NCclimber

You offer up a few inflammatory jabs, while proposing civil discourse. Seems a bit hypocritical. Perhaps you might consider practicing what you preach.

The Bush administration has quite thoroughly done away with such legalistic archaisms. An allegation is all that's necessary to destroy lives in the post 9-11 era. Are you saying we don't all get to live by these new modern standards? What are you talking about? Seems like Bush and Co. have been getting called on their actions, as well as mere claims, over the last few years. Isn't it the case that an individual can be imprisoned indefinitely if G.W. Bush declares him to be an enemy combatant, without any proof being required? Are you talking about the rare cases of innocent Americans being detained or the general claim of "The Bush administration has quite thoroughly done away with such legalistic archaisms"? Rare or commonplace is not relevant. Once is enough to prove the point. What exactly is the point? That the exception proves that the norm has been quite thoroughly done away with? Getting back to the initial point in this bit of thread drift - Do you think the burden of proof should lie with the person making the claim?

For posterity.

I agreed with everything you said until this. I think they can do better Here's a contender: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

The Bush administration has quite thoroughly done away with such legalistic archaisms. An allegation is all that's necessary to destroy lives in the post 9-11 era. Are you saying we don't all get to live by these new modern standards? What are you talking about? Seems like Bush and Co. have been getting called on their actions, as well as mere claims, over the last few years. Isn't it the case that an individual can be imprisoned indefinitely if G.W. Bush declares him to be an enemy combatant, without any proof being required? Are you talking about the rare cases of innocent Americans being detained or the general claim of "The Bush administration has quite thoroughly done away with such legalistic archaisms"?

Not the first time this has caused a fuss http://www.adversity.net/special/nappy_hair.htm

What do you think about people who bleat about rationality but spend their day thinking about their invisible superhero friends? Do you still beat your wife?

Maybe.

Here's a thread from back when this occurred. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2534171;search_string=ucla;#2534171 Ain't recycling a kick?

I'm not about to touch on the premise of that film, but can anyone tell me how life began on this planet? What's the consensus in the scientific community?

Does it mention the Bohemian Grove gatherings?

Disingenuous fucknuts? Do these qualify? http://www.urology.coloplast.com/testicular-implants/testicular_implant_clinical_study.htm

"Gee I was always of the opinion that turn about is fair play"

I believe the scientists in the IPCC. The non-scientists that write the drivel such as the political statement for policy makers are almost as bad as Al Gore. It's interesting that a number of scientists have quit the IPCC after seeing how their findings were being presented. This development was quite telling:

Ooooh, excellent invitation. I'd LOVE to go around the merry-go-round of the last 5000 speaker's corner threads again. Let me go catalog all those topics and get RIGHT back to you. Oh look . Another backpedal. How ironic that your Bush's alleged shallow thinking to justify Amazon's demonstrations of shallow thinking. Fixed it. Two peas in a pod - those two. Good stuff.

Doesn't seem to have stopped them -- or even slowed them down, really. It's far far too late for that. Nice rhetoric. I'll ask again - What (specifically) are you talking about?

The Bush administration has quite thoroughly done away with such legalistic archaisms. An allegation is all that's necessary to destroy lives in the post 9-11 era. Are you saying we don't all get to live by these new modern standards? What are you talking about? Seems like Bush and Co. have been getting called on their actions, as well as mere claims, over the last few years.

Yup... in the Neo-Con newspeak....only those that spout the proper euphimisms of the fascist right are allowed to be heard. Love the labels. they seem to work better than actual backing up your claims or admitting that they're nothing more than delusional fantasies.

I loved the conclussion: Hilter took complete control of Germany in a matter of months, yet people keep comparing Bush to Hitler. I don't get it. What did Germany look like after Hilter had been in power for six years? What are the similarities to present-day America?

Or maybe you could ease off on the consistent use of inflammatory extremist labels. Just a thought.

Nice back pedal.

Generally speaking, the burden of proof lies with the person making the allegation.... especially when it's as absurd as the one in question. "No, seriously. They want to implement martial law and completely scrap the Constitution! It's true I tell you"

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.

I will lay you odds, that there are those in the Administration who are hoping for a really devastating attack from the evil doers so they can declare martial law and get away with these pesky elections where the lower classes can make their feelings known.. What odds? How much are you willing to wager?