Andy9o8

Stupidest. Thread. Ever.

Yes!! Totally, and predictably, in-context with the rest of the post. Are you actually a closet intellectual manipulating a sock puppet to make conservatives look like idiots, and guarantee that Biden will be the next President? That's the only rational explanation I can think of.

Oooh, he rubs it in, too. I know a certain someone who's gotta find that galling.

Yep, upgraded Firefox browser, and that did the trick, thanks. You can close the ticket.

Meanwhile not one shred of evidence has been produced connecting the affair to the White House or the Secretary of State. The GOP base is going orgasmic, while, according to Gallup, BHO's approval rating hasn't decreased at all. Does anyone beside me see the mind numbing incredulous stupidity of this statement? Nope; and anyone who pretends to is mind-numbingly, incredulously stupid.

Oooh. So what's the "something" you're going to "do"? I'm getting all goosepimply just thinking about it. Go get 'em tiger.

You & I are about the same age. I agree that the former is more common; but I've seen the opposite, too. One example of the latter I've seen have been people who were generally upbeat in their youths & as young adults, but who had a rough course of adult life, e.g., some or all of: deaths of loved ones, lousy marriages/relationships & divorces, years & years & years of endless, bloody fights w/the ex over child custody & support issues, failed careers & long-term financial problems, kids on drugs or in jail, etc. Some of these formerly upbeat people have been so emotionally beaten down by decades of battering in adult life that by the time they're well into middle age they've become angry, embittered people nobody wants to be around. A less frequent example I've seen are some people who were generally upbeat and easy to get along with most of their life, but in middle age have finally become The Boss at work; but the job of being The Boss is too much for them, and they react by transforming into The Asshole Boss whose demeanor is simply miserable toward everybody, about everything.

Interesting take from a Canadian; and I'll read it with an open mind. But this isn't about me, and I'm not going to play "divert & joust". For the sake of fullness, I'd be interested in reading Aphid's and some of the other regular Canadian posters' take on the same subject as you have just addressed.

I have great respect for him, his expertise and his innovation, and I use his products; but that's not the same as someone being a perfectly neutral, disinterested source of informed opinion on that particular subject.

OK, after doing some reading-up on Rob Ford, here are a couple of my thoughts: 1. He either smoked crack (or smoked from a crack-type pipe believing it was illicit drugs), or he didn't. Period. Hopefully, reliable evidence of the actual truth will eventually come out. 2. He's being targeted so much because he regularly violates a basic (and non-partisan) rule of politics, which is a blood-sport under even the best of circumstances: Don't be a fucking asshole. Sure, everybody in politics gets targeted, but fucking assholes get targeted twice as much. Sorry, Mrs. Ford, your Robbie's an asshole. (My examples come from the US - look at how Reagan and Clinton each weathered their respective scandals, but Nixon did not. Why? Well, in part, Reagan and Clinton were affable and personally likeable, while Nixon (even though very bright and capable) was a mean-spirited asshole who personally was generally disliked even by members of his own party.) 3. A reminder that, in a democracy, the people get the government they deserve, for they're the ones who vote the rascals in. A mayor is The Public Face of his/her city. Hey, citizens of Toronto, nice job; and for those of you who voted for a first-class douche to be The Public Face of (what I happen to think is) a really nice city, you have nobody to blame by the guy in the mirror.

(In the US), it's at least possible, depending on whether the particular state has the Felony Murder Rule, and how the prosecutors and courts in that state choose to employ that rule from one case to another. But also note that "[m]ost states recognize the merger doctrine, which holds that a criminal assault cannot serve as the predicate felony for the felony murder rule". (See, article subheading "United States".

Sure it's there. There's also a very similar chip of racism (some malicious, some just ignorant) that a certain predictable cadre of white Americans who post in SC rather frequently display, and usually not very subtly. So, sometimes I choose to call them on it - sometime as being chip-holders, sometimes as being not just silly morons, but silly morons who express themselves like 12 year olds in middle school. Sometimes both. How creative I am about it (or not) depends on how much I choose to amuse myself at any given time. But harbor no doubt: I stand by my posts.

A tad long in the tooth for an Uncle Tom inference if in fact, that's what she meant. Sigh. http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/001/582/picard-facepalm.jpg?1240934151 Well, then the next time you start a thread, maybe you should edumacate yourself on the subject matter first.

Was it your first ................ hop n' pop?

Reading your shit makes me ROFL til it hurts.

Come on, Andy. I'm jut looking for a little more consistency and a little less hypocritical BS. Can you seriously say that if the races were reversed, that a bunch of white trash in Louisiana decided to beat some middle class nonwhites into unconsciousness and hospitalization for "being in the wrong neighborhood", you wouldn't expect to see hate crimes charged? Wouldn't you want those charges filed? Don't you want them filed here? Of course. Which misses the point of my post #3. Tell you what, look at ...oh, post #13, for just one example. I mean, seriously? How old are these guys?

I think you're misrepresenting the shock and awe doctrine as it doesn't include "disregard for collateral damage" as one of its elements. Here's one source reporting the number of Iraqi civilians killed by Coalition (mainly US & UK) forces in the first 5 years since the 2003 invasion: http://news.antiwar.com/2011/02/15/us-coalition-directly-killed-over-11000-civilians-in-iraq-in-five-years/ As I remember it gets a bit difficult to tell the combatants from the civilians over there. How very convenient. So with a single swipe of the hand, you just dismiss it. Much like the other guy's swipe of the hand ignoring the original source, which is a research study conducted by King's College in the UK. Fortunately, I'm old enough to recognize the old, habitual Vietnam-era talking points, which have been recycled by the next generation for use re: Iraq & Afghanistan. (Things like "America, love it or leave it" to stifle dissent.) In your case, the recycled slogan would be "You can't tell them apart; they're all Vietcong." There were over 116,000 Iraqi civilian deaths in a 10-year span since the US/UK "coalition" invaded in 2003. (Google it; it's there.) Why don't you use your keen research & analysis skills to break them down for us.

I think you're misrepresenting the shock and awe doctrine as it doesn't include "disregard for collateral damage" as one of its elements. Here's one source reporting the number of Iraqi civilians killed by Coalition (mainly US & UK) forces in the first 5 years since the 2003 invasion: http://news.antiwar.com/2011/02/15/us-coalition-directly-killed-over-11000-civilians-in-iraq-in-five-years/

That was both brilliant and mature. You just won the thread.

Medically? I suppose I, as a non-doc, would guess it was possibly when the technique was refined to the point where more mom's & babies' lives were saved (and more babies were being born w/o brain damage) by doing it than not doing it. So far, so good - a lot of moms & babies have thus survived childbirth who would have been lost prior to the 20th Century. Also, the US probably added to that when ob/gyns started doing it a whole lot more as a way of reducing potential med malpractice liability. To the extent the result has been unnecessary c-sections, that's unfortunate.

Getting help from slick liberal lawyers keeps them on the street. It's a win-win!

Ruh roh! Negros getting away with shit. Glad you're on the case!

Are you as much of a tough guy in real life as your Keyboard Kommando alter-ego is here on DZ.com? I think the "Internet Tough Guy" meme has been around for longer, but I find the "Internet Smart Guy" meme more annoying to be honest. I knew you'd say that before even you did.

Well, then I vote we do it to the Asians, just to keep them from getting cocky. The ANZacs will just have to suck it up.

Especially the new ones, like bigotism, for example. It was just invented today, but I'm sure it's ugly.