DanG

I was wondering why my dog was coming on to me yesterday. All this gay rights talk has got the canines thinking. - Dan G

Interesting. Just more evidence that Jesus was a liberal. We've already established he was gay. Now he's demanding gay equality. What a flamer! I'm still working on the fact that he rode an ass into Jerusalem. First recorded Gay Pride Parade? - Dan G

Um, no it's not. Just because an organization has been recognized as tax exempt doesn't mean that money donated to it will be used for charitable purposes. IMHO parishioners giving money to a church so that it can build a new building for said same parishioners is not charity. It is very hard to separate out religious giving by true charity vs. self-serving tax shelters. Or, in the spirit of SC: Counting donations by religious freaks to the Cadillac fleet of their local megachurch as conservative charity is like counting my donations to the dropzone beer fund as liberal charity. - Dan G

Well, if we're going to stereotype, Jesus was clearly a liberal: 1. He was subjected to enhanced interrogation, and has now been whining about it for 2,000 years (or at least his earthly reps have). Good conservatives recognize that as a diety, Jesus was not subject to the Geneva Conventions, so anything the Romans did to him was fair game. 2. "Turn the other cheek"? What a wuss. Clearly a bleeding heart. A good conservative would sport an arsenal of guns, lashes, scimitars, whatever, and have a bumper sticker to the effect of, "If a man should strike you on your cheek, blow his ass away." or perhaps, "Kill 'em all and let me sort 'em out." 3. He had great abs, hung out with 12 other dudes and one fag hag, drank wine (not beer!), and ate fish (probably free range organic). Jesus was just a little gayer than Liberace. - Dan G

Damn straight. I also get the right to disagree. That's what makes this country great. I'm totally serious. - Dan G

Liberal != socialist. Conservative != capitalist. This "statictic" has been discussed before and found lacking. If you take out charity that conservatives donate to their church (which sometimes is true charity and sometimes goes to a shiny new church building) giving patterns seem fairly flat. Oh, and one more time for clarity: Liberal != socialist. Conservative != capitalist. - Dan G

For me all the whining about the "liberal media" was really annoying. The guy is a hero, no doubt, but using the fear of excoriation by the media as the source of all the Team's problems was a cop-out. I expect professional soldiers to realize that responsibility for civilian casualties is part of their profession, not just a result of "liberal media hype". The movie will be much better if they leave all that crap out. - Dan G

Did you? Care to share? How about calling off all the stupid treasure hunts and just telling us what you think? - Dan G

Do any of your posts have a concrete, understandable point? I read them for the entertainment value, but I really wonder what you think you're accomplishing. - Dan G

Stop reposting. - Dan G

I did two tours in Afghanistan. I saw parts of my own body "strewn about". My opinion hasn't changed. Torture is reprehensible, illegal, and ineffective to boot. Your opinion that people only oppose torture because they are ignorant is dead wrong. - Dan G

And when the guy who claims he's a USPA member and isn't lands on top of a spectator's car, you'll eat the damages. (Don't think you'll make him pay it. He won't.) Don't laugh, it happened to us. We're pretty careful about checking USPA credentials now. - Dan G

Are you sure the government "took over" the charity? It sounds to me more like the government and charity partnered together to try to make the charity's work more effective. On its face I see nothing wrong with that, but the actual implementation might not always be proper. - Dan G

I didn't say that someone who doesn't support gay marriage is a homophobe. I implied that someone who puts homosexuality into the same category as beasiality and child sexual predation is a homophobe. I am not a conservaphobe. - Dan G

This program seems fine to me. It encourages the right things at a net cost that seems quite low. If you'd like to give me another program to analyze I'll give it a shot. Your question "How far is too far?" is unanswerable. I already said I don't know and neither does anyone else. Your question is like asking "Is war justified?" It's pretty vague and any answer I give would be incomplete. The question, "Is this particular war justified?" is much easier to answer. If that is avoiding the question, then so be it. I can't answer an impossible question. My question is a simple yes or no and you refuse to answer it. Who's evading? - Dan G

I thought the natural next step was beastiality and rape of innocent children? I need to refresh myself on the homophobic talking point standards. - Dan G

"More than this" is a little hard to define. In some cases, yes. In others, no. Believe it or not, I'm not running for public office so I don't have a ready to paste and clip welfare program on my desktop. Where's your answer? I asked you where you would draw the line. I haven't seen your plan, either. I'll ask again, "Is any state expenditure to help the poor too much?" - Dan G

According to your article, the total statewide funding for this program is $400k. That's not much in the context of a state budget. I'm not saying that the implementation of this program is great, but I think the intent is good. The intent is to reduce the barriers and get people to work. It primarily uses resources donated by a faith-based charity (your kind is supposed to love those). It is not the people's "job" to provide anything. The state, through its elected representatives, has decided that spending state resources to reduce dependance on welfare is a good thing. I agree. You clearly would prefer that welfare be cut entirely and people with children in hard hit economic areas starve to death. I don't think that is in the broader interest of society, so there we will have to disagree. I don't know. What do you think is enough, or is any state expenditure to help ther poor too much? - Dan G

Did you not see the part about being required to show that you are working to maintain the benefits, or are you being intentionally obtuse? If your only complaint is that they get to keep the car if they lose their job, then maybe you have a legitimate point, but that point is tempered by the fact that the cars are donated by private entities NOT the government. - Dan G

You and I seem to see eye to eye on this issue. Does that mean we have to get gay-married? My wife will not be happy. - Dan G

The simple answer to all of this is to get government out of the marriage business and let consenting adults do whatever the hell they want. - Dan G

Ahh. You think think this whole thing is just a plot by certain entities to make money. Have you considered the possibility that anthopegenic climate change is real and the fight against green energy is just a plot by other people to make money? - Dan G

Thanks. And who stands to make more money by ignoring this issue: Al Gore and green energy start-ups, or Exxon-Mobil? - Dan G

I believe that the body growing in the woman's uterus is her responsibility until it reaches viability. If she chooses not to carry it until that point, it is her choice and the government should not be involved in that decision. I do not believe a fetus is a person until well into the second trimester. On the other hand, I think that the adoption system in this country needs to be streamlined so that carrying an unwanted baby to term is a more attractive option (I'm not talking here about rape or incest, but general unplanned pregnancies). How about this: your brother (a unique human being) has a kidney disease that will kill him in months. You are the only person on the planet that can donate a kidney and save his life. Should you be given the choice whether or not to donate, or should the government make that choice for you? The risk to you is no different than the risk of carrying a child to term. Of course, once you give the kidney to your brother he will be unable to work for sixteen years and you will have to feed, clothe and house him. - Dan G

I don't have the patience of Job like Bill and jcd obviously do. Regardless of all the evidence that has been provided here, no one from the denier side has changed their position one iota, so it's really quite useless. Money and politics are driving this debate, not science. - Dan G