likearock

I think it's very important. Winning is at the heart of being competitive and being competitive is at the heart of achieving excellence. Don't kid yourself, even Einstein was competitive. IMNSHO watering down competition with "equal playing time" rules is just another step plunging our country further into mediocrity compared to the rest of the world.

Newsflash: The decisions on who gets what most definitely includes land when it comes to countries. So what if they don't mention it specifically? They don't mention anything specifically.

And of course we all know that MSNBC, NBC, NPR, MoveOn.org and the DailyKos are never guilty of this exact tactic (if it is really true). I'm not saying it is OK to deliberately do this. It just should be clear that it happens on both sides of the fence. Nice of you to cut out what I wrote immediately following: Is that something you usually do to prove your point? ??? Have you read the entire thread? It's very clear what Michelle said first in Milwaukee, then in Madison. It's also clear that one version of the Madison speech was altered and that version appeared on TV news shows.

It changes the implications of what her feelings were prior to "the first time." Prior to the first time...then there would've been no feelings of that type...hence "first time"... Either way, if Sen. Obama is getting this butt-hurt over scrutiny that's being applied to his wife, who is campaigning for him, then how is he going to handle the general election if he gets the nomination? The kitchen gets hot...especially in US politics. As McCain found out in South Carolina back in 2000. Let's hope it doesn't get that ugly again.

Hey, whoever that guy is in the video with the loose flap, I hope he's gotten a new rig. His is definitely not freefly safe.

Join the club.

You don't read so well. My earlier post already contained the same link: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3216287#3216287

A fair question. However, it did circulate on TV. One example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znun3cP3aoA

I dont go to youtube much so, can you tell who posted it? That may give some insite as to motive. Just a thought It's kind of impossible to determine who did the original editing. The link I gave for the doctored tape was: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYY73RO_egw There's no name attached but then again, there's no guarantee this is not just a copy from someone else who did the modification. I have to be honest here. If Barak had said those words, I would definitely have an issue with it. However, I can live with the fact that his wife said it. She's not going to be president.

Well, this got a little more interesting and those of you that follow my posts understand that the last thing I want is to be caught up in spin one way or another. I can admit when I'm wrong or, in this case, when not all the information has been given. Michelle did say what she was attributed on Wikipedia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGjR81pFJI4 So it looks like she did say it first without the "really" and only subsequently amended the statement to sound "more patriotic". I still don't understand why there was a need to alter the subsequent tape rather than just play the original though.

You think you know, right? You've heard it a dozen times already. According to Wikipedia, she said: And sure enough, if you search on Youtube, you can find where she appears to say just that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYY73RO_egw But something seemed a little odd about how her voice sounded so I did a little digging and found this alternate take of the same speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn618UpbF-k Interesting, no? It turns out that she actually said was: Clearly, someone had deliberately dubbed out the word "really" to make it sound worse than it actually was. And that doctored soundtrack is what made the rounds on Fox and the conservative talk show circuit. In fairness, it looks like other media outlets (including Wikipedia) were affected as well. Now I'm sure the Obama-haters will claim it makes no difference either way. But to them I'd ask, then why doctor the soundtrack in the first place? Of course, that single word does make a big difference. Michelle is not saying that she was never proud of America before, only that she was never as proud as she is now.

All the more reason not to give them ammunition for swelling their ranks. Whatever the case, completely unnecessary incidents like these lead to more extremists in Iraq and more acts of violence upon our troops. If you think that desecrating the Koran to smoke out AQ is justification for putting our troops more in harms way than they already are, that's between you and your conscience. Great. And if they're not able to govern themselves, how exactly do we achieve "victory"? How do we ever get out of there? "Stepping up to the plate" is not just a buzzword, Maliki is trying to do just that. American soldiers desecrating the Koran directly sabotages his efforts.

It's much more likely the jihadists will swell the ranks in Iraq and take revenge on American troops there than they will launch a US-based attack. I assume you're currently serving in Iraq, otherwise your appeal is a little like Bush's "Bring it on." Always easy to do when you don't have to face the bullets yourself. However, the affect on AQ is not the worst part of it. Iraq's at a critical point right now as Maliki's trying to assert the government's dominance over the Shiite militias. Part of the balancing act he has to play is the fact that he's tied to the Americans who are seen as occupiers by most of the Iraqi populace. Events like this make his job all the more difficult and give a propaganda boost to the Iranian-backed militias.

Absolutely right. Are we unable to learn from the past here? Until we're able to get out of Iraq, can we possibly keep from giving the Iraqis more reasons to hate us?

Saw that when it happened. Unbelievable that these young Republicans don't take 15 seconds to look up the necessary facts on the Internet. It's all just talking points for them with no understanding behind it. Oh ya! Another nice dam(n) geralization! Another joke post today. ALL YOUNG REPUBLICANS What a hoot. It is good think ALL YOUNG DEMS are so fucking smart Well, well, look who's got his panties in a bunch now. BTW, I have no problem calling out a Democrat if he makes an ass of himself either.

And that is exactly why I will be voting republican in the next election. Democratic congress + republican executive = only the really important shit gets done and nobody runs amok with their own agenda. Unfortunately, we've had that formula for the past 2 years but it looks like getting our troops out of Iraq doesn't fall into the category of "really important shit".

Saw that when it happened. Unbelievable that these young Republicans don't take 15 seconds to look up the necessary facts on the Internet. It's all just talking points for them with no understanding behind it.

Torture does not necessarily leave a physical wound. Its consequences are nonetheless very real and can be more long lasting than physical injury.

I'm not indifferent. I'm standing for what I believe to be right. There you go. Im assuming your homosexual? If I recall correctly, Shotgun (female) is happily married to her husband (male). You don't have to be gay to support equal rights for everyone. But see, this goes back to the earlier question of why people prefer Eastern religions to Western ones. The Western religions, including Christianity, spend too much time telling us what not to do. Eastern religions, by contrast, are more concerned with showing us a path to enlightenment that doesn't impose a moral judgment on every other thing. No matter how much these guys spout about Jesus' love, in the end it all comes down to follow the rules or you go to hell.

For those who voted no, would it make a difference if the PTSD was brought about by being tortured by the enemy?

NOW you're getting it. Although, to better match the subjects, it may more likely be: "A well trained helper, being necessary for the utility of the chef, the right of the diners to eat four-course meals shall not be infringed." How about: "Water being necessary to create jello, the right of surfers to big waves should not be infringed." So is that your assumption, that the founding fathers just threw those words together for no reason? Still haven't read those links, especially the linguistic analysis, have you? Actually, I did. I found this part especially interesting: Emphasis mine. The fact that Copperud acknowledges there is an unspoken "Since" before the subordinate clause, it logically follows that any valid analogy would also have to allow for that implied "since". But the sentence: "Since a well trained chef is necessary to the creation of a tasty meal, the right of the people to eat Baked Alaska shall not be infringed." makes no sense. There's absolutely no relation between the two parts of the sentence. However, using my example: "Since the achievement of an altered consciousness is necessary to preserve the sanity of man, the right to psychoactive drugs shall not be infringed." makes perfect sense, if it were true.

NOW you're getting it. Although, to better match the subjects, it may more likely be: "A well trained helper, being necessary for the utility of the chef, the right of the diners to eat four-course meals shall not be infringed." How about: "Water being necessary to create jello, the right of surfers to big waves should not be infringed." So is that your assumption, that the founding fathers just threw those words together for no reason?

Nothing in here about ambiguity, either. "A well trained chef, being necessary to the creation of a tasty meal, the right of the people to eat Baked Alaska shall not be infringed." But that's nonsensical, i.e. the subordinate clause has nothing to do with the main part of the sentence. A more appropriate analogy would be: "The achievement of an altered consciousness being necessary to preserve the sanity of man, the right to psychoactive drugs shall not be infringed." See here you have a subordinate clause, which if true, would certainly justify the main clause. The fact that it isn't true invalidates that main clause.

Weapons haven't changed significantly. What? The addition of automatic weapons, RPGs, and flamethrowers are not significant? So what? The Constitution's second amendment says nothing about the right being restricted to handguns. It doesn't even limit the restriction to firearms (so you could logically interpret a flamethrower as a form of arms).

I don't think it is reasonable. I don't see how you can argue that the right only applies to a well regulated militia without employing large amounts of intentional intellectual dishonesty. And some would say the failure to see that ambiguity as reasonable is an example of intellectual dishonesty. All the more evidence that the issue at stake is indeed ambiguous.