likearock

Agree on general points but this guy said he had a bomb in his backpack, he attempted to reach inside the backpack ...three in the chest sounds appropriate to me. Do we know that he actually said that? From what I've heard only the air marshals themselves are making that claim. Apparently none of the passengers have corroborated this so far. While I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt, there is a possibility the guy was just acting really strange and they shot him thinking the worst.

He admitted mistakes were made. Read the thread title. I confess. He did it!

Is that even possible?

Steve Buscemi.

The interesting part of this story is how it looks like the death was from one of our Predator missiles and yet, the Pakastanis are trying like hell to convince people that it wasn't. Moreover, we're not doing too much to confirm or deny ourselves. It seems clear that there's a political element at play here.

Yes, but there's never been any real evidence that it was intentional. It's easy to claim that it was intentional but quite another thing to present evidence. Now, perhaps there is some evidence.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/11/23/britain.jazeera/index.html The fact that the British are so hot and bothered about that memo seems to indicate it.

Don't remember them being overly concerned with truth when it came to the Swift boat ads.

What language is that? My guess is Celtic (?) It's the name of an Orc chieftain. I thought the Orc chieftain's name was Orson.

The Holocaust is a documentable part of history. Denying reality is evidence of mental illness. But that's not the point either. In the world I want to live in, all of this would be unnecessary, because if everyone just lived their lives and minded their own business, we would haven't these problems to begin with. Unfortunately, that's the same argument that has always been made to keep things as status quo. The world and particularly this country have been made better because people didn't just mind their business about things but spoke out about them publicly. We didn't mind our own business about being part of England, about tolerating slavery, about having segregated public facilities. I know you don't object to the fact that those issues had been openly debated. And yet, there were a great many people at the time who did object to the contrary ideas being "imposed" on them. It may seem clear to you which public speech should be curtailed but if you think about it, it's very difficult to formalize that into some objective criteria that say, a judge might be able to follow. And that's the dilemma of the First Amendment. If you don't allow all speech, if you try to impose some kind of conditions, those very conditions can be twisted to prevent speech that's politically unpopular. I'd rather allow all speech. By the way, regarding your statement that denying the Holocaust is evidence of mental illness, let's not forget one of the common ways the Soviets used to stifle dissent was to brand the dissidents as mentally ill and keep them locked up in a sanatorium.

If that's your belief, how can you make a distinction for legitimate dissent? Who's to judge that a holocaust denier's ideas are "weird", but a Viet Nam protester's are not? There's always people who feel adversely affected by dissent.

I wonder what that says about your existence? Hey, where do I condemn a whole class of people to damnation just because they don't think the way I do? A hell of an artist, even with one ear.

The existence of Pat Robertson himself makes it clear that, if there were some kind of design to the universe, it is definitely not intelligent.

This isn't that hard to do. Google's ranking is based on the number of external links to each site. Someone just created a Google look-alike failure page (check the url, not Google), then got a whole bunch of buddies to set up links to that page with the text "french military victories". Result, bingo: the top ranked page. So if you could get a few hundred people to set up webpage links that say "world's sexiest man" and have them point to a picture of you, guess what would happen. For similar results see "miserable failure".

Here's a good test: if you like Bush and hate Clinton, you're right wing; if you like Clinton and hate Bush, you're left wing; if you like both of them at times and hate both at times, then and only then are you really in the middle. Then again if you hate them both, run for president yourself, whiner!

Oh, it was big.

Key lime is my favorite. Blueberry peach is pretty good too. Yeah, I forgot about key lime. I had a slice at a diner during the Keys boogie last year. Awesome.

What kind? I go for pecan and pumpkin myself.

How do you know that you don't know something about your gear that could kill you someday? I'm sure this jumper felt she understood enough about her gear to jump safely and would continue to learn as she went. She misunderstood how an RSL works. She didn't know that she misunderstood, she she didn't seek further education on the RSL. I don't think the most alarming part of this incident is her failure to understand how an RSL works. It's the fact that she relied completely on an automatic device to save her when she should have acted to save herself. Suppose she did understand how the RSL worked and instead just waited for the AAD to fire. How would that have been any different?

Sure about that? What if the Republican controlled congress decides to pass a federal law limiting or even banning abortion? Something tells me the conservatives on the supreme court might not feel so strongly about states rights then.

You mean this guy?

Hey, that's a PA on a well-known ethnic group.

What about phone sex? I say any activity that could conceivably result in an orgasm is sex.

Yep, two more people who think that a mere indictment is proof of guilt, and that the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't mean anything any more. Right, it makes about as much sense as people who think an indictment against a powerful political leader means that the DA issuing it is obviously acting on the behalf of the opposing party. Shouldn't respect for the law extend to the people who are enforcing it, including the DA who issued the indictment?

Alcohol, caffeine, and nicotine are all drugs. Or were you just talking about illegal drugs? I think my statement sorta speaks for itself. What, are you high or something? - Seriously though, why should marijuana be outlawed while alcohol is not? Where does the line get drawn on which drugs to outlaw and which to allow?