FallingOsh

Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions, but a statement like this invalidates anything you've said up to this point. I don't even know where to start with this. Speachless, really. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

I'm kinda nervous we're agreeing so much lately. Armageddon? -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

Article III, section 1. IAEA Safeguards specifically talk about inspections for the purpose of verifying peaceful intentions. The IAEA is scheduled to visit the site on October 25th. If they give the thumbs up then the discussion can take another turn. Hiding a facility is not following the treaty. The only reason they're following it now, in my opinion, is because they got caught. We'll see what happens after the IAEA visit. I'm not seeing how that particular section indicates a violation of the treaty on the part of Iran. Which clause do you feel Iran has violated? Article III, § 1.: Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Agencys safeguards system, for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfillment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Procedures for the safeguards required by this article shall be followed with respect to source or special fissionable material whether it is being produced, processed or used in any principal nuclear facility or is outside any such facility. The safeguards required by this article shall be applied to all source or special fissionable material in all peaceful nuclear activities within the territory of such State, under its jurisdiction, or carried out under its control anywhere. That particular section says the IAEA safeguards will be used. The safeguards specifically outline inspections to confirm peaceful intentions. Building the facilities in secret and only inviiting IAEA in after being 'caught' is not compliace. Google IAEA if you want the specific safeguard policies. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

If the Dems are higher, where does that put the GOP? Does that really matter? Congress has a shitty approval rating because people are tired of watching them fight like a couple of sorority sisters (although I might watch that). It's funny you're putting your nose in the air over the dems being just a tad higher, but still overwhelmingly disliked. It's like being proud cause your dog shits on the floor a little less than the neighbor's dog. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

To which Article are you referring? Article III, section 1. IAEA Safeguards specifically talk about inspections for the purpose of verifying peaceful intentions. The IAEA is scheduled to visit the site on October 25th. If they give the thumbs up then the discussion can take another turn. Hiding a facility is not following the treaty. The only reason they're following it now, in my opinion, is because they got caught. We'll see what happens after the IAEA visit. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

I didn't see anything on notifying before building, but the IAEA safeguards talk pretty specifically about inspections. Since the facilities were built in secret without any inspection, to my knowledge, I don't see how they can be in compliance. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

How'd you know whether it's the one they're looking at now if you didn't read any of them? How do you know if the difference between them is one page or 100 pages? Isn't that the point? Who really knows if the bill is different by one page or a hundred? Do you not find that concerning? -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

So it's the media's damatization of the fact, not the administration ruling it out, that's aggrivating? Makes sense. I misunderstood the original comment. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

Gotcha -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

Well, given the fact that they haven't been invaded while nuke-less then no, I don't think that's a valid reason for developing them. You'd also have to ignore all of the "wipe that country off the map" talk to argue they only want nukes for deterring invasion. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

Why would they completely rule out military action this early in the game? That just leaves them open for hypocrite and liar accusations if military action is eventually needed. With so many unknowns on the table (including what the intended target of this bomb is) it seems silly to rule anything out. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

I took it to mean the look was faked. 'Here's your perfectly trimmed, evergreen grass to play on.' 'Here's your stereotypical image of a doctor that we all recognize volunteering to back my opinions.' -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

Elusive behavior is yours. Not sure if you called me one or not, in my years if someone wanted to call me one they would just do it, so I assume you are not. Lots of experience with people calling you a puss? That sucks. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

No plan will reduce the cost unless it addresses the fact that we are a nation full of people spending what we perceive to be other people's money on our health care. Well said. Think so? Because by that metric, we are also spending "other people's money" on defense, police, firefighting, public schools, air traffic control, building roads and filling-in potholes. Damn Commies that we are. The problem with "other people's money" is that there's little to no incentive to not waste it. The fact that government does it doesn't make the entire nation doing it with health care any better. Surely someone as educated as yourself can see that. There's no more, or less, incentive to waste money with public option health care than there is with the other above-mentioned publicy-provided services. Second, despite all the boogeyman rhetoric, there really is no viable government-only health care plan being seriously floated. Rather, it's to have public health care as a viable choice, along with existing private health care choices. Third, practically every Western European nation, the UK, Canada, Australia, NZ and Japan have had one form or another of universal health care for at least the past generation or more. Are they perfect? No, far from it. Do they have their undesirable aspects? Yes, that's been demonstrated. But they all still have it, and none of them - even after their decades-long "experiment" with it - have seen fit to revert back to a private-only health care system. That, too, speaks volumes. At some point in time we have to collectively get our heads out of the sand, and away from hysterical rhetoric about evil "socialism", and recognize that the US, too, can viably come into line with the rest of the world. The US has the brains and the resources to do it better than rest, if we set our efforts to it. Frankly, there's no practical or moral reason not to. 'They're doing it, so we should' is not a viable argument. It certainly doesn't come close to addressing the actual issues of funding, application, or sustainability. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

No plan will reduce the cost unless it addresses the fact that we are a nation full of people spending what we perceive to be other people's money on our health care. Well said. Think so? Because by that metric, we are also spending "other people's money" on defense, police, firefighting, public schools, air traffic control, building roads and filling-in potholes. Damn Commies that we are. Yes I do think so. And yes, by that metric we do waste money in the DoD and other government programs. Is all of the money considered a waste? No. Are there instances of $20k hammers? Yep, all the time. Government waste in one area is not an excuse to let it happen in another. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

Um... yes, he could've NOT gone. It's happened before. Right. He could've avoided the 24 hours of 'look at me' time too. He went when he shouldn't have and was subsequently embarrassed. Not a big deal in the grand scheme of things but just another example to add to the list of arrogant moves. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

Not really the point. He could bring attention to the story without immediately blaming President Obama and the conservationists. There's definitely some truth to what he's saying, but Hanity has become no better than Olberman or Maddow with the inflamatory reporting. Then again, Olberman and Maddow would never report on a story that reflects badly on their deity -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

They wasn't a lynch mob. More ad hominem... not surprising. That leaves two choices that were non-violent. That's not coercion. That's options. Gracious options for someone that burns my stuff. Once again, not a lynch mob and they certainly didn't lynch him. The criminal was given multiple choices... none of which included death. What if, what if, what if... what if he had never burned their stuff in the first place? Ad hominem is really all you have and really getting old. , So then what do you care? The law was broken when he burned their property. No law was broken when he agreed to be taped up. If you're talking only law and no feelings then it's a cut and dried case. All the prosecutor needed was the admittance of the kid who burned someone else's property. Giving him 3 choices and letting him choose was not against the law. Did they break in? So he could defend himself but it's ok to go burn other people's property? They didn't abduct him. He chose that direction as a consequence of burning someone's property. yeah, don't ever handle something on your own. Always lawyer up even when it can be handled in a mutual agreement. Issues were handled civily long before lawyers were involved in every aspect of life. True. Thankfully there were no lynch mobs in this case. Telling punks to get off my lawn is not against the law, now matter how bad your feelings get hurt or how much you want to go crying to a lawyer. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

Awww, how special, calling the real Americans the Patriots. Another funny conservative tactic. The Patriots are a football team. They're from New England. They're generally an excellent team and fit pretty well with the analogy. Now you've gone and called the wealthy 'real Americans.' That's not very compassionate of you. Getting all worked up about the word 'patriot'.... how very liberal. Corporations provide the insurance you want to provide to everyone. Corporations provide the research and technology to make our healthcare some of the best in world. Corporate taxes fund the pet projects and government handouts. Corporate taxes would be used to fund low income people with subsidies. Corporate "greed" provides everything you're campaigning for. Get rid of the corporations and see how many government programs you can run. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

Agreed. I just think it's pure arrogance to show up for a few hours and expect the IOC to comply. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

No plan will reduce the cost unless it addresses the fact that we are a nation full of people spending what we perceive to be other people's money on our health care. Well said. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

I think that's kinda the point. Chicago wouldn't have been the best venue and there's not much he could've done to change that so why go? Who knows how many hundreds of thousands of dollars spent plus more time added to the overexposure issue. I personally don't think the IOC thing is that big of a deal. The somewhat comical, and a little sad, part is that he thinks he can just show up somewhere like "Hey, I'm Obama. Aren't I great? Make this happen." -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

Very stupid. Once upon a time (17th Century) academic square caps were limited to master's degrees and academic robes (gowns) were for college undergraduates and above. Now they are used in high schools, jr high, and even pre-school. At this point it has no meaning any more. The snooty masters degree grads shouldn't be so arrogant holding all of the square caps to themselves. The square caps should be worn by everyone who manages to finish any grade so they too can feel special and loved. Why do they only mean something if the small majority of people, the masters grads, have them? Jr High and Pre-school grads are people too, ya know. Some compassion would be nice. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

When the VFW post commander said, ""To disgrace the American flag, we can't tolerate that," it shows that he places higher priority on a symbol than he does the first amendment. If he had complained about private property being destroyed, that would have been a little bit different. Instead of utilizing police services, the commander tracked the man down himself, as a vigilante. We'll never know what choices the man was given, or when they were given, so we'll likely never know exactly what laws were broken, if any. When I served, I swore to defend the Constitution, not to protect the flag. Part of defending the Constitution is defending the right to desecrate the flag. Didn't the flag belong to the VFW? The kid burned someone else's property. I can't have someone burning my gear. It wouldn't be protected by the 1st amendment either because it's mine. Would that be a different situation? -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

You were there on page 3, dude. Right after you switched from 'Tax the rich just to bring them down' to healthcare. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.