peacefuljeffrey

And for you: simple logic, bar graphs, rational discussion, reading comprehension... -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Since the left is still griping about how Bush "blew" the "surplus," I have to assume that they are either dumb, and believed in it, or are liars, who never believed in it but want to reap the political hay that can be reaped by making Bush look like he blew money that Clinton had saved. Which is it? Are you liars or dummies? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

A change can be positive or negative. Divide by the starting value and multiply by 100 and you have a % change. Where did you learn mathematics? Um, how is it you don't even understand that that's exactly what I was fucking saying? YOU put forth the graph ostensibly to show us that under Republicans, the debt has GROWN; all your graph shows is that is has CHANGED, and by what percent. Your graph does not actually say whether the change made the debt grow or shrink. Jebus Cripes you're confused. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

don't forget the stones. I really like the Stones, the Floyd, the Kinks, Vivaldi and Corelli. Dude, now I KNOW yer OLD -- callin' 'em "The Floyd"... - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Well, if you haven't, you're at least squishing your cock between your legs like that guy in The Silence of the Lambs... - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You linked to their homepage but not to a specific article. In fact, there's an article on the homepage that says "Skydivers set world freefall record"!!!

Yes, but look how many people doing that would put out of work! Rappers control lighting? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Not too Swift today? Like I'm gonna waste time and effort trying to figure out what "clever" thing you're trying to get at here... - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Well, leftist Clinton supporters who cheer the mantra "We had a surplus under Clinton" are talking about a (mostly faked) BUDGET surplus, which simply means, "We expected to spend less than we took in for the specified period." Important to note is the fact that THE NATIONAL [B]DEBT[/B] WAS NEVER GONE! If you owe $10,000 on your credit cards, and you don't pay anything toward that debt, but you balance your weekly budget and you don't spend as much as you earn, you have a BUDGET SURPLUS, but you still have a debt, and that debt will grow larger with interest accrued. So the left can stop parroting how Clinton fixed our situation up so well -- it was all chicanery from the start, with confusion about "debt" versus "deficit" INTENDED to confuse the American public in much the same way that "assault weapon" was intended to make people think that the '94 "ban" was going to eliminate the (already tightly controlled) machine guns. When liars believe their own lies, they really can't fathom that those lies don't fool the rest of us. That's what makes the left so pathetic. - For one who has been wrong so often this week, you sure have an interesting way of showing appropriate humility. Reagan and the 2 Bushes added more debt to the USA than all the other presidents combined. You have an annoying tendency to utterly avoid (is it cowardice?) the actual subject of what someone says. I can surmise only that you simply have no rebuttal worth mentioning, when you do that. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Um,please tell me I not the only one to realize that "% change" does not clarify whether the debt went UP or DOWN -- it notes only the absolute value of the degree of change from one year to the next, right? WRONG, as usual (recalling your comments on SCOTUS nominations and the Thames this week). Don't hand me bullshit, kallend. The FACT is, your graph says "PERCENT CHANGE" and that is an absolute value. The graph DOES NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR MANNER DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN CHANGE IN EITHER THE POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE DIRECTION. Face it, you're caught being wrong. You can be mature and admit it, or you can keep looking foolish denying it in front of a bunch of people who know it to be true. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Um, we have had the opportunity to watch this change occur in how many countries in the history of mankind? There are hundreds of countries, and only a handful with "the Bomb." Would you call our observation of the changes it makes in a country's policies statistically significant at this point? What if we attempted a study of breast cancer causing chemicals and included, say, 5 women, and found that cigarette smoke had failed to cause cancer in all five, could you conclude that cigarette smoke will never cause breast cancer? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I'm not wrong. That's that! Sorry for attacking your question, but since Stalin wouldn't start a nuclear war when he had nuclear parity with America... Stalin was not a fundamentalist lunatic religious nut who believes that his religion preaches the destruction of all infidels. Whether that IS or IS NOT "true islam" is irrelevant. Whether 99.999% of the "billion or so" muslims believe that way or not is also irrelevant. Just imagine if it's true that the tiny handful or radical islamists are really just that, a tiny handful. And they're creating THIS much trouble on the world stage... - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

It's too late to pull out and let the country turn (again) to shit and then stand back and say, "See, we told you what would happen without us," because the left will just say, "Well, it happened only because we went in in the first place." It will be forever non-disprovable (in the left's argument) that Iraq would have been just fine and never a threat to anyone ever again if we had just stayed out. "You can't put the toothpaste back into the tube." - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

LOL! They're that generous! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

hate to stray from the topic, but just being an infidel put me on their list. Wow, I'm glad to see this. When I saw that you had started the thread, I thought you might be some blissninny trying to get us to see that they're such wonderfully good people who would never harm a hair on our heads and it's just the bad, extremist muslims who want to hurt us. (I'm beginning to think that 97% of them fall into the "extremist" category, and the longer we go without them condemning acts of violence the more I feel that way -- and I mean millions of them need to be coming out condemning the extremists...) - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Why don't we just wait for muslims to SHOW us their good sides and make them unmistakably recognizable? Where are the other countries to sing the praises of how much charitable stuff the U.S. does for the rest of the world? Sorry, it's not my responsibility to find the good in muslims. And if you think that just because a person claims to belong to a religious faith that you can count on them behaving well, I got news for you: There are hypocrites in every faith, so there are bound to be muslims who drink, and then also those who drink and drive. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Well, leftist Clinton supporters who cheer the mantra "We had a surplus under Clinton" are talking about a (mostly faked) BUDGET surplus, which simply means, "We expected to spend less than we took in for the specified period." Important to note is the fact that THE NATIONAL [B]DEBT[/B] WAS NEVER GONE! If you owe $10,000 on your credit cards, and you don't pay anything toward that debt, but you balance your weekly budget and you don't spend as much as you earn, you have a BUDGET SURPLUS, but you still have a debt, and that debt will grow larger with interest accrued. So the left can stop parroting how Clinton fixed our situation up so well -- it was all chicanery from the start, with confusion about "debt" versus "deficit" INTENDED to confuse the American public in much the same way that "assault weapon" was intended to make people think that the '94 "ban" was going to eliminate the (already tightly controlled) machine guns. When liars believe their own lies, they really can't fathom that those lies don't fool the rest of us. That's what makes the left so pathetic. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Um,please tell me I not the only one to realize that "% change" does not clarify whether the debt went UP or DOWN -- it notes only the absolute value of the degree of change from one year to the next, right? So if the debt were HALVED under the Republicans, let's say, it would show as a 50% change, and the bar would be taller. Would that be BAD, or GOOD? (Gee, DUH.) Thanks for a USELESS graphic, Kallend. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

And how would you feel if you were one of the creditors that had their life savings wiped out? Uh, honeypie, it was a joke. As soon as I mentioned Africa having its debt forgiven, you should have realized I was being cynical and sarcastic about the legitimacy of just ducking one's debts in that manner. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Therein lies the pith of the issue. What do the parents want? Glory for their kid? A quick payout of "please shut up you fuckin' overzealous nutjob" money from the pockets of all the other parents paying taxes in their district?![ They need to shut the fuck up. It was unfortunate. They should have stood up right then and challenged the ruling. To wait until the end of the entire bee and then object is to tell the other kids that all the words they spelled correctly from that point til the end aren't worth squat. So let's do an injustice to a bunch of other kids just to make up for the one done to your kid? No, I don't think so. I would love to know what exactly they want out of suing. A monetary award? Great. Fuck over your own school district's finances (when everyone complains already that schools don't have enough money), over a spelling bee?! Was winning the bee (assuming the kid would have been destined to win) have gotten her into some prestigious college or something? No? Then nothing was lost except for a little dignity perhaps, and the chance at maybe winning whatever prize was offered. In short, they need to just get over it. And maybe call the judge a nasty name, IF he hasn't apologized profusely. And yeah, the judge should be apologizing profusely. The little girl is an innocent caught up in this, I would think. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

There is far less difficulty arising from strict construction than from liberal "reinterpretation." With the former, you attempt to pin down EXACTLY what was meant -- and only disingenuous people pretend that one phrase can validly be interpreted six different ways and keep a straight face. (The second amendment is a very good example of this kind of disingenuousness.) With the latter, you open the door to every Tom, Dick and Harry coming in and insisting that HIS "modern" interpretation of an amendment, clause, etc. is what we should be going by. Gone is any possibility of uniformity and stability. There are other "notes" apart from those from the Convention. They are conveniently ignored by (mostly leftist) "reinterpreters" of the Constitution when they don't suit the purpose of those people. One does not have to go far to find abundant support for a clearly INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms, and yet modern liberal reinterpreters tell us that the framers were talking about a National Guard that would not be created for more than a hundred years hence... You can give up the farce that we can't find clarity about what they must have been trying to write into the Constitution. Only people looking for silly loopholes pretend that this brilliant document (some even conjecture that they had extraterrestrial help in crafting it) isn't as clear as it truly needs to be. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Um, who gives a fuck what you think of it? I wasn't addressing you about it. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Hey, man, the two French Canadians I know are two of the hottest women around! And I looooove the sound of their accent! It's pretty to listen to.

It's not acceptable behavior, at least amongst civilized societies. Buuuuut, it's very clear that it's not acceptable to condemn muslims for turning to it whenever they want something... ...even though they are the foremost identifiable group using bombings and violence to attain their political goals in the world today. No one dares exclaim that "the emperor has no clothes" because it's not politically correct to "profile." - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

1 to extol the virtues of LED technology. (That'd be me. I love LED!) - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"