idrankwhat

Reminds me of a quote I heard by Rick Mercer on NPR recently. "The American dollar has been the worst performing currency in the entire world for the last five years so why not hitch our wagon to it? Cause you know, the only problem with America's 21Trillion dollar unfunded pension liability is we aren't on the hook for it yet. Next up on the list of sound economic advice from TB, we all put our money in a shoebox and set it on fire."

Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.

West Point! We just put down a nice, cushy floor in the hangar and we've got a Casa for the Halloween Boogie! Did I forget to mention the kegerator?

Lewis Black makes my point so much better than I. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ckI-hCLu3k

So true. Your posts on this forum are always so unpredictable and varied. It's just so hard to get a read on you. I could never anticipate what your take might be on a given subject. Get a room.

Regardless of what you think of his Presidency, he's a good, honest, hard working, human rights advocate. He's done more to help the poor and to promote world peace than probably any other human on the planet.

I blame that on what the American street calls "news".

Now you opened a can of worms. {{preparing for numerous partisan posts about how Condi is NOT: smart, black, or a woman - probably a lot on the line of the racist commentary spewed at her}} Nah. She's certainly smarter than our President. She's certainly blacker than our President and anatomically more feminine than our President. She's apparently not afraid of Cheney anymore. I'd say she's more qualified to be our President than the current occupier/decider. And if she had not spent the last few years helping her "husband" screw us over, I might have been interested to see what she had to offer.

Dude! This is getting stupid. Go read what the court said and quit inserting your opinion, or more accurately, someone else's opinion, in between the lines of the official opinion. Burton said that the documentary was "broadly accurate" but that it was too "one sided" to be shown to students without a disclaimer. He also listed what he saw as nine inaccuracies. Some of those "inaccuracies" were things like Gore stating that there will be a significant sea level rise in the near future. Burton said that he thought was "alarmist" and that it will likely take much longer. Regarding the Gulf Stream, Gore said "shut down" the judge said it's more likely to "slow down". Gore gave the impression that Katrina was caused by global warming. Burton there was "insufficient evidence to show that". Gore blamed the coral bleaching on increased temperatures. Burton said that "separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution was difficult." Gore blamed the melting ice for the polar bear drownings. Burton said ""The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm."That was not to say there might not in future be drowning-related deaths of bears if the trend of regression of pack ice continued - "but it plainly does not support Mr Gore's description". You get the picture? You understanding what an "inaccuracy" is yet? Stating that Gore's film is "broadly accurate" yet "alarmist" and "political" does NOT mean that the science is all wrong.

Sounds like Congress is the problem. Aren't they all up for election next year? I think we should petition for a "none of the above" selection on the ballot. Or vote for Ralph Nader. That'll show 'em. Can't fault people for voting for who they think is the right person for the job. I never gave Nader voters any crap. There were more than enough non-voters to pick on.

Sounds like Congress is the problem. Aren't they all up for election next year? I think we should petition for a "none of the above" selection on the ballot.

I just went to his website to read up on his views on the issues. First up, foreign policy. After reading that I made up my mind. No way. He's spouting the "Iraq is the central front" crap and his first priorities are to increase the size of the military and a missile defense system. He'll just be more of the same, but with better spelling and stage presence. edited to add: I must say that I DO agree with his first bullet on his budget plan. "Opening the government’s fiscal books on this looming crisis for all to see and understand."

Agreed, it's a good quote. I'm with you on most of this. But my method of cutting the spending starts with identifying the waste and fraud and ripping that out. (One more reason I wish Perot was invited to the debates) I very much dislike the idea of cutting the meat out of our domestic programs that actually help our citizens without cutting out the fat first.

Sure, I'll go along with that. I hope they continue and I wish they'd do the same with the EPA and biosolids but that's another thread. But it looks like the court said that there's political and emotional content in the movie. I'll agree with that too. Regardless, it doesn't invalidate the science. Sure, to be accurate, the Gulf Stream won't shut down. It will just move. But they've got me confused on the coral bleaching claim that there's no evidence that increased temperatures cause it. That's just plain nonsense. You can prove that one in the courtroom with fish tank and a heater. Overall, what seems to be missing from the debate is common sense.

Yea, but the follow up statement gave me the impression that he's only interested in cutting domestic spending on entitlement programs. He's still pro war so the quote above means he's offering a slightly modified continuation of what we have now.

It seems you can not address the fact that a court has stated that positions you hold to are not true and can not be backed up with science or fact. Fine And you seem to be having trouble with the notion that courts don't validate or invalidate science.

Sadly, "savior" is not the right word. "Possibly the least lousy choice" is probably more appropriate. Regardless, it was good to hear him making some sense again last night. I wasn't particularly impressed with Thompson but I also didn't watch all of it. But I did watch enough to wonder why Rudy's in the lead. What a tool.

They wouldn't nominate him. He's too much of a lib.

And rightfully so. That's the Church's job!

Not to go off on this tangent and divert the thread, but what do you think welfare recipients do with the money that they receive? Doesn't it ALL go back into the US economy?

Well, if we're trying to be accurate, then it should be noted that Saddam didn't "kick out" the inspectors. They were pulled out. Secondly, the no fly zones were not sanctioned by the UN. They were a creation by the US, Britain and France and were supposed to be temporary. When they weren't, France pulled out. So it's hard to put blame on Saddam for firing on planes that were bombing his country from inside his airspace without an international mandate.

What people thought they knew in the late 90's doesn't hold a candle to what we actually knew, and had the capability to find out in the early '00's, prior to the invasion. That's why I made the comment about the list you posted the other day. It did things like quote Ritter in '98 but ignore what he said in '02. But we all know now that the WMD excuse wasn't the reason for the war as we know it, which is why they attacked on what they thought we knew, which is what they wanted to know, instead of on what we knew we knew, ya know? I can't answer those questions because we still don't know what Israel was doing in Syria. We don't know if it was a nuke site, a suspected shipment of Russian Pantsyr missilies or a test of Syrian defense capability for a potential attack on Iran. Or something else. But what I do know is that there are people who want to figure out a way to attack Iran before next year. And I'm certainly going to scrutinize any hearsay information that I get from the same batch of misinformants that got us into the Iraq war. If she has then it's probably because people like Obama have more credibility on the war issue. Also, health care issues have been brought to the forefront these days and that works for her. So basically, she's being a politician who is running for office and will say what she thinks needs to be said.

Yep. 'Cause if you win, the treasure(y) is all yours.

Ah, so she wasn't told the truth about the middle east before? I see, glad you're coming around

Probably best not to affiliate him with Bush in any way. He's already got a serious uphill battle on his hands. I loved the way he dealt with Rudy-nineeleven-Guiliani-nineeleven in the earlier debate. Too bad that the press do a better job of showing that stuff. But I guess he doesn't raise enough money for that to happen. The only two people that I've heard so far that are making any real sense are Paul and Gravel. Now that's a balanced ticket!