winsor

Are we not men?

I let it cool off a little and break out the skates. Works like a champ.

I agree with the correlation between population/industrialization and ecosystem disturbance. Where I draw the line is when some numbnuts who could barely squeak through a "Science for Technical Retards" course at an overrated Divinity school claims that the primary issue is CO2, and people buy into that notion hook, line and sinker. It brings to mind Mencken's observation that, for every complex problem there exists a solution that is simple, elegant - and wrong. OF COURSE CO2 is a factor. Is CO2 the ONLY factor? Not hardly. If we satisfactorily address the CO2 issue, will we be in the clear? No way, baby. If we address the most pressing problems facing humanity, CO2 and our effect on the environment will take care of themselves. It behooves us to distinguish between pathology and symptoms. For us to focus on symptoms is an exercise in futility. BSBD, Winsor

Throw them in the hole for the rest of their life. Solitary confinement. They can sleep on the concrete floor. There's no other place in society for those fucks. Billy, I think you're cruel. I say these people should be given all the benefits of a first-class resort for the rest of their lives. Even at $2,361 a day, the total for two weeks of such extravagence is quite affordable. BSBD, Winsor

About 35 years ago I got into a car in Germany and the driver sat patiently until I fastened my seat belt. When I asked if seat belts were required, she responded that, while legal, one was uninsured if driving with anyone in the front seat without a seat belt. I kind of like that. If we add a YOYO (You're On Your Own) clause regarding behavior of which we disapprove, it could greatly simplify the issue. You want to motorcycle without a helmet or drive without seat belts? Fine, but you give up all rights to sue if you get hit, or to be covered for medical costs or have your vehicle fixed - or even to receive life insurance if you croak. When you do not try hard enough to stay alive, it falls under the suicide clause. Passing laws to mandate behavior is the brute force and ignorance approach. Tweaking the rules so as to achieve the desired behavior patterns is much cheaper and more effective. BSBD, Winsor

To be fair, it's not exactly like both parties don't love their royalty. While the Republicans have the Bush family, the Democrats have the Kennedys and both parties have Skull and Bones. For quite a bit of US history, power has been concentrated into just a handful of families. When I hear people talk about the possibility of a Jeb Bush presidency, I shudder. It has zero to do with his politics and everything to do with the de facto caste system. I abhor the side of the aisle that is dependent on the proliferation of Untouchables. It's not so much that the side that attracts Brahmins is all that wonderful; it all comes down to the principle of "We Suck Less!"

His transcripts make that abundantly clear. Check them out and get back to me.

Most assuredly. For one thing, many people couldn't hit the broad side of a barn, so quite a few dreadful people would either be missed entirely or just winged. Also, given that suicide is the sincerest form of self-criticism, I imagine rather a few people would pick themselves as their most-loathed person. Of the people who would not have survived the first scenario, I'm sure a good number of them would not be on the top of anyone's list of people worth saving. You have, of course, narcissists who would save themselves and let the rest of the world take care of itself. In any event, I am sure there would be quite a few people subject to being shot without the power of love intervening, and I am also sure there would be people who would either be at the top of someone's list to save, or not at the top of anyone's list to shoot. Either way, some would fall and some would be left standing. BSBD, Winsor

Hope the SC does its job and throws this mess out Since they are exempt from the effects of their decision, there is no reason to expect a "fair and balanced" decision. As a wise man once said, "you no playa da game, you no makea da rules."

Damn straight! It's FAR more important for people to hold on to extremist beliefs than to ever reach a middle ground. Compromise is the hallmark of mediocrity.

Why not just a single law that defines "marriage", "husband" and "wife" as being without gender distinction for all legal purposes? Much as I dislike messing with words to fit anyone's agenda, this would seem an easy way out. Add in ambiguity regarding "species," "quantity" and "vitality" and you're all set. Since "marriage" is a tribal/religious entity, there are commonly accepted rituals that do not work very well legally. Take, for example, the polygamous marriage to someone long deceased. Absurd example, you say? To quell any doubt, check out the ceremony by which one becomes a Catholic Nun. Each and every nun is thus married to Jesus Christ, with a white gown, wedding ring and the whole nine yards. Though necrophilia is not consummated in practice (AFAIK), the criteria of polygamous marriage to the dead are met rather well, indeed. Then we turn these frustrated biddies loose, armed with rulers, to tend the young - yeek. Since their vows include poverty and they are kept by the Church, I am unsure how this affects their tax status, but there is no hue and cry regarding the infinitely creepy lifestyle to which these people commit. All things being equal, I suppose I would rather live amongst people who prefer a live adult human over marriage en masse one who is long dead. YMMV. BSBD, Winsor

Maybe spelling it the same way every time gets boaring.

I think you are one president off as to quite who set the standard for executive homosexuality. Pierce's Vice President, one William Rufus King, was described as the "wife" of Pierce's successor, James Buchanan. The relationship between Tricky Dick Nixon and Bebe Rebozo, which was close by any and all reports, has been described as "romantic" by more than a few. "Begging the Question" is a logical fallacy of relevance, in which the conclusion is simply the premise rephrased. In any event, I really don't care one way or another who sleeps with whom, so long as they have the good taste to spare me the details, and do a good job at the tasks they were elected to perform. From the standpoint of being an out-of-control slave to one's genitals, JFK is a pretty tough act to follow. I would much prefer a stable gay politician (think Ed Koch) to a straight one whose decisions are all too often made with the wrong head. "I haven't seen Chauncey at the Club in ages." "You hadn't heard? He was caught having sex with a sheep!" "Egads! Was it a ram or a ewe?" "Ewe of course - nothing queer about old Chauncey!" BSBD, Winsor

Guess how many battlefield casualties there are you you don't go into unnecessary wars? My point exactly, with a large enough defense budget all wars become unnecessary. I sincerely wish it worked that way. If you consider how many inventions were guaranteed to produce such hideous results on the battlefield that they would render war inconceivable, I think the fundamental concept is flawed. When there exists a military that is so impressive that it appears sure to overwhelm any potential opponent, there is, historically speaking, a near certainty that it will be used as an instrument of political will. You know, shock and awe and all that. BSBD, Winsor

Gosh, what a surprise.

Actually, the study says no such thing. Straight from the article as well: "So does this mean that religious faith can be undermined with just a little extra mental effort? Not really, said Nicholas Epley, a social psychologist at the University of Chicago who was not involved in the study." A) You make reference to the "soft" sciences (those that depend greatly upon hand-waving). B) It takes more than "a little extra mental effort." One must have the abilty, capacity and willingness to put it together, then go over it back and forth - rephrasing and/or disassembling the basic questions and tenets - before it is likely to gel. Don't worry about it. Right, wrong or indifferent, we're all doomed. If it makes you happy to buy into the neolithic claptrap in the meantime, knock yourself out. BSBD, Winsor

I didn't read the whole thing, but I'd say the guy's an optimist.

The science is thus settled.

Religion poisons everything. Christopher Hitchens

The use of audible means of defense is well documented.

Notice how QT this has gone. Nothing on the news...very little here other than baiting......... I would guess that Z's lawyer likes it this way. Let the Sharpton and Jackson go on to other "issues". I don't think Z can get a fair trail but it might get tossed before that happens IF they just sit tight for a couple months. Well, if the case goes to trial I wonder if it will be televised? Pay Per View.

6.5 million Jewish people who formerly resided in Germany or German occupied territories would disagree if they were still alive. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And big US companies and families happily financed the whole thing. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Actually, the Vatican underwrote the regimes in Italy and Germany at the time. Yeah so? Just because another party is also guilty doesn't mean US companies and families had no involvement. Ford-Werke Dulles Family Bush Family Walker Family Rockefeller Family IG Farben and its American subsidiaries. The list goes on quite a bit. I agree wholeheartedly. I was referring to the seed money that put the Fascists in Italy and the NSDAP in Germany on the map. In the early '30s, Communists were ascendant in Italy as they were in various other countries. Their platform of absorbing the Vatican into Italy proper and redistributing its wealth was viewed, quite correctly, as a threat to the Church. A Devil's bargain was struck, in which a great deal of money (reportedly 100,000,000 gold Marks or equivalent) was supplied to the parties committed to the demise of Communism. This influx of cash was pivotal to the ascendance of the Fascisti & NSDAP, who were then supported by anyone wishing to do business in those countries. FWIW, many of the people who either supported or tolerated the Third Reich considered many of their unbelievable excesses to be simply unbelievable - until disbelief was no longer possible. The propaganda films showing how humane was their treatment of people being "relocated" were not to convince their detractors, but to reassure their supporters that they were too "civilized" to be suspected of barbarity. Would that that was the case. BSBD, Winsor

Thinking is what keeps me and others from going nuts when dealing with lefty liberals who would rather feel die than think. FIFY

This is on a par with Virgil Starkwell, after receiving 800 years for 52 counts of armed robbery, expressing confidence that, with good behavior, he may get his sentence cut in half, or perhaps when Topper Harley offers to deduct $10 a month to pay for a destroyed fighter jet. 8,000 comedians out of work, and you have to make jokes. Either that or you could use a bit of remedial arithmetic.

Yes, and in the United States of Bigotry, Negroes had to ride in the back of the bus until, when? 1965? Whatever your problem with the Nazis was, racism wasn't it. I'll take the back of the bus to any part of the oven, thank you very much.