winsor

And big US companies and families happily financed the whole thing. Actually, the Vatican underwrote the regimes in Italy and Germany at the time.

They're always good for a chuckle, no concept of what anecdotal evidence is. Now that's pretty funny ladies and gentlemen. In a way they have proven his point They also provide evidence that deniers are more intelligent that alarmists I wonder what percentage of climate change deniers beleive in an 8000 year old earth ? Now knowledge or intelligence is the direction you want to take this? Or since you used the word believe, are we going the alarmists and faith direction? According to my calendar, the year is 5772. An extra 7 days does not change much. Are you suggesting the Earth is another 2228 years older? I'm not sure if that constitutes heresy, blasphemy or both.

"I'd make a terrific juror, since I can spot guilty people just like that." George Carlin on how to get out of jury duty.

So if he's found guilty a lot of trendy 4-bedroom homes in gated communities will go up in flames? Not at all. When a watershed case goes against them, members of Group A riot. Should the same case go against them, members of Group B write letters to the Editor.

Until death do they part - or maybe a little longer.

I have not taken the time to view the video, since coherent logic and religious conviction are generally mutually exclusive. Whether belief is the result of garbled thinking or vice-versa is largely immaterial. People who are given to adhering to gibberish as the basis of their existence concern me only inasmuch as they have the capacity to make decisions that affect me or other non-volunteers. If they wear magic underwear, engage in ritual cannibalism, drink urine or whatever, I am all the more happy if they can see fit to spare me the details. If they use their brand of "The Truth" (tm) to inflict the peculiarities of their delusions on the world at large (to include me et al.), that's pretty much where I draw the line. Is religion nonsense? Is that a trick question? BSBD, Winsor

keep up the good work! You're making such a difference in the world by crying wolf all the time. Thanks. Whites have got to be educated out of their racism. perhaps, Definitely. Let's start with you eh?

How the debates are likely to shape up is Common Knowledge.

Zimmerman's an amateur. Self-defense? How's this for self-defense?

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/04/13/463317/tennessee-anti-hand-holding/ We have more in common with the Taliban than we like to give ourselves credit for. I had best watch out, given my penchant for holding hands with an underage boy.

I'm afraid you're right. The old saw comes to mind whereby any bureaucracy, given sufficient time, gravitates to the business of adminstering itself. Creating a new agency is like bringing two "male" pet rabbits home.

I am an awful lot more concerned by the threat posed to our way of life by TSA/"Homeland Security" (did Goebbels come up with that?) than by al Qaeda. The overreacting by our government has been orders of magnitude more damaging to us than the acts of all the malevolent Mohammadeans put together.

But Einstein emailed Pres. Roosevelt about it, right? At the urging of Leo Szilard et al. No, it wasn't Al, it was Wigner, Teller and Sachs Einstein is reported to have said "Daran habe ich gar nicht gedacht!" when told about a nuclear chain reaction. Richard Rhodes' "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" had Szilard penning the letter and Al signing on with Wigner, Teller & Sachs. As you note, Einstein took no credit for the work. BSBD, Winsor

But Einstein emailed Pres. Roosevelt about it, right? At the urging of Leo Szilard et al.

"Berliner" is a noun, "Danish" is not. I don't know if "Ich bin ein Berliner" is correct, but it's on par with "I'm an American". Not hardly - 'ich bin Amerikaner' is the translation of 'I am an American.' Articles are used differently in German (often used in the place of pronouns), and have significant impact on meaning. U.S. Presidents have a knack for doing badly in other languages. Jimmy Carter's attempt to convey his affection for the Polish people, which came across as his wish to make niknik with them, is another case in point. BSBD, Winsor

"Berliner" is a noun, "Danish" is not. I don't know if "Ich bin ein Berliner" is correct, but it's on par with "I'm an American". Danish is a noun when referring to pastry. "A cheese Danish, please." Similarly, a Berliner, in Germany, is a jelly doughnut. "Ich bin Berliner" translates to "I am a Berliner" (as in 'Berlin is my home') in English. Add the article, however, and the meaning changes - "ich bin ein Berliner" translates to "I am a jelly doughnut" in English. In both cases, One is identity, one is pastry.

Hmmm!, Your phraseology begs the question, what is the most unnatural thing in the world? Twinkies? BTW, "Begging the Question," aka Petito Principi, is a form of circular logic where a statement is self-defining. "People with good literary taste prefer Shakespeare to Harold Robbins." "How can you tell who has good literary taste?" "They are the ones reading Shakespeare instead of Harold Robbins." You bring up rules and principles that I have never heard before. Common folk must be a real pain for you. What's wrong with circular logic? I am not trying to win a debate. My job is to ask questions. I'm a retired counselor, remember. Circular logic invites a hangup state. You know, Who's on First and all that. As a semanticist, whereby meaning matters, I recoil against unintended meaning and work at avoiding it. I admit that just with conflicting definitions (lexical, legal, technical, precising, etc.) and equivocation (there/they're/their, two/too/to/Thieu, etc.) there is enough ambiguity about that it is difficult for two people to participate in the same conversation. What the hell, I guess it just don't make no nevermind.

Ask not what the country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. Which was said by a man that announced to the world that he was a jelly doughnut. 'Ich bin *ein* Berliner' is on a par with saying 'I am *a* Danish.' The article changes the meaning 100%. I am more a fan of Douglas MacArthur - "Old soldiers never die. Young ones do."

"Is that the way it works, Chester?" "Not in my neighborhood!"

I understand why people want their own child. After all it's the most natural thing in the world. Hmmm!, Your phraseology begs the question, what is the most unnatural thing in the world? Twinkies? BTW, "Begging the Question," aka Petito Principi, is a form of circular logic where a statement is self-defining. "People with good literary taste prefer Shakespeare to Harold Robbins." "How can you tell who has good literary taste?" "They are the ones reading Shakespeare instead of Harold Robbins."

Why, is kallend a law teacher now? Well, you have Boyle's Law, Charles' Law, the Laws of Themodynamics and Fudd's First Law of Opposition. Violate them at your peril.

Then you have failed as a society. The whole point of that 2nd Amedmend is to prevent this from happening. So, either you guys are all a bunch of pussies, or the 2nd amendmend is useless, or things aren't as bad as that article makes it out to be. Which one is it? Since I think things are, in fact, worse than the article makes it out to be, I suppose that makes us a bunch of pussies. I, for one, have precisely zero interest in going down in a blaze of glory trying to stem the tides of history - second amendment or not. One of the Rules of Combat is along the lines of "try to look unimportant, and hope the enemy is low on ammunition." I don't mind someone calling me a pussy if they have to dial "1" first - long distance works for me. BSBD, Winsor

I think he picked up on that. The display of deep denial demonstrates that the point was made.

We are not, you big bully.

I have to beg to differ here. The only legal and moral justification for shooting when attacked is to stop the attack, and the same is true if using lethal force to halt an attack on an innocent. The difference is significant; the purpose is to incapacitate, not kill. Yes, it may be most accurate to say to shoot to stop...but it becomes nearly a semmantical difference between that and shoot to kill, Two shots to center mass followed by (if attacker still progressing) one to the head is going to kill. Semantics is the study of meaning, and the difference in meaning is significant. If someone is still progressing after two body shots, one to the had is not necessarily going to halt the attack. In one case, someone had a .25acp emptied into his face and went back to drinking; he only found out that he had been hit when his head hurt worse than usual the next day (tequila is wonderful stuff) and he had blood in his beard. There is also the case of someone who had a .25acp emptied into him and beat the shooter to death before he died on the operating table. The image of people getting shot and immediately crumpling is largely a product of Hollywood. Sure, it happens, but there are all too many cases of people walking to the Emergency Room with bullet holes in them. I have heard of a Kodiak bear being killed by a "golden BB" .22LR into the optic nerve channel, and someone still standing after a solid body shot with a .44RM. Of course, I would bank on neither of these outcomes, but they happen. The bottom line is that the sole purpose of using a firearm in self-defense is to stop an active (not incipient) attack, period. Intent matters, and to shoot to kill is strictly proscribed. BSBD, Winsor