funjumper101

That makes no sense at all. If organization A provides a variety of services, including abortion, they have been ineligible to receive US funds for some years now. If suddenly we turn the tap back on, how are we spreading "our kill babies attitude"? To paraphrase Jeff Spicoli, wouldn't it be *their* "kill babies attitude"? Blues, Dave Dave, you are trying to reason with righties. It doesn't work. No matter how stupid, ignorant, or downright ridiculous their ideas are, they don't change their minds. They aren't capable of that kind of thinking. They'll parrot what those in authority tell them. No more, no less. They can't and don't think independently.

What an unusual scenario. A righty telling us "Don't confuse me with the facts. My mind is made up!!" Who'd a thunk it?

Yeah, me neither. Who cares that the smugglers subsidize some of the most violent gangs in the world? Who cares that they have reduced the border towns to centers of murder and kidnapping? Pass the bong, dude! Who cares that the "War on Drugs" has done nothing to reduce the DEMAND for the illegal drugs, while making the PROFITS available astronomical? Who cares that the money to be made in drug smuggling has created and sustained "the most violent gangs in the world"? The WOD has been proven to be completely unsuccessful. Drugs are readily available to those that want them, and they are of greater potency than than they used to be. In theory, the lessons learned between 1919 and 1933 would have prevented the WOD, or at least modified the tactics. In practice, we (the collective US population) are too stupid to apply the lessons of history to current times, for the most part. Take away the extreme profits, and the crime goes away. It isn't exactly rocket science. At some point, legalization, taxation, and controlled access becomes a logical alternative to what is happening now. Some of the more enlightened European countries have had some success with alternative ways of dealing with the problem. Progessive thinking = Try to figure out a way to solve the problem. Conservative thinking = Enforce the laws as written. Let the LEOs handle the problem any way they see fit. Don't question authority in any way.

My answer to you is - Who the fuck are you to make rules for the rest of the world? I bring my dogs to the DZ. I have four. They are well mannered and properly trained. They don't run around loose during jump ops. I am a responsible pet owner. I clean up after them, no matter where I go. My dogs have been welcomed at every DZ they have visited. My dogs are better behaved than most DZ children. They are a lot more fun to hang out with than some of the arrogant young punks who have entered the sport recently. I am very much against poorly trained dogs and their irresponsible owners. Those dogs, and their people, should stay at home and not go out in public.

In-flight confrontations can lead to terrorism charges. At least 200 passengers have been convicted of felonies under the Patriot Act, often for behavior involving raised voices and profanity. Some experts say airlines are misusing the law. Full Story >>> http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-airline-felonies20-2009jan20,0,5468299.story I think that it is 100% wrong.

This poll and the opinions of those that support the commutations are pretty scary. The very same folks who hold themselves out to be true believers in "Truth, Justice, and the American Way", jump right on the bandwagon for the commutation of LEO's who have been PROVEN to have lied, cheated, and stolen, on the job. It doesn't matter if the perp was guilty or innocent. The LEOs have to follow the law and must be held to an absolute standard while enforcing the law. They can't be allowed to pick and choose which laws they follow, and which they don't. Especially on the job. These guys were tried, convicted and sentenced in a court of law. When it comes to the scumbags of the world, you folks are 100% on the side of the courts. When it comes to LEOs in the same situation as the scumbags, all of a sudden it is a travesty of justice. As usual, the stench of hipocracy from the righties is overwhelming...

Why is it that you can't eat grasshoppers??? Because you can't spread their legs far enough!

Both you guys... Two choices: Move over: Nice guy Stay and Block: Arrogant all-about-ME asshole. Sounds like you both have anger management issues, too. You have it totally backwards. The aggressive driver who is trying to bully me into moving over in traffic so that they can make up ONE vehicle space to the next vehicle in the line is the "arrogant all about me asshole". Like I wrote, grow up and WAIT YOUR TURN like a civilized person. I pay a lot of attention to my mirrors when I am driving. If I see someone coming up on me fast, and I am in the left lane with no traffic in front of me, I'll be out of their way ASAP. It is the dickheads in traffic that I have a problem with. The worst ones are the shitheads that try to whizz up the right lane for three or four cars, then cut back into the left lane. That is driving to endanger. The other drivers have to make way for the "arrogant all about me asshole". Those are the ones I'll stuff every time I get the chance. For the aggressive drivers who drive as I have described, you should try a GPS and drive normally for a trip or two, then revert back to asshole tactics and see how much time you (didn't) save. The time savings is TINY, compared to the risk you are imposing on other drivers. WAIT YOUR TURN like civilized people do.

Saxby Chambliss and his supporters. He is a despicable dirtbag. DAGS on Max Cleland. Then go find the youtube video of Chambliss's advertisment about Cleland. Anyone who could support Chambliss after reading up on Cleland and seeing the ad REALLY SUCK. If you weren't aware of what a dirtbag Chambliss is, you just plain suck for not being informed about your candidate.

I don't hang out in the left lane and drive slow. I drive at the flow of traffic, on relatively crowded freeways, leaving a reasonable gap in front of me. Please explain why I should move over when I am going at the flow of traffic in the left lane, when moving over into a slower lane of traffic is going to slow ME down and make it a hassle to merge back into the left lane. Most of the freeways I drive are four lanes, so the slow lane is REAL slow at times, and the slow mergers compound the problem. What makes you SO special that I should inconvenience myself on your behalf? The answer is...not a damn thing. In other words, wait your turn. I don't randomly block traffic. I drive with the flow, and if the flow is going the speed limit, plus, with tons of traffic in front of me, I am staying right where I am. Getting around me isn't going to gain you a damn thing. Wait your turn like a civilized person. If some asshole rides my bumper, flashing their headlights, depending on my mood, bad things can happen. If the speed limit is 65, busy traffic in the left lane is doing 70 plus, and you want to go faster, TFB. I am NOT going to get out of your way, unless you have red/blue flashing lights and a siren. I learned to drive in Boston, MA. Don't fuck with Boston drivers, even if they are 2800 miles from Boston. If you are doing an 800 mile drive, you should leave earlier or plan to arrive later so that you don't cause problems with other drivers. Bring a cooler with food and drink so you don't waste time at resturants. Limit your food and drink intake and use a johnny bottle to minimize the number of stops needed. THAT will gain you much more time than harassing other drivers.

Drivers who are in a huge hurry in traffic and ride my bumper when I am doing the speed limit in the left lane, with traffic in front of me. The dickheads think that because I actually leave a reasonable following distance, that I am going too slow. For those assholes I find a car going slow in the right lane, speed match with them for a while, then speed up and catch back up to the traffic again. Every time they try to go around me in the right lane, I close up the 4 car lengths and stuff them as best I can. Take your place in line and wait your turn, fucktards. Stupid fuckers think that I should get out of their way so that they can close the 4 car lengths to catch up to the traffic in front of me. The other one is SLOW mergers. You know, the ones who trundle down the freeway entrance at 35mph and blindly merge into 65mph traffic. Once they establish position, they speed up slowly.

And your grandkids will be standing there, slack jawed, dumbfounded and embarrassed, horrified at your bigoted intolerance, and wishing that their friends hadn't really heard you say what you said. The deal with the folks that are gay is that it is hardwired into their brains. It is a genetic characteristic that happens. No amount of wishing that it is a learned behaviour is going to change that fact. This issue comes down to fundamental fairness. If two adults want to get married, let them. WTF is the problem? What does society gain by preventing these unions? Stability, fidelity, and commitment. A normal life... Why should gay folks not have the same things most people want? If you were serious about "preserving the sanctity of marriage", you would put your efforts towards making it more difficult to get divorced. Maybe a 15% tax on all assets of divorcing couples? That might preserve marriages, and the sanctity thereof. Anyone else have any good ideas on "preserving the sanctity of marriage"?

How do you feel about the parts of the Bible that go into great detail about slaves and slavery? Is this portion of the good book as valid and worth defending as that parts you select to support your position? How about the parts that instruct you to kill people who work on the Sabbath? Do you consider those that oppose slavery to be attacking the Bible? 160 years ago, the conservatives of the time sure did... You see, Marc, the problem that those of us who aren't "christian" have is that the folks that call themselves "christian" pick and choose which parts of the Bible are valid, and which aren't anymore. Either it is all good, or it is all subject to acceptance or rejection, based on the evolution of society. You can't have it both ways. Freedom OF religion include freedom FROM religion. I am still waiting for examples of positive social change that came about though conservative philosophy.

Not directly but, the damage done by progressives is clearly apparent today What do you hold out as damage done by progressive philosophy? Here are a few examples of conservative philosophy doing damage to society - The extreme opposition of the conservatives of the day were responsible for dragging out the establishment of women's suffrage. Look up the history of the movement. The extreme opposition of the conservatives of the day were responsible for preventing unmarried women from owning property in their own name. until the middle to the late sixties, depending on the state you live in. Look up some of the writings of the day. The conservatives trotted out their bible quotes to justify the status quo, as usual. Look it up. Do I need to mention the laws against miscegenation that didn't end until 1967? I could keep going for quite a while... Freedom OF religion must include freedom FROM religion. Keep your religion to yourself and we'll all get along just fine. Let others conduct their lives the way they see fit. Equality for all, not just those that think "the right way".

Nope. Being married has a religious meaning to a religious person. Being married does not have a religious meaning to a non religious person. Disagree You can disagree all you want. You would still be 100% wrong for projecting YOUR beliefs onto others. I was married for about 11 years. Never, at any time, did I feel that my marriage had any religious meaning whatsoever. It was a personal and legal contract between me and my now ex-wife. Religion was not, in any way, connected to my marriage. I don't go to church. Never have, never will. I was brought up in a very church-going neighborhood. I learned at an early age that almost all those that cloak themselves in their religious beliefs are really all about being superior to others. The stronger their "beliefs", the nastier they are to those that don't share them. Those people rarely travel and are very fearful of outside ideas. No amount of fact can shake them from their "beliefs". As far as other lame justifications used by the "conservative" bigots, I didn't have any children and I didn't plan to when I got married. So much for that argument... Should I have been allowed to get married? Or is a secular liberal with no plans to have children so far outside the confines of a "traditional" marriage that I should have had a civil union? My take on the matter is that 1. You go to the county clerk and take out a "Civil Union" contract that provides all of the rights and benefits, 100%, of what is currently known as a marriage license. 2. The County Clerk (or their employees) have you sign, and thumbprint, the documents that complete the legal contract between the two consenting adults. 3. You walk out of the County Clerk's office with the legal business aspect of the relationship completed, in the eyes of the law. 4. Go have whatever ceremony, party, boogie, celebration, or whatever you need to satisfy your own religious or moral beliefs. Done deal. The American Way would have happened the way it is supposed to. Society evolved to provide greater freedom to the people. None of the righties have ever been able to answer my standing question - What positive social change has come about due to conservative philosophy?

Did you read the link in the other ACORN thread? Here it is again - http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/10/15/cracking-the-acorn-case.aspx Do you see the irony in your post? The entire ACORN matter in the news makes a lie of your first sentence. You lie with conviction, in spite of the facts of the issue. Clearly you are Republican... The Rs are on the wrong side on this matter. The local election boards need to have the resources to do their job - vet the registration forms turned in. Wishing that there was an issue, following the lead of the lush rimjobs, etc, doesn't make it a real issue. Fictitious registration forms don't equate to voter fraud on election day. It is as simple as that. There are real issues to be dealt with. Obama will. McSame/Caribou Barbie are more of the same shit from the Rs that got us into this mess in the first place.

Yes. Their campaign is crumbling badly.

Republicans appear to be against registering voters during the most important election of our lifetimes. Why do they want to prevent voter registration? Are they afraid of being held accountable at the ballot box for their failed policies? What else could it be?

Here is a link to a well written explanation of what ACORN is, what ACORN does, and what the results of their activities are. If you are too lazy to read it, here is the short version - there is nothing to fear from ACORN's voter registration activities. http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/10/15/cracking-the-acorn-case.aspx

do you really wish death on the guy? that's harsh. I would prefer life imprisonment for war crimes. I support arrest and delivery to the Hague for prosecution. If he is convicted, carry out the sentence forthwith.

I guess I don't understand. Could you expand? You wrote >>> I really hate what they did to him. Good man and we've probably lost him from public service forever.

Go right ahead. If a candidate has a "negative" issue in their record, then it's fair game to bring it up. This notion that we should only listen to Obama's rhetoric (and believe it) or his non-commital sound bytes (and swoon over them) or risk being considered "negative" is assinine. Truth is - Obama is a very charismatic man and there are vast numbers who won't look further than that. Many of us who do look at his (negative) history find not a reformer but at best a typical politician and at worst a typical Chicago politician with ties to radical left wing organizations and radical left wing extremists. My niece thinks that there are monsters under her bed. It isn't true, but she really believes that it is, in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Much the same as the big to do about nothing called the "Obama Ayers" connection. Oh, the horror!!! They were part of a group of people who worked to improve inner city schools. Those bastards!!! What were they thinking? It surely doesn't get more terroristic and un-american than that. What kind of evil people try to use Republican foundation grant money to improve inner city schools? The clear answer is "domestic terrorists", that are surely unfit to hold public office. Do you righties have any idea how utterly and completely ridiculous y'all seem to those of us with IQs over 140? How can you be so stupid and gullible? It really is amazing... sad, but amazing.

What part of "record number of filibusters by Republicans" and "We'll stop everything the Democrats try to do, then blame them for inaction" do you not understand? The rescumlicans have performed a record number of filibusters. This is spite of their threat to change the rules to prevent the Ds from filibustering them when the Rs controlled Congress. The Ds have a very slim majority that is not veto proof. So the Rs can and did prevent much of anything from happening. The Rs publically stated that their tactic was going to be exactly what they have done - filibuster practically everything and use the rules to stymie everything the Ds try to do. The Rs have been remarkably successful at preventing the Ds from accomplishing much of anything, and blaming the Ds for their inability to get much of anything done. There appear to be a lot of dumbasses who blame the Ds for the successful obstruction of progress as performed by the Rs. The Rs were very forthright in their announcement of what they planned to do after the 2006 elections. They have done exactly what they said they would. And the Corporate Media has let them get away with it.

You are comparing apples and oranges. Emanuel seems to have had a consensual affair with an adult of the opposite sex, and tried to keep her quiet by paying her off. Foley was emailing and texting male congressional pages who were under the age of 18, with what I would interperet as sexually suggestive content. Both activities are scummy. In my world view, Foley's activities are far more scummy than Emanuel's. YMMV.

Watching a little too much TV recently? What you wrote sounds like the bullshit from "24". The Geneva Convention isn't a quaint idea. It is international law. It will be very interesting to see if Shrub, Cheney, et al, get arrested for war crimes if they travel internationally. I certainly hope so...