idrankwhat

It can be done, but it'll make you shoot milk out of your nose if you're not careful.

Gouging is illegal and not a part of capitalism, .... It's only illegal if you can't afford to buy a government.

Another thread distracting shot at Kallend by NCclimber. Yep, Monday ends in a "y"

Everybody knew. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/

I think this is all just temporary hub bub anyway. It's no different than what happened to Bill Maher. He said something that scared the advertisers, lost his show, started up a new show doing the same thing, probably even with some of the same sponsors. This will pass in time.......like corn.

I think the RIAA are a bunch of greedy crooks. $0.02 Here's some more info on the suits and the "pre-litigation" letters that they're sending out to universities. http://blogs.allofmp3.com/music_news/2007/03/28/riaa-vs-students-update/ And I know that the link says that it's an unbiased blog but allofmp3.com is currently being sued for roughly the gross domestic product of Russia, so I'd say that they have a dog in the fight.

Which do you think MSNBC and CBS are interested in most, charity or the 8 advertisers who pulled their ads? Imus wasn't fired for what he said, he was fired because the money got scared.

If you have a Trader Joes anywhere nearby, try the Charles Shaw reds. Best $3.26 you'll ever spend.

Depends on how you feel about Halle Berry.

One of your favorite newspapers says that they were. "Prosecutors said at the time Mr. Berger knew the rules for handling the documents and had taken only copies. They said the originals remained in the government's possession." http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050909-122225-2387r_page2.htm edited to add: Or if you can't trust the Washington Times. "Archives officials have said previously that Berger had copies only, and that no original documents were lost." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16706-2005Mar31.html Not that I really care and I'm certainly not defending his actions, but I just didn't want you fall victim to the talk radio ignorance peddlers. where are or who has the originals? I don't know. But they said that what he took was copies from what is stored on the Archive's hard drives. Wiki's got a fair amount of info. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Berger#Convicted_of_mishandling_classified_terror_documents

You're shooting the messenger. Just because the hardcore raise point it out doesn't mean it's not valid. Here's wiki's take: "expansion of the President's power to declare martial law under revisions to the Insurrection Act, and take charge of United States National Guard troops without state governor authorization when public order has been lost and the state and its constituted authorities cannot enforce the law;" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.R._5122 Lehey's take on it: "It also should concern us all that the Conference agreement includes language that subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military’s involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law. There is good reason for the constructive friction in existing law when it comes to martial law declarations." and "The changes to the Insurrection Act will allow the President to use the military, including the National Guard, to carry out law enforcement activities without the consent of a governor. When the Insurrection Act is invoked posse comitatus does not apply. Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy, and it is for that reason that the Insurrection Act has only been invoked on three — three — in recent history. The implications of changing the Act are enormous, but this change was just slipped in the defense bill as a rider with little study. Other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals." http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/092906b.html I'll get more if you would like to read them. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-5122

I wonder why this one didn't want the job. > "Sheehan, a 35-year Marine, served on the Defense Policy Board advising the Pentagon early in the Bush administration and at one point was reportedly considered by then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to be chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He now works as an executive at Bechtel Corp. developing oil projects in the Middle East." Ohh....I dunno.... I mean the fat exec paycheck with an umbilical to the US treasury along with a world addicted to your product, or scapegoat co-pilot for the Hindenburg? Decisions, decisions.

Because, apparently, that's a whole lot less fun than say, screaming names like children. [shrug]... Which explains why our "news" programming has taken this turn for the worse. I put a lot of onus on our leadership and our news outlets for this national regression. They're setting poor examples for all of us and we're following suit.

Actually, if you read the last few posts on the thread, we never really let the thread drift off the point. The Bushies don't seem to feel the need to be burdened with providing proof for their claims. But I know that we're better than them so.....to return to the question, I still don't know how to prove what someone is hoping for unless they state it openly. And I can't say that they want to instill martial law but I did provide a link to show that the mechanism was put in place. Also, I did find the signing statement interesting, especially if it means what it's been interpreted to mean, that being that martial law can be enacted without any notification to Congress. I should probably find the original text and read it, but it's a busy day today.

You obviously aren't talking about this thread. I believe that you had honors on the false claim tee. Honors on the dance around tee too. (I think you can start refreshing your memory at ~post #76) Was I less tolerant of your false claim this time? Indeed I was and will likely be equally tolerant the next time you use it. Were they personal attacks? I don't think that pointing out your habit of repeatedly using the same false talking point is an attack but apparently you do. Sorry, can't help you there. I'll let the moderators decide on that one. But ok, I concede that maybe the Toy Story wav could be a personal attack. But technically, Buzz Lightyear said it. Oh yea,

For me the similarities are the use of a national disaster as a symbol for which to rally around, increase a sense of nationalism, label everything as black/white or good/evil to identify an enemy or their "enablers" and then use all that as a means to create an authoritarian government. That aside, and ignoring any fluff or conclusions made in the piece, the legislation was still passed.. which was ultimately the point I was trying to make.

I'm not saying that they're going to do it, but it's not absurd to think that they might be thinking about it, considering that they laid the ground work recently. http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=117&a=1431 "Hoping" for it however is more difficult to call

Maybe so, but it's a great forum for discussion because when someone posts bullshit without including a little smiley emoticon they're called on it, typically with valid references to back it up. Sorry if I assumed too much when I expect just a little honesty from people when they're making an argument. If you want to talk crap and not get called on it, get elected to public office and hold a press conference. As for personal attacks, sorry but this is the best I can do: http://www.moviewavs.com/php/sounds/?id=bst&media=WAVS&type=Movies&movie=Toy_Story"e=sad.txt&file=sad.wav

What odds? How much are you willing to wager? Careful there, some of those boys are on record saying that they may not be able to achieve the changes they want without some sort of "Pearl Harbor like event". I may get in on this action. Daddy needs a new pair-a-chute. Sure. I assume your money is good. Oh, it's good. Especially if someone can prove or disprove what someone is "hoping" for

Again, can't play nice, so you make attacks...is this grade three? You might need help, try to talk again in grade six. That wasn't an attack. It was a honest recommendation. Deliberately editing out the part of my statement that debunks your argument is poor form for SC. It might get you a job heading up the EPA but it won't fly here.

QuoteA Reading from the Book of Armaments, Chapter 4, Verses 16 to 20: Thanks, I've been meaning to change my avatar

I agree, especially when we're talking about man's interpretation of God's word that was written, edited and eventually culled over a period of about six hundred years. Of course that's just the Christian version of God's word and not any other interpretation of God's word by a monotheistic group of followers.

What odds? How much are you willing to wager? Careful there, some of those boys are on record saying that they may not be able to achieve the changes they want without some sort of "Pearl Harbor like event". I may get in on this action. Daddy needs a new pair-a-chute.

NICE - don't forget the screech that goes with the pointing. It's one thing that Donald taught his son for acting. No one other than Mark Hamill can shout "NOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooo" like young Kiefer can. Donald had some great lessons, not just for his son, but for all of us. Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change? Moriarty: Crap!

let's start a list 1 - you can't say "nappy headed hos" on the radio 2 - you can't say Global Warming is all made up without losing your job as a weather man 3 - you can't hire the best qualified individual without checking HR for quota issues 4 - you can't compliment someone on their clothes without a signed release 5 - you can't talk loud to your child without being forced to counseling 6 - you can't park your Hummer in the city without it being vandalized 7 - you can't put up your flag on your property without someone shouting a nasty word at you 8 - you can't join the military without someone spitting on you 9 - you can't force your school to teach creationism as a science without someone complaining (for fun) now, let's lean a little left 9 - you can't teach about evolution without some wierdos starting a picket line 10 - you can't call your ex-college roommate in France without your financial history being investigated 11 - you can't speed 80 in 35 zone without 'the man' hassling you (this one's for fun) 12 - you can't take someone else's flag and burn it without pesky little "vandalism" charges being leveled (another mockery of 1st amend threads) 13 - you can't own a business without the local government taking it away and giving it to Walmart (that one will be claimed by both sides) 14 - etc 15) You can't picket a defense or energy contractor without being put in a Pentagon database. 16) You can't go to see your President speak unless you sign a loyalty oath. 17) You can't drink beer in Maine if it has a picture of women's breasts or of an imbibing Santa on the bottle. 18) You can be put in detention and tortured for no reason with no access to a lawyer and no charges filed for an indefinite period of time if one of the President's men points at you like Donald Sutherland in Invasion of the Body Snatchers. to be continued: