has proven himself to be a coward.
Yes, but it's really a much bigger story that a reporter had the wrong piece of paper with the smae things written on it as the right piece of paper.
That's just so symptomatic of how truly diseased this country is.
You know what is funny? I point out, in a discussion of kerry's tax plan, that he pays less than 13% in federal taxes and I get modded down to -1 in about 5 minutes.
I don't know why that happenned or how you phrased your comment, but I can think of one situation where it would be appropriate.
If you used that fact to try and demonstrate that Kerry's tax plan is designed to help the rich, and so he's no better than Bush in that respect, then I think it would be justifiable although a response would have been more appropriate. He pays that little because he is rich, and that is who Bush's policies help the most. If Kerry is actually honest about rolling back the tax cut for the richest people, then he literally is putting his money where his mouth is which would be a strong demonstation of this thing called integrity.
That said, again, I have no idea if that is relevant to the situation.
I think you made a really geat post with some very well thought out points. I also think you jumped the shark here:
Similarly, in the past, we were told by scientists with full confidence that nuclear power/energy was the answer to all our energy needs - a clean, safe and unlimited power source that would be so bountiful it would be "too cheap to meter." We all know how that one turned out..
The truth or falsity of the scientist's statements has yet to be determined because anti nuke activists have prevented it from getting to that point.
Now, they certainly have valid concerns. We still don't have an appropriate way to deal with the left over material, and a meltdown would be a very serious issue (Chernobyl).
The way in which this is relevant to your point is that basically stopping an avenue of research due to potential hazards is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I'm not gung-ho in favor of nuclear power, but it has proven to be effective. I'm too lazy to look it up, but I believe France gets something on the order of 80% of its power from nuclear reactors.
I agree that there are very serious issues with GM crops. To me the 2 main ones are: 1. The lack of biodiversity. 2. The sickening patent issues. Specifically the case where a farmer had his crops "infected" by a neighbor's GM crops and was then convicted ( or whatever if it was a civil issue) of violating the patent. That farmer potentially lost his ability to sell his crop if he had grown it with the intent of selling it to those who choose (for whatever reasons they have) specifically not to purchase GM crops.
Drawing the parallel with the nuclear issue IMHO weakens your argument.
The funny thing is that if hemp were legal and encouraged, the pollen would ruin all the pot grown for drug use.
Now, ignoring things like indoor growing, is this actually true? Would the hemp overpower the ganj, or would it be 6 of one? Would all the THC disappear, or would the pot pot be not as good and you could smoke rope but with a headache?
It isn't a lie to have been honestly wrong about something.
Provided, of course that you phrased it like : "There is some evidence that I believe indicates that such and such is true".
If you phrase it like: "Such and such is true" and it isn't true, then what you said was, in fact, a lie. In some ways it's even worse as it is more manipulative.
Actually, 'When the cubs win the world series' is as specific as can be. The problem with that was that "Never" was too blatant even for this pussified court.
I think it broke 100 degrees 3 times all summer. Personally
In Chicago, summer was pretty disappointing. It was a lot colder than normal. September and October have been unseasonably warm which is nice though. Not that one year's data is indicative of anything, just giving the weather report;-)
I'm predicting a harsh winter if it follows the same trend.
Why, just colder=>colder, or is there some known connection?
Your suggestion would mean that predominantly rural states would have to pay for unprofitable local phone service either by significantly higher USF contributions from its few metropolitan customers or by raising taxes.
I suppose that you have some reasoning to explain why people who live in the areas of the country that actually can afford to pay for themselves should subsidize the lifestyles of people who due to the Electoral College fiasco have a greater representation?
If these rural areas want to have even equal representation with the rest of the country, let alone the greater representation they do enjoy, then I think they should at the very least have the integrity to pull their own weight rather than suck off the government tit.
I mean seriously, I think these states should have their statehood yanked and the people should be stripped of their citizenship. They should become protectorates like Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands. These people can not even afford a modern existence without subsidies, so since they can only live through the protection and welfare of the urban areas we should at least have the honesty to call it what it is.
f you spent 20 seconds googling something, like, oh, I don't know, how about; "popular vote count presidential election 2000" you would rapidly see that there were over 100 Million votes.
Ahhhh.... but how early and often did Chicago's dead vote in that election?
Everyone conveniently forgets that when we let Saddam off the hook in '91, one of the conditions was that he would have to prove that he had no weapons.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject. If that were the reason that we invaded, then don't you suppose that maybe that would be what Bush used to justify it rather than the blatant lies that he did use to justify it?
You are conveniently forgetting that as a citizen of a free society, *you* have a fundamental responsibility to your country and to your fellow citizens to be an informed citizen. This means it is your duty to be aware of the simple basic fact that Bush has repeatedly lied about his justifications for invading another country.
Any person with a scrap of sense or integrity would realise that once somebody gets away clean with a lie of that magnitude that it can only get worse. That is the completely neutral position.
Your position seems to be throwing up red herrings and irrelevancies to distract from the fundamental fact. The fact that you are trying to help cover up treasonous actions makes you an accessory to them.
You had damn well better rethink your priorities, because by going along with these lying sacks of shit, you are saying that stripping fags of their basic human rights and being deluded enough to believe that god is telling Bush to go out and kill again is more important than the rights and freedoms that our ancestors fought for. It's more important than freedom, human rights, and the constitution.
If you honestly believe that, then you are a sick sick animal. If you don't, then you'd best pull your head out of your ass and start acting like a decent human being.
I defy you to show any evidence of any "sizable portion of the country" that says such crap.
The fact that there is a chance in hell that Bush will get elected is pretty damning evidence.
Given how he led us into this war through lies, misirection, and scare tactics anybody who would even consider voting for him is saying essentially just that. Add in the fact that he only started throwing the "saving the Iraqi people" bullshit after his lies were falling apart, and you have almost half the country who are supporting exactly this attitude even if they aren't saying it out loud.
I doubt many Americans would actually have the courage to look in the mirror and admit that this is what they are supporting, but it doesn't change the simple fact that that is what they are doing.
It's obvious Darby that you have never taken a close look at what happens in the Middle-east, Arabian coutries, and Northern African countries
This is entirely irrelevant to the subject at hand. The fact that in some places in the world, they don't like Christians has absolutley nothing to do with the situation in America.
The fact that people on the other side of the world are living under religious fundamentalism is no excuse to intitute religious fundamentalism here. The fact that that is what a lot of these wackos are trying to do here is a hell of a lot more important.
The answer is not to institute policies like what dragged them down to where they are. As soon as you start basing laws on a religion, you have lost what this country stands for.
Name me one time in history when a fundamentalist theocracy has led to anything but massive horrors.
I think you need to take off your blinders and look at what is happenning right in front of you.
First off, is your AirAmerica a response to, or source of, ignorant hatemongering.
It is a response to. The issues discussed on that station have little to nothing to do with the subject at hand though.
Your Comments:"nobody gives a flying fuck what the particular details of your personal invisible friend are"
"how fucking psychotic would you have to be..."
And my personal favorite,"Tough shit you whiny little bitch."
There is nothing the least bit ignorant or even angry about my words. I will admit that I am a little bit frustrated with the stupid ignorant crap that keeps spewing out of your and some other Christian's mouths.
For example:
Do I really have to argue the defense of christmas? Is it wrong for me to think that Christmas is an OK thing for our society?
I agree completely that celebrating the winter solstice is a great thing. You however, are trying to claim that your religious beliefs which came along far after the celebration was in place and usurped the celebration should be shoved down my throat. You are more than welcome to think whatever you want as I have been saying. Where I have a problem is that you are arguing from the perspective that you are the possessor of ultimate truth. Given that, you are incapable of realising that a lot of people think your beliefs are very silly, and to some extent downright insane.
Now, would you be ok with the government putting plaques in courtrooms saying "There is no god only a moron would believe that"? Of course not. You however, think it isn't just your right to shove your viewpoint down my throat, but that you are being oppressed if you are not allowed to.
When you say you'll return the favor of keeping beliefs to yourself, does that mean that there will be no more pushing the big bang as fact and let there be a scientific debate?
There is lots of scientific debate about this. You seem to be suffering from the delusion that "Creationist Science" is actually science. It isn't It has put forward a number of extremely dubious claims which have been entirely refuted. When people, like yourself as you did in a later post, repeat the same old claims about entropy and conservation of energy, it merely demonstrates that you know absolutely nothing at all about science. Further it demonstrates that you have no interest at all in informing your self. You repeat idiotic lies (they are idiotic at this point having proven false on so many occasions) when you have no idea whether there is any truth to them or not, and expect to be taken seriously?
Does that mean that those who believe homosexuality is a sin will be refered to as "those who have a religious belief" and not "bigoted homophobes"
Of course not. I don't care what causes you to be a bigotted prick. It could be because of a book, what your parents taught you, or because you want to be one and are scared. I don't know, nor do I care in the least.
You claim to believe in some supreme being who created everything in the universe, yet fail to demonstrate the most basic ability to think it through. If what you believe is true, then god made homosexuality, and he made homosexuals exactly the way they are for whatever reasons he has. By your ignorant bigotry, you are saying flat out that you know god's business better than he does. Now before you point to the bible as proof that he wants you to hate them, read the rest of the chapter and make a feeble attempt to reconcile that with reality. Also consider that was the "old" god. There is a new and improved one that Christians are supposed to believe in.
or perhaps you just want Christians to shut up and not have thier voice heard in society.
They are welcome to have their voices heard in society. They are not welcome to shove their religious beliefs into our laws, or into my bedroom or into anywhere else for that matter.
They've increased taxes by a record amount since coming to power and used this money to fund demographics most likely to vote for themselves.
They've flooded the airwaves with propaganda
Sounds pretty bloody left wing to me.
You have clearly not been paying attention lately.
This is now "right wing". Maybe in the past it was left wing, but in the past, the republicans (in America) were the ones who freed the slaves. Now they are the ones running concentration camps in Cuba.
Christianity will "get off its cross" when the world stops putting it back up there.
Whatever. Nobody but yourself is putting you on a cross.
So they started calling what some people called "Christmas vacation" "Winter Vacation". Big fucking deal.
In the first place, it was called "Winter Solstice" long before Christianity coopted it. In the second place, it has not a god damned thing to do with your religion because all the evidence points to Jesus (if he ever existed which there is very little evidence for) being born in the summer.
So get off your pity potty because what you stole was given back to everybody.
Tough shit you whiny little bitch.
Further, why should we force the many good Americans who don't buy into your religion to put up with having your particular world view shoved down our throats?
Given Christianity's brutal murderous history regarding anybody who doesn't agree exactly with whatever particular magalomaniac is in charge of the main local branch, how fucking psychotic would you have to be to think for one instant that shoving that in people's faces is in the least consistent with basic human decency?
So in conclusion, nobody gives a flying fuck what the particular details of your personal invisible friend are. Believe whatever the hell you want, but keep it to yourself and out of my face and I will return the favor.
Being a patriot does not mean saying " I love America"
Actually, I think it does. That doesn't mean you can't find faults with it, but if you don't love your country you are NOT a patriot.
That isn't all it means to be a Patriot, which was quite clearly my point as you have to love your country to have the courage to stand up in this day and age and criticize it, while you do not need to love it to take what you can from it, bury your head in the sand, and go around waving the flag.
Slashdot Mirror
"extremely serious errors" = things YOU disagree with
Holy shit the pigheaded delusional ignorance of you freedom hating Bush supporters is un fucking believable.
He said that Saddam had mass quantities of WMDs that he knew exactly where were.
He said Saddam was a grave and imminent threat to us.
These have been proven to be lies.
It has been proven that he knew they were lies when he said them.
The fucking CIA told him not to spew the lies he spewed in his state of the union because they knew they were not true.
It's not a question of agreement or disagreement you ignorant fuckhole.
It is a fact the he lied his god damned ass off.
It is a fact that he pulled our assetts off of terrorism to fight pornography and dirty words on the radio and then we were attacked.
If you don't know that that was a mistake, then you have such a fucked sense of priorities it's unbelievable.
You people can't accuse Bush of being divisive, and then claim that the country is a monolith against him. If that were true, what would be the point of these debates?
I never said that he was divisive, although after lying about being a uniter, he proceeded to do everything in his power to divide the nation.
I never claimed the nation was a monolith against him. I said that everybody knows he made mistakes.
Is this untrue.
Are you going to claim that he is perfect and has made no mistakes?
What was your point exactly?
You obviously live in a much different America than I do. In fact, from the tone of your post, you would be one of the first people to jump all over the President if he actually did admit an error, and rapidly interpret the admission and extend the admission into ways the President would not have meant.
That's crazy. The tone of my post is based on the fact that he has repeatedly been unable to come up with a single error he has ever made.
Any normal sane human being will, when faced with new information, take this into their analysis of a given situation. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that various things Bush stated as absolutely proven facts not only aren't true, but weren't even believable at the time given the information he had at his disposal.
Were he able to change his mind based on new evidence, that would certainly elevate my opinion of him somewhat.
Instead, he refuses to change his mind even theough the facts overwhelmingly demonstrate that he was absolutely wrong.
Now you can't do that, only make vague claims that he should, and even borderline lie by claiming he'd increase his "credibility" (presumably with you, since that's the only person you can talk about) by doing so. Like hell he would. You wouldn't consider him any more credible if he did come clean. That's exactly what I'm talking about.
Again, see what I said above.
It's truly bizarre that you think you know what I think, how I think it, and how I would react to any given situation.
"Borderline lie" what the fuck is wrong with you?
(For a lot of people, most likely including you though I can't be 100% on this, he could come out with proof positive of everything he has said, and produce unassailable proof that he could not release this info earlier or troops would have died, and you still would not consider him credible. Your mind is made up.)
Now, you're just creating fantasy situations. I would certainly consider him more credible than I do now were this to happen. The thing your missing out on is that it isn't even theoretically possible.
Unassailable proof is already here that he was wrong, that he knew full well he was wrong at the time he said it and that he did it anyway.
You seem to feel that the simple basic facts of the situation should be ignored in the interests of... What. I don't know some deluded idea of impartiality.
Here's a hot litte tip for you.
Facts are not biased.
Facts are not partisan.
My mind is made up based on the facts of the situation.
The facts are not going to change.
He made an error in saying the exact copy that he had of the memo was the actual one.
In years past, that would be enough. None of the rest of what you say would erase that. Especially after he stuck to his guns and insulted nearly the entire rest of the country in the process for questioning him.
In years past, there wouldn't even have been need of a memo.
In years past, reporters wrote stories that they had proven to their own satisfaction were true.
That is nearly the entire advantage of having a free press. They do not have to prove anything beyond the shadow of a doubt in a court of law.
See, Dan Rather is right 95% of the time and it's "disgusting" that people attack him.
You're being delusional again.
I said that it was disgusting that a reporter having an identical copy of an actual document proving various extremely critical and relevant facts about the President of the United States lack of fitness is more of a story than the actual facts presented due to the fact that it was a different piece of paper.
Bush is right 95% of the time, and by golly, get him the hell out of here.
Bush made up a bunch of lies that have led to 10s of thousands of deaths and the greatest debt this country has ever seen. He has repeatedlydone everything in his power to destroy the transparancy upon which a free society absolutely depends (FOIA
I've been thinking about this lately, and I don't think that's it. I think the problem is that we as Americans are holding all of our leaders to unreasonably high standards, in many cases exceeding even "perfection".
That has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Bush has made many extremely serious errors while in office. Everybody knows it, and they are completely out in the open. He has nothing to lose by admitting the simple facts that everybody knows and much to lose (like any credibility he had left).
This is a non-partisan observation, and indeed it extends past politics; in previous eras Dan Rather would be out of a job, now he stands on his "facts" for a few weeks, mumbles a vague and unsatisfying apology, and hopes for the best, which AFAIK he is getting.
The really sickening thing about this issue is how it has ended up being about Dan Rather. He made an error in saying the exact copy that he had of the memo was the actual one.
What has been completely lost in the ruckus over that is that regardless of the origin of that particular piece of paper, is that what was reported was absolutely factual, and has been backed up by the people who would know.
In fact it was backed up by the person who typed the freaking real memo originally.
I suppose you missed Rather's interview with the secretary who stated that she did not type the memo? He asked her if she typed similar ones: YES.
Heasked her if she types ones identical in content: YES.
So the facts are not in any way in dispute. Bush deserted his unit and failed to show up for duty. The president of the United States has proven himself to be untrustworthy. He has proven himself incapable of fulfilling an oath. He has proven himself to be a coward.
Yes, but it's really a much bigger story that a reporter had the wrong piece of paper with the smae things written on it as the right piece of paper.
That's just so symptomatic of how truly diseased this country is.
Washington State, British Columbia... what's the difference?
Well, let's see...... Maybe...
Pot Cafe's?
You know what is funny? I point out, in a discussion of kerry's tax plan, that he pays less than 13% in federal taxes and I get modded down to -1 in about 5 minutes.
I don't know why that happenned or how you phrased your comment, but I can think of one situation where it would be appropriate.
If you used that fact to try and demonstrate that Kerry's tax plan is designed to help the rich, and so he's no better than Bush in that respect, then I think it would be justifiable although a response would have been more appropriate. He pays that little because he is rich, and that is who Bush's policies help the most. If Kerry is actually honest about rolling back the tax cut for the richest people, then he literally is putting his money where his mouth is which would be a strong demonstation of this thing called integrity.
That said, again, I have no idea if that is relevant to the situation.
I think you made a really geat post with some very well thought out points.
I also think you jumped the shark here:
Similarly, in the past, we were told by scientists with full confidence that nuclear power/energy was the answer to all our energy needs - a clean, safe and unlimited power source that would be so bountiful it would be "too cheap to meter." We all know how that one turned out..
The truth or falsity of the scientist's statements has yet to be determined because anti nuke activists have prevented it from getting to that point.
Now, they certainly have valid concerns. We still don't have an appropriate way to deal with the left over material, and a meltdown would be a very serious issue (Chernobyl).
The way in which this is relevant to your point is that basically stopping an avenue of research due to potential hazards is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I'm not gung-ho in favor of nuclear power, but it has proven to be effective. I'm too lazy to look it up, but I believe France gets something on the order of 80% of its power from nuclear reactors.
I agree that there are very serious issues with GM crops. To me the 2 main ones are:
1. The lack of biodiversity.
2. The sickening patent issues. Specifically the case where a farmer had his crops "infected" by a neighbor's GM crops and was then convicted ( or whatever if it was a civil issue) of violating the patent. That farmer potentially lost his ability to sell his crop if he had grown it with the intent of selling it to those who choose (for whatever reasons they have) specifically not to purchase GM crops.
Drawing the parallel with the nuclear issue IMHO weakens your argument.
As far as I know, human males don't fling their sperm into the air to fertilize females miles away.
Speak for yourself.
The funny thing is that if hemp were legal and encouraged, the pollen would ruin all the pot grown for drug use.
Now, ignoring things like indoor growing, is this actually true?
Would the hemp overpower the ganj, or would it be 6 of one?
Would all the THC disappear, or would the pot pot be not as good and you could smoke rope but with a headache?
CmdrTaco's Wives Boyfriend?
;-)
I thought he lived in Michigan, not Utah
It isn't a lie to have been honestly wrong about something.
Provided, of course that you phrased it like : "There is some evidence that I believe indicates that such and such is true".
If you phrase it like: "Such and such is true" and it isn't true, then what you said was, in fact, a lie. In some ways it's even worse as it is more manipulative.
In Firefox:
File: save as: Type Complete web page.
You get it all.
How is that different? Oh yeah, tar it to make it a single file.
Seriously, what is the fundamental difference here?
Actually, 'When the cubs win the world series' is as specific as can be. The problem with that was that "Never" was too blatant even for this pussified court.
I think it broke 100 degrees 3 times all summer. Personally
;-)
In Chicago, summer was pretty disappointing. It was a lot colder than normal. September and October have been unseasonably warm which is nice though. Not that one year's data is indicative of anything, just giving the weather report
I'm predicting a harsh winter if it follows the same trend.
Why, just colder=>colder, or is there some known connection?
But it's a fair trade I guess for someone who wants a gmail account (but really, who doesn't have one anymore who wants one?)
Me. Can you hook a brother up?
Your suggestion would mean that predominantly rural states would have to pay for unprofitable local phone service either by significantly higher USF contributions from its few metropolitan customers or by raising taxes.
I suppose that you have some reasoning to explain why people who live in the areas of the country that actually can afford to pay for themselves should subsidize the lifestyles of people who due to the Electoral College fiasco have a greater representation?
If these rural areas want to have even equal representation with the rest of the country, let alone the greater representation they do enjoy, then I think they should at the very least have the integrity to pull their own weight rather than suck off the government tit.
I mean seriously, I think these states should have their statehood yanked and the people should be stripped of their citizenship. They should become protectorates like Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands.
These people can not even afford a modern existence without subsidies, so since they can only live through the protection and welfare of the urban areas we should at least have the honesty to call it what it is.
f you spent 20 seconds googling something, like, oh, I don't know, how about; "popular vote count presidential election 2000" you would rapidly see that there were over 100 Million votes.
Ahhhh.... but how early and often did Chicago's dead vote in that election?
Everyone conveniently forgets that when we let Saddam off the hook in '91, one of the conditions was that he would have to prove that he had no weapons.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject.
If that were the reason that we invaded, then don't you suppose that maybe that would be what Bush used to justify it rather than the blatant lies that he did use to justify it?
You are conveniently forgetting that as a citizen of a free society, *you* have a fundamental responsibility to your country and to your fellow citizens to be an informed citizen.
This means it is your duty to be aware of the simple basic fact that Bush has repeatedly lied about his justifications for invading another country.
Any person with a scrap of sense or integrity would realise that once somebody gets away clean with a lie of that magnitude that it can only get worse.
That is the completely neutral position.
Your position seems to be throwing up red herrings and irrelevancies to distract from the fundamental fact. The fact that you are trying to help cover up treasonous actions makes you an accessory to them.
You had damn well better rethink your priorities, because by going along with these lying sacks of shit, you are saying that stripping fags of their basic human rights and being deluded enough to believe that god is telling Bush to go out and kill again is more important than the rights and freedoms that our ancestors fought for. It's more important than freedom, human rights, and the constitution.
If you honestly believe that, then you are a sick sick animal.
If you don't, then you'd best pull your head out of your ass and start acting like a decent human being.
I defy you to show any evidence of any "sizable portion of the country" that says such crap.
The fact that there is a chance in hell that Bush will get elected is pretty damning evidence.
Given how he led us into this war through lies, misirection, and scare tactics anybody who would even consider voting for him is saying essentially just that.
Add in the fact that he only started throwing the "saving the Iraqi people" bullshit after his lies were falling apart, and you have almost half the country who are supporting exactly this attitude even if they aren't saying it out loud.
I doubt many Americans would actually have the courage to look in the mirror and admit that this is what they are supporting, but it doesn't change the simple fact that that is what they are doing.
It's obvious Darby that you have never taken a close look at what happens in the Middle-east, Arabian coutries, and Northern African countries
This is entirely irrelevant to the subject at hand.
The fact that in some places in the world, they don't like Christians has absolutley nothing to do with the situation in America.
The fact that people on the other side of the world are living under religious fundamentalism is no excuse to intitute religious fundamentalism here. The fact that that is what a lot of these wackos are trying to do here is a hell of a lot more important.
The answer is not to institute policies like what dragged them down to where they are. As soon as you start basing laws on a religion, you have lost what this country stands for.
Name me one time in history when a fundamentalist theocracy has led to anything but massive horrors.
I think you need to take off your blinders and look at what is happenning right in front of you.
First off, is your AirAmerica a response to, or source of, ignorant hatemongering.
It is a response to. The issues discussed on that station have little to nothing to do with the subject at hand though.
Your Comments:"nobody gives a flying fuck what the particular details of your personal invisible friend are"
"how fucking psychotic would you have to be..."
And my personal favorite,"Tough shit you whiny little bitch."
There is nothing the least bit ignorant or even angry about my words.
I will admit that I am a little bit frustrated with the stupid ignorant crap that keeps spewing out of your and some other Christian's mouths.
For example:
Do I really have to argue the defense of christmas? Is it wrong for me to think that Christmas is an OK thing for our society?
I agree completely that celebrating the winter solstice is a great thing. You however, are trying to claim that your religious beliefs which came along far after the celebration was in place and usurped the celebration should be shoved down my throat.
You are more than welcome to think whatever you want as I have been saying. Where I have a problem is that you are arguing from the perspective that you are the possessor of ultimate truth. Given that, you are incapable of realising that a lot of people think your beliefs are very silly, and to some extent downright insane.
Now, would you be ok with the government putting plaques in courtrooms saying "There is no god only a moron would believe that"?
Of course not.
You however, think it isn't just your right to shove your viewpoint down my throat, but that you are being oppressed if you are not allowed to.
When you say you'll return the favor of keeping beliefs to yourself, does that mean that there will be no more pushing the big bang as fact and let there be a scientific debate?
There is lots of scientific debate about this. You seem to be suffering from the delusion that "Creationist Science" is actually science. It isn't
It has put forward a number of extremely dubious claims which have been entirely refuted. When people, like yourself as you did in a later post, repeat the same old claims about entropy and conservation of energy, it merely demonstrates that you know absolutely nothing at all about science.
Further it demonstrates that you have no interest at all in informing your self.
You repeat idiotic lies (they are idiotic at this point having proven false on so many occasions) when you have no idea whether there is any truth to them or not, and expect to be taken seriously?
Does that mean that those who believe homosexuality is a sin will be refered to as "those who have a religious belief" and not "bigoted homophobes"
Of course not.
I don't care what causes you to be a bigotted prick.
It could be because of a book, what your parents taught you, or because you want to be one and are scared.
I don't know, nor do I care in the least.
You claim to believe in some supreme being who created everything in the universe, yet fail to demonstrate the most basic ability to think it through. If what you believe is true, then god made homosexuality, and he made homosexuals exactly the way they are for whatever reasons he has.
By your ignorant bigotry, you are saying flat out that you know god's business better than he does.
Now before you point to the bible as proof that he wants you to hate them, read the rest of the chapter and make a feeble attempt to reconcile that with reality.
Also consider that was the "old" god.
There is a new and improved one that Christians are supposed to believe in.
or perhaps you just want Christians to shut up and not have thier voice heard in society.
They are welcome to have their voices heard in society.
They are not welcome to shove their religious beliefs into our laws, or into my bedroom or into anywhere else for that matter.
Im sure you ha
They've increased taxes by a record amount since coming to power and used this money to fund demographics most likely to vote for themselves.
They've flooded the airwaves with propaganda
Sounds pretty bloody left wing to me.
You have clearly not been paying attention lately.
This is now "right wing". Maybe in the past it was left wing, but in the past, the republicans (in America) were the ones who freed the slaves.
Now they are the ones running concentration camps in Cuba.
Oh how the sides switch.
Christianity will "get off its cross" when the world stops putting it back up there.
Whatever.
Nobody but yourself is putting you on a cross.
So they started calling what some people called "Christmas vacation" "Winter Vacation".
Big fucking deal.
In the first place, it was called "Winter Solstice" long before Christianity coopted it.
In the second place, it has not a god damned thing to do with your religion because all the evidence points to Jesus (if he ever existed which there is very little evidence for) being born in the summer.
So get off your pity potty because what you stole was given back to everybody.
Tough shit you whiny little bitch.
Further, why should we force the many good Americans who don't buy into your religion to put up with having your particular world view shoved down our throats?
Given Christianity's brutal murderous history regarding anybody who doesn't agree exactly with whatever particular magalomaniac is in charge of the main local branch, how fucking psychotic would you have to be to think for one instant that shoving that in people's faces is in the least consistent with basic human decency?
So in conclusion, nobody gives a flying fuck what the particular details of your personal invisible friend are. Believe whatever the hell you want, but keep it to yourself and out of my face and I will return the favor.
Or even possibly, Btilliant
If you're already going to the trouble, why bother to only misspell a word in one way?
Here is what I originally said:
You'll note the "and". This whole little digression could have been avoided had you read what I wrote rather than what you thought I wrote.
So what you mean is that you agree with me. Period. End of sentence.
Thanks.
Being a patriot does not mean saying " I love America"
Actually, I think it does. That doesn't mean you can't find faults with it, but if you don't love your country you are NOT a patriot.
That isn't all it means to be a Patriot, which was quite clearly my point as you have to love your country to have the courage to stand up in this day and age and criticize it, while you do not need to love it to take what you can from it, bury your head in the sand, and go around waving the flag.
Thanks for picking a nit and ignoring the point.