winsor

The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. That is, however, the way to bet.

What amazes me is, the number of people who fall for that crap. From any politician. Then too, how do we get someone who really does want to do something right, for this country and it's people? I'm getting tired of this picking the lesser of the evils. Chuck I have a hunch I will not be able to vote for anyone this time around.

Call it whatever you like, whoever killed those Cub Scouts should be put to sleep.

Take the example of Republican Christine Todd Whitman. Sharp as a whip, long career in government, successful 2-term Governor of New Jersey. Then she became Bush's Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, where she was repeatedly marginalized for trying to do her job conscientiously (which meant actually trying to protect the environment, (uh- see name of agency...) instead of toeing the right-wing anti-environmentalist line); and eventually she resigned in disgust. In 2005, she released a book entitled, It's My Party, Too: Taking Back the Republican Party... And Bringing the Country Together Again - the title of which pretty much speaks for itself. She also has founded a political action committee called It's My Party Too - again which is fairly self-explanatory. So instead of a smart, capable and conscientious Republican woman like Whitman being embraced and nurtured by at the national level, she's shunted aside, and is left with playing the "outsider looking in" to her own party. Instead, the poster-child female champions put up on the Republican party are people like Bachmann and Palin and (for God's sake) Christine O'Donnell. And my friend Lawrocket calls us to task for calling Republicans "stupid". Well, this is why, Jerry. I showed up at the airport in New Jersey where my airplane was based, and the the owner was sitting at his desk with a shocked look on his face. He said "did you see the car that just left? That was the Governor!" It turns out that, after he spent years butting heads with bureaucrats in Trenton in the attempt to upgrade the airport, the Governor took matters into her own hands. She showed up in a Gov't pool sedan, without entourage or press presence, asked what was needed, and took notes for two hours. The airport now has working runway lights, a rotating beacon and a freshly paved runway. Christie Whitman is one of the good guys, and I would vote for her in a heartbeat. Blue skies, Winsor

I would like to point out that the person who started this thread to criticize this so-called retarded woman, doesn't know how to spell "queue" correctly... Nor to distinguish between a queue, which is a line, and a cue, which is a stage direction. Thus, the order would be along the lines of " cue theme."

accept the 1967 borders (as the rest of the world wants you to) and live rest in peace...

The DHC-4 Caribou has a bit more capacity than you need, but from the standpoint of short-field operation it is nothing short of amazing. One Caribou pilot told me that they had a hard and fast rule in Vietnam - they would not operate at full gross weight unless they had 900 feet (277m) of runway. This sounds unlikely until you watch one in action with a skilled aircrew. The DHC-6 is also overkill from the standpoint of capacity, but it is nearly as good as the DHC-4 for short-field ops, and it's turbine-powered to boot. We used to fly in and out of Boston Logan 33R with runway to spare; 2,557 ft/779 m was much more than we needed. The Dash-8 is, however, a bit pricey for a jumpship. Though phenomenally reliable if well maintained, upkeep is breathtakingly expensive. For 10 people from a short, unimproved runway, the Porter is very hard to beat (there are effectively no more Helio Stallions in circulation). However, getting the thing insured is a bitch, and finding a pilot who can fly it well can be a challenge. Good luck. BSBD, Winsor

FWIW, it would seem that there is not a lot of Mensa-level talent on either side of the aisle. The incumbent is apparently a bright enough fellow (after a fashion), but he chose to pursue an education at a Divinity School with a course of study having zero math or hard science requirements - and it shows. As a case in point, I am not sure if I want Health Care to be a matter of Lawyers trying to make sure that Doctors aren't making too much, or of Faith Healers making the rules. We're screwed either way. BSBD, Winsor

Wow. Have you seen an ultrasound? It is okay to have emotions, and it is as ill advised to ignore them as it is to try to pass emotion off as rationality. Not all emotional decisions are bad ones, admitted - but all too many are. There are few emotions stronger than the bond between a parent and a child, particularly a newborn. The instinct to protect is consummate, and the value placed on that defenseless little life outweighs everything else. Having said that, termination of pregnancy in the first trimester is often the only ethically responsible option. It should not be an easy decision, but it should be made in as dispassionate a manner as possible. BSBD, Winsor

Where's the option for "Legal until the fetus can vote?"

Perhaps some low life union member did do this, this is different than the union themselves doing such behavior. Ah, but which low life union member from amongst the thousands of possibles?

Clue #6: Things are not working.

Nah, it's me. I just expanded a little on why I hold in contempt those given to proselytize. Religion is like sex, where I really am not interested in such gory details as do not involve me. When people spout The Truth (tm) of one flavor or another, with personal testimony, it is truly Too Much Information. Perversion is pretty much anything you would not do, so don't ask, don't tell. At any rate, as Christopher Hitchens noted, "What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." BSBD, Winsor

The problem I have with your view is that you're using Christianity as it existed hundreds of years ago, and longer. They're no longer enslaving foreign populations to convert them to their faith. They're no longer conducting Crusades to lop off the heads of non-believers. You should not hold the actions of Christians from a thousand years ago against modern-day mainstream Christians who simply worship their own beliefs in their private churches and lead their lives according to good wholesome values. Christians have gotten over using violence for religion. You should get over blaming them for what happened long ago in the past. The Christians of today use the political system to express their views and advocate for their beliefs. That's what it's there for, no different than any other special interest groups. It's a peaceful process, and the proper way to do things. But some people even begrudge them participation in that process, as if they have no right to express or advocate for their viewpoints. And that's wrong. Everyone deserves to have their ideas heaard, and then let the voters decide, and the three branches of government do its work. Christian presidents have managed to serve this country pretty darned well over the last 236 years. I lived in the home of Pope Urban II, and there is still a statue to commemorate his initiation of the Crusades. The Catholic Church still maintains records of the Inquisition, and many defend its legitimacy. Where I lived in Serbia, the Town Seal, a 2 meter version of which was displayed in the lobby of the local hotel, included the head of a muslim impaled on sword point. I knew some of the people involved with religion-based ethnic cleansing. A variety of groups in other continents routinely engage in wholesale slaughter of competing religions, and christians are no better than muslims (which says a hell of a lot). The fact that people have a harder time getting away with it in civilized countries does not mean that they are fundamentally different, or that they would not revert to type in an instant given the chance. One policy that was common in skydiving in days of yore was "forgive and remember." I am just not big on forgiveness - if you want me to be okay with something bad, don't do it in the first place. BSBD, Winsor

Dang, John! Good stuff! Too bad the anti-religion zealots refuse to hear you because of the anti-religion shouting going on. Jaws flappin', ears closed.... New term: Religiophobes? I have heard too many people recommend horrible fates for other groups, using their "faith" as a basis. Admittedly, being a member of the groups in question somewhat slants my perspective, but I am unimpressed nonetheless. The track record of various popular religions has too many instances of them acting out on said sentiments for me to have an awful lot of tolerance for their stance. This works both ways; tolerance is the hallmark of mediocrity. If someone cannot accept me, I have no interest in their tolerance. People like to see their delusions as being largely benign, which is understandable. That the road to hell is paved with good intentions is an unfortunate reality, and anything as intoxicating as religious fervor is, by nature, toxic. Christianity as a whole has worked long and hard to earn the contempt in which it is held. When non-christians speak well of the church and its adherents, it is often from the same point of view that one addresses an individual tweaked on meth holding a razor sharp knife - saying anything to keep them from going into violent mode is a good idea. If the track record of christians was truly one of sweetness and light, viewing the movement with suspicion would, in fact, be bigotry. Given, however, that the spread of christianity has all too often been by means of genocide, slavery and truly evil means, taking a dim view of christianity is simply realistic (the same it true for the bulk of universal religions). Granted, all variants of christianity are not interchangeable, but the difference is about as great as what you are liable to step in in a kennel or in a stable. Be advised, I am not trying to sway anyone to my way of thinking, since anyone could figure it out by themselves if they wanted to. My point is to express my longstanding distaste for the sanctimonious assholes who have felt compelled to try to do my thinking for me - and are singularly unqualified to do so in any event. Christians are on the short list. BSBD, Winsor

Not much...except for thermodynamics. For some reason that kicked my ass and made me actually sit down and study. How did you get on with quantum mechanics? Well, Volkswagen called the Quantum the "Dasher" in the US - but their guys who turn wrenches are first rate!

Not to worry. In the same sense that the if precept that existence as observed is deemed too complex to be likely, the supposition that an undetectable causal agent - by necessity many orders of magnitude more complex - exists is beyond absurd, any assault on the attempt at comprehension does nothing to bolster ignorance as a viable alternative. Except, of course, to those who are ardently committed to ignorance. BSBD, Winsor

As commonly seen with the seek and destroy method. Counter with misinformation since there is no comprehension of what point is even being refuted. First off, iron was the metal of choice during the axial age. God's love was the timeless message, that was and is the answer to the problems we face in our daily lives and the world. ... Bronze was the metal of choice when Torah was written. The rest are but addenda, authorized and unauthorized ("Scarlett" does not qualify as a sequel to "Gone With The Wind," much though it may be billed as such). Your contentions are but a string of empty buzzwords, a blank slate upon which one can picture their own version (you know, "Hope, Change," that kind of thing...). This is wise, since any claims with a hint of meaning fall apart upon the most casual scrutiny. Good luck. BSBD, Winsor

About as convincing as someone who ate a handful of Sunshine and came to all kinds of pithy realizations. The difference is Orange Sunshine wears off. My trip has been going and growing for 30 years. I know people who did one too many hit and the change did not wear off. I probably would not mind as much if people made their invisible friends a big secret. Like someone's sexuality, I really don't want to hear about it. Similar to sexuality, I draw the line when people group together as a political entity. Whether it's the Prots vs. the Cat'lics, Sunnis vs. Shiites, LGBT vs. NAMBLA or whatever, once you stand up and state "we are a distinct entity and insist upon being treated as such!" you really can't bitch if people choose to do just that. Be careful what you ask for and so forth. Research with which I am familiar goes into detail regarding why eyewitness accounts are so often massively inaccurate, and "belief" is a red flag. I have been convinced of things where it turned out that I was mistaken, and I give you the same credit. If you want to believe, fine. If you wish to inflict your beliefs on me, not so good. I have had all too many well-intentioned people seek to do so, and I have a zero-tolerance policy for such behavior. BSBD, Winsor

Define "religious whackos". (This is so ironic coming from the person who alleges that I'm a hater for using the word "gun-o-phobe".) Colonel Cooper's "hoplophobe" is on the mark.

Well, creating the entire universe in 6 days suggests that you're wrong. Look up "omnipotent" in a dictionary. What took 6 days? That's omnipotent? What a slacker!

The only people in this thread asking for science to disprove the existence of god have been believers. (It remains a mystery which particular god they refer to, given a cast of thousands of candidates). The only proof that I am aware of is the born again experience. And, that can only be manifested through surrender of the ego to Christ by an act of personal will. About as convincing as someone who ate a handful of Sunshine and came to all kinds of pithy realizations.

Good point - every time I conclude that we could not do worse, I am proven wrong.

As opposed to what we have now? And exactly what might be the difference?

Man! Ain't THAT the truth. Simple as that isn't it. What we're seeing here is vitriolic people failing to understand that. What we are seeing here is egoism at it's worst - "My belief is better than your belief. I'm right, you're wrong!" And it's most vitriolic from the non-believers. It's almost like they can't sleep at night until they sway someone to their way of thinking. If they didn't non-believers wouldn't have anyone to bash! Seriously though, I'm with you on that sorta. There is no debate going on here. It's simply argument. It's rarely a good idea to argue with anyone about anything. Ummmm....yes and no, as I read the posts. Yes, some have done just that and as we know, that just doesn't work. So, do you bash them because of the beliefs or do you bash them for the mis-use of science? That answer is obvious, right? You talk about their mis-use of science. And, OTOH, the non-believers have done the same. They have demonstrated that exact same flawed and incorrect knowledge of science by asking science to prove or disprove the existence of God - blatant mis-use of science. How can anyone reasonably ask science to do something it cannot do and then use that as support of his argument? Unbelievable....no puns intended. Again, pure unadulterated bullshit.