-
Content
2,275 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Feedback
0%
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Dropzones
Gear
Articles
Fatalities
Stolen
Indoor
Help
Downloads
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Videos
Classifieds
Everything posted by likearock
-
Where've you been?
-
Well, if you let your emotions drive you then yes, those people probably get enraged. However, if she WAS a something-whore, WTF? Truth hurts? It doesn't matter. That family paid the ultimate price and should not be addressed that way. There's other ways of referring to someone who uses the media. It's more than a faux pas. It's disrespectful.
-
Am I the only one that still likes Bush? (The President)
likearock replied to Hawkins121's topic in Speakers Corner
Fixed it for you. -
What's so unbelievable? In one post you said. "Same reason you didn't condemn Malkin when she called the mother of a dead US serviceman a whore, I suppose." In another you modified to say "media whore." Big difference...Let's at least try to be accurate and consistent, eh? Calling someone a whore, no matter how its qualified, is disrespectful. It doesn't have to literally mean prostitute. Let's say your brother died fighting in the Iraq war. Are you telling me you wouldn't be enraged if someone started calling your mother a something-whore?
-
I will admit that we have NO idea what the -actual- ramifications of giving up Plame cost the U.S. in terms of intel, but it's not a bad guess that anyone she had contact with was probably questioned by their respective governments. Now, in this country, we don't do "torture" to get people to tell us stuff (or do we?), but it's pretty safe to say that some other countries don't have the same restrictions that we do. So, yeah, so laugh your ass off. Wow...one of the most non-sequitor posts I've seen in a while. Plame was not undercover and hadn't been for years. Even so, there is no evidence Bush revealed her name. FYI, intel is declassified all the time and any President has the authority to do so. Why should it matter how long ago she had been undercover? Repressive foreign governments don't necessarily have a statute of limitations when it comes to rooting out her contacts.
-
Please identify ANY meaningful parallel between the people who criticize Cindy Sheehan and the WBC group. The first group picks on single person based on her very own actions. The second group seeks to harass innocent members of the dead serviceman's group indiscriminantly. How about the fact that they (at least the ones calling Sheehan a whore) treat with disrespect the family of one who has paid the ultimate price?
-
However, there should be an audit trail that substantiates that it was declassified or it would be illegal.
-
Heavy cell phone use leads to brain tumors
likearock replied to likearock's topic in Speakers Corner
Exactly why I posted this. I think most people have a severe case of denial in regards to the potential harm. Many are giving up their land lines to have all their calls on the cell phone. The article above addressed many of the previous studies supposedly "disproving" the link with cancer. Let's not forget there are billion's of dollars in profits at stake if it turns out there is a cancer link. The same kinds of forces that postponed the general recognition of a smoking/cancer link are likely in operation here. -
How do you figure Libby has no motivation to lie? It's certainly in his interest to show that his superiors were authorizing leaks of confidential matters.
-
Heavy cell phone use leads to brain tumors
likearock replied to likearock's topic in Speakers Corner
I would wait for some confirmation on that one..... That's certainly your call. Personally, if I were one of those heavy cellphone users, I'm not sure I would want to wait. -
Heavy cell phone use leads to brain tumors
likearock replied to likearock's topic in Speakers Corner
Who hasn't suspected this? http://www.foodconsumer.org/777/8/Cell_phone_use_raises_brain_tumor_risk.shtml Cell phone use raises brain tumor risk By David Liu Ph.D. Apr 1, 2006, 17:15 April 1 (Foodconsumer.org) - Using a cell phone or mobile phone over a long period raises the risk of malignant brain tumors, according to a new Swedish study published in the International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health. The study found that heavy users of cell phones increased their risk of a malignant brain tumor on the side of the head the phone is used by 240 percent. By heavy users, the authors referred to those who used a cell phone for 2,000 hours or for one hour a day over a period of more than ten years. Previous studies have found no evidence suggesting that radiation from cell phones is linked with elevated brain tumor risk although the damaging effect of cell phone use has been suspected for long. In the current study, researchers at the Swedish National Institute for Working Life compared cell phone use of 2,200 patients with malignant tumors and an equal number of healthy control cases. Among the tumor patients aged 20 to 80, 905 had a malignant brain tumor, one third of them were heavy users of cell phones. "Of these 905 cases, 85 were so-called high users of mobile phones, that is they began early to use mobile and/or wireless telephones and used them a lot," Reuters quoted the authors of the study in a statement issued by the Institute. The study may have more say than some previous studies about the effect of cell phones on the risk of brain tumors, according to Kjell Mild, lead author of the current study, because this is the biggest study looking at the long-term effect of the wireless phone. One study published last April by the American Academy of Neurology found no link between use of mobile phones and brain tumors. That study found that the risk of developing a brain tumor was not related to the frequency of cell phone calls or the number of years they had been used. One drawback of that study is that few study participants regularly used cell phone for more than 10 years. Short-term exposure to radiation from cell phones and long-term development of a brain tumor may make it impossible for the researchers to see any tumor-causing effect of cell phones in such a study. Another weakness of the 2005 study is that the participants were "hand-picked". The study is not a population-based cohort study. Bias can not be avoided and the potential risk of cell phone use may be diluted out by other factors. As with other studies of the same type, the current study also has its limitations. For one thing, the study relied on data collected from subjects through interviews, which may be subject to biases and errors when someone recalled his use of cell phones. Dr. Lydia Zablotska, an epidemiologist at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health, was quoted by New York Daily News as saying: "You're interviewing subjects in an era when everyone has a suspicion that cell phones may be harmful." Regardless, few scientists may deny the fact that cell phone radiation can damage cells and potentially cause tumors. What needs to be clarified is how much damage use of cell phones may cause in the brain, which can be quite some task. With the continuing controversy over the safety of cell phone use, it's only prudent for one at least not to overuse cell phone if he can't avoid using cell phones. "The way to get the risk down is to use handsfree," Mild told Reuters. Experts suggest children should avoid using cell phones whenever possible because they are the people who are most vulnerable to the tumor risk. -
Sexual Privacy at Issue in Cal. Supreme Court
likearock replied to lawrocket's topic in Speakers Corner
That's probably what the court will decide. Personally, I think it should, and the difference will be in damages. Give someone HIV, yeah, that'll be a large amount of damages. Hepatitis, which can kill you, that's another big one, though not like HIV. Herpes and HPV will be lower. Those treatable by antibiotics will likely be much less. Okay, Rocky, you've tipped your hand. If you had your way all communicable diseases would be subject to civil suit. Perhaps the damages might vary, but the lawyer would still get his fee! -
Sexual Privacy at Issue in Cal. Supreme Court
likearock replied to lawrocket's topic in Speakers Corner
In general, I agree with you. But in circumstances like this, I believe that exceptions should be made. Fro example, it's a felony in California to knowingly give someone HIV. After all, that should be considered homicide because it's a death sentence. Is that still the case now that anti-HIV drugs have made such advances in extending the life of those with AIDS? Will this legal obligation now extend to other diseases that never totally go away like Hepatitis C? -
And you thought US airport security sucked!
likearock replied to Rookie120's topic in Speakers Corner
Could never happen here. Our politicians would never be able to travel by plane! -
What? Are you actually suggesting that shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is equivalent to waving an American flag in our own country? There's something very wrong with the culture if that is true.
-
I think EVERYONE should have to do that... to get citizenship....serve 2 years.. then you have the right to vote. More people would be invested in doing something for their country. Great idea. Of course, if everyone had to serve there's no way we would have gone to war in the first place.
-
It's also a question of scale. In Spain, they've had to deal with sporadic violence with the Basque separatists but few would categorize that as a civil war. I'd say that the insurgency in Iraq is currently closer to that than to a full blown civil war. But it could always get worse.
-
In fact, many of the Democrats he was saying it about then are now Republicans (the ones in the South).
-
They don't.
-
You think that I just NOW associated you with that Communists. Ha Ha HA, you have got to be kidding me on that one. I have always associated you with the Communists. I guess you missed the many posts when I said Socialists/leftists/Communists that all mean the same to me. Really? In that case, what's your opinion of this guy? He had a very similar point of view.
-
Thanks, Trent, that was great. I love how they use the ending to show they don't give a crap if the Scientologists sue them.
-
By accepting forgiveness, by God's grace, through faith in Jesus and repentance of sin. That doesn't really answer his question. If a Hindu must have faith in Jesus he's not really a Hindu anymore.
-
If a person believes in Religion A, then it is the only true path to "salvation" (or other applicable term). Any teaching that diverges from that truth is leading the person to eternal damnation and probable torment. So, any religious followers other than Religion A are some flavor of Satans minions. This algebra implies you're talkiing in general about all religions of the world. In fact notions of "salvation" and "damnation" are not universal at all and mostly pertain to Christianity (and to a lesser extent Judaism and Islam). If you look at many eastern religions, you'll find that they are much more accepting of conflicting points of view.
-
Christian in a Muslim Country? You're Fucked, thanks for playing!
likearock replied to ViperPilot's topic in Speakers Corner
Either way, that kind of "law" has no business being in the 21st Century. -
Plus they're all readily available on the Internet. Check out "Trapped in the Closet" and "R Kelly".