rhaig

yet you keep trying to have the last word

it wouldn't surprise me to find it was politically motivated. as I said. I hope it is. I fear it may not be. That would be troublesome. I've not found any more public info on this. -- Rob

see chango? was that so hard? Quade can make a persuasive argument. You.. well, I've not seen one yet... and though the quote was not a direct quote... I see the same sentiment in the words. -- Rob

I hope they're exaggerating the issue. If they aren't, it's escalating now more than it has the past few years. However, wouldn't it be more prudent to investigate such claims than to dismiss them out of hand (as you appear to have done). -- Rob

if you were actually trying to convince anyone, you might have bothered to put something behind your words... perhaps a source for at least one of those quotes showing it was phony. or if you're not interested in making a persuasive argument continue with your current method. And we'll continue not giving any weight at all to your thoughts. -- Rob

are we that sure that it would decrease their revenue? It would cut operating expenses, likely increase sales. The price would go down, but by how much? -- Rob

odd... I thought the point of the thread was a perceived imbalance in the moderation of this forum. And pretty much the only way there would be a perceived "imbalance" would be if somebody thought there was something wrong. thus my note about context and point of view. Not when it comes to politics. It's actually very well defined when it comes to political science. Your definition of "permissive" is pretty far off the mark. did you read the part you clipped "That certainly misses on many viewpoints and is completely off depending on your context. " or did you snip it to change the meaning of what I said? :) you're planing a lucky now. thinking you know what I think, and beyond that apologizing for me. please don't (on either account) now you're adding a context. that would change my "generic" definition. *** ***Let's not get into the preciseness of the use of the English language. I'm sorry, but that's simply not in my nature. I will NOT dumb down my thinking for the benefit of simply being agreeable to the use of words when they're used to attack me. I don't think you would either. I do recognize that the English language can be very precise, yet when used that way is hard to read. It's mostly used in more general terms, and as such, tends to be rather imprecise, and subject to mis-interpretation. You may have inferred that I thought you should dumb down your thinking. you were incorrect. Perhaps I was unclear in my text. (precise written communication is not my strong suit) We can start multiple threads about how the language is used and mis-used, and none of it is precise enough for anyone else. All of those threads will turn into threads about racism, politics, and/or guns. Let's not. -- Rob

odd... I thought the point of the thread was a perceived imbalance in the moderation of this forum. and the definition of the word liberal depends on your context, and viewpoint. The most generic one-word definition I can think of is "permissive". That certainly misses on many viewpoints and is completely off depending on your context. Let's not get into the preciseness of the use of the English language. -- Rob

yup.... goes to show it's not what you do, but who you know. It's the Chicago way. -- Rob

But a lot of needed jobs. lol just imagine the inflation (further) in the jobs created or saved figure!! -- Rob

it needs to be more than a stern talking to. I don't know the administrative options available for punishment (wait... all this was in the post you replied to earlier). yeah... I considered whether firing him would do more harm than keeping him around. I don't have all that info. THAT is why I said what I did. -- Rob

seriously, why start now? the most strength he's shown in any scenario so far is empty tough talk that was just a source of mockery don't get me wrong... I'm not assuming he will step up to the plate and do his job wrt this. Just stating the obvious. -- Rob

nah... it was directed at a political party. It's a nice inconsistency in the "what is a PA" definition. You can't say someone is part of a group, and then fire off an attack against people in that group. But if they are self defined as part of a group through their posts and actions, stating that members of that group (but only if it's a political party) are stupid, can't spell, aren't smart enough to be moderators (or whatever the insult of the day) is ok. -- Rob

yup... and he's not very active is he. looks like AA is still only partly functional BS. -- Rob

true, but he's got enough time in to put in his papers, take his terminal leave (a man like him probably has months of it) and retire. -- Rob

no he doesn't - let's see what happens He's the Commander In Chief. He needs to act like it in this case. I don't know what the administrative discipline options are but this can't pass with just a stern talking to and a public apology. -- Rob

wasn't directed squarely at you bill. -- Rob

what is a "white name" ?? David? Paul? John? Why does a certain name say "white" to you? WOOOOOSHHHHHHHH!!! Obviously, you didn't get my sarcasm. I was illustrating the racist nature of this thread. and apparently you think racism only goes one way. Prejudiced. -- Rob

I learned a long time ago that that perception is as important as truth. If there is the perception of impropriety means that something is being done wrong. (that's true just about anywhere) -- Rob

ok... I'm not a bush defender. Not by any stretch. But for anyone to put the blame for the 9/11 attacks squarely on Bush's shoulders, and then blame him for the mess that Obama inherited, is rather inconsistent. Isn't all of this happening on President Obama's watch? Let's at least pretend to be consistent? -- Rob

he didn't want to see that part. -- Rob

Because libs are truly fair and balanced. you forgot the smiley but you did make me snicker :) -- Rob

what is a "white name" ?? David? Paul? John? Why does a certain name say "white" to you? -- Rob

Yeah there war war trials from 1946-1948 not as publicized as the Nuremburg trials though. To the OP, great freaking video. Thank you. Finally after the many ignorant replies, we get a relevant one. Do you have the name of the trials or a link? Here's a start. http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/warcrimes.htm Info plus links to other sites with more info and even more links. It was pretty tough to find. I had to Google "Trials for Japanese War Crimes" to find it. And there we go, back to the other kinds of posts. at least it wasn't a lmgtfy.com link... like this one http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Trials+for+Japanese+War+Crimes (for those of you haven't seen lmgtfy.com -- Rob

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution I know you don't like that amendment, but it's there for a reason. You don't like it, start a campaign to get it repealed. I'd like to see your slogan. It's a tug of war, the 10th. When push comes to shove, the feds win. Show me when the states have told the feds to FO and it's stuck. But while you're at it, still avoiding and running from the issues, look at what your source said of Obama: Medical Marijuana Laws – As of March 2010[update], 14 states (Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington) have passed legislation which permit the use of medical marijuana.[9] California has a proposed November 2010 constitutional amendment which would go one step further, and legalize marijuana use by persons over age 21 for any purpose whatsoever.[10] The Obama administration announced in October 2009 that it advised federal prosecutors not to target medicinal marijuana users, or their suppliers, in states that have passed such laws.[11] Awww, doesn't that shit on your, "I hate Obama" parade? where have I ever said I hate him? In fact, I've even said "I don't hate the man". But you weren't paying attention to truth. You have your misconceptions to uphold. This is one place where he has done the right thing. Where the pot doesn't cross state lines from growth to consumption, it's not covered by interstate commerce, and as such, the feds should butt out. Where it DOES cross state lines, it's a different law being broken (not use or possession), but I still think it should be legalized (even though I haven't smoked any in 10 or so years). -- Rob