Lucky...

Goota scare the idiots to fill the tything plate.

This illustrates why I think hardcore creationists are boobs. Look at the language they use: - Obvious fact - Reitterates "fairy tale" 3 times within 10 seconds - The dead rat wearer speaks of any other planet - - They use this language due to the weak nature of their argument. Furthermore, the first gentleman needs to explain that rodent living on his head. Seriously, science attracts me by way of its appraoch, it creates a hypothesis and tests it, repeats it and the state a theory but doesn't call it absolute fact. So the entire massive volumes of science are out the door due to peanut butter and the lack of life there. Most of these creationists can't fathom 1 million years, let alone 4+ billion years. Look at what we have done in 70 or so years, went from horse and buggy to going into space and allegedly land on the moon. In that timeframe created aircraft to fly at 3 times+ the speed of sound, a very unnatural phenomenon. All the medical advancements including playing with DNA and all kinds of things and creationists don't think that in even their version of 10k years that life couldn't be created by nature rather than intervention of a guy who looks like he a 60's drug addict. Actually Jesus was ahead of his time, considering the long hair thing wasn't really in during his time, he was centuries ahead of his time. "Evolution doesn't happen" What do you call the moths in Europe in the 1800's during their industrial evolution that went from white to brown in a short time? That's adaptation and natural selection, a part of evolution. Evolution is a part of life on earth, I'm not idiotic enough as the asswipes on the vid to say it doesn't happen, but evolution hasn't been actively connected to the origin of human life today. Which doesn;t mean it is or is not true. Food industry counts on it: The food industry puts preservatives in food to kill or stop/slow the growth of living things in food. Milk has all kinds of bacteria in it, they aren't harmful. Hell, we have all kinds of bacteria in us, it's called NORMAL FLORA. We can't live well w/o them. So these living thngs are in our food. Oops, it appears that some people who open jars of peanut butter do find living things: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=79567 This explain the salmonela mystery: http://www.theolympian.com/131/story/77803.html There are living things in most of our food, they just find ways to suppress its growth. So just becuase something doesn't walk out doesn't mean there aren't living things in there. Another of teh many falacies is that PB can come from the manufacturer to the table in days or weeks, evolution isn't required to work that fast and usually doesn't. To place a timeline demand on evolution is as inane as religion itself, esp the church. This explains how food gets moldy from without, rather than from within: http://www.wisegeek.com/why-does-bread-get-moldy.htm So either there are living things everywhere, some in food, some outside of food that finds its way in and grows. We cool it to stop the growth, then heat it to kill them. Some bacteria are aerobic, some obligate anaerobic (02 kills it), so with the diversity of microorgs, we do have things living in our food.

It's a quote from a great series of books... are you going to start asking everyone with "BSBD" in their sigline if they're all the same person, too? W/o looking it up I figured it was litterary or from some old war monger. It was levity, jebus. Not irony that you pick the post that was just for fun rather than a substantive one. As long as you follow the chant of Fascist Ronnie and stand up for R brothers.

Silly symbolism. Come on guys, BFD, some Mexican-Americans or Mexican immigrants, who knows / who cares are making a meaningless point. This is still the country of American born or naturalized, so they can symbolize all they want and means nothing. Why is it the consrvative-types get their panties all bunched when some ass-fucks try to and sucessfully piss you off? They win, you're pissed. If you realized that most of these people will be returning to menial jobs it would make you feel better. I mean, isn't that really winning, you going to better jobs, better houses, better cars, and overall better lives?

According to Bush, they've misunderestimated the places. Hell, we could hop him up on Oxy and sit him next to Limbaugh, they wouldn't knwo who the real scumbag is and might kill Limbaugh by mistake.

Perhaps a tuna melt and I would give you more credibility.

It did, the 2000 election was it..... now we're just enjoying the fruits of that.

Yes Bill, I'm very disappointed at you .............. Great story, just shows how out there some folks are.

just want to point out that Kennedy's post noted "get away with murder" how many cops do you know fit that? I think we have a balancing act for cops - we want them to use judegment and discretion to 'keep the piece'. But we want them to also enforce equally. Tough job. And clear to see vs the abuse we are REALLY threading on here about. It helps when the cops actually live in the neighborhood they are responsible for and get to know the citizens on a personal basis. Which sounds like your half dozen. This is a great point. This is why the courts lt cops get away with murder; they want to keep them ready to act w/o thinking about criminal consequence.

Hey, are you and Willard the same person? Guard you honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.

Because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not true. UH huh. You represent the city, county, state, so it is political. If I break into your house, I have committed at least tresspassing. If a cop does it, it's a constitutional violation. If I do something stupid, t embarrasses me, if a cop does it, it embarrasses the jurisdiction fro which he works and they probably get sued. No, but your bosses are andguess who you have to please? You make policy and law in that you decide who gets cited, who gets arrested. This is called officer discretion and it is usually skewed. This discretion is so far reaching that it exacts policy and statute, they just hide it behind this notorious discretion. HUH? Do I need to post all the accounts of cops getting slapped on the hand for killing people, if not outright exonerated? You were talking about public servants breaking laws, I just included another public servant who also gets the same relief. Sorry I hit a nerve. I just tank my lucky stars I have your experiences (all 20something yeas) to guide me.

Maybe you should do the math. Who has had more people of African decent or other minorities in high offices in his cabinet? Bush or Clinton? Don't give me the token black BS. Yea, hiring a few racial minorities in 2004 is the same thing as signing legislation, very controvercial leg at the time that extends civil rights to minorities. I'm not saying Bush had more minorities in his cabinet than Clinton, but she was talking LBJ anyway. Does Bush have more minorities than LBJ did? Of course, the 60's were far different than now, but your measuring stick that Bush had more minorities than Clinton is ridiculous. Shall we take the recent U of M law school case where the more conservatve, both Repub-appointed justices dissented? Point she was making was about how LBJ chased away the Yellow Dog Dems when he signed civil rights legislation, which led to this onslaught of neo-con fascist garbage that we have had ever since, minus Clinton. Since LBJ's legislation, the only Dems elected were from the deep south, Carter and Clinton. This is why Obama won't be elected.

And the first statement in the first post reads: This is not about Iraq specifically. If you wanna run from issues, run, be free. I'm sorry, perhps ypou don't understand the difference between debt, deficit and trade deficit. I wrote this: I personally don’t like it, but one of our biggest traders and holder of 1T of US debt is the most Communistic nation in the world. I wasn't talking trade deficit, I was talking about the holder of debt. This article states why China holds our debt, not because we are such a good investment, but so they can keep our dollar artificially high, the Yen low, henc ethr goods are a better gargain. When they are ready to pull the plug and go on their own, or when we won;t be their political puppet, they can sell back their debt and kill the dollar. http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/12/post_1.html ________________________________________________________________________ Our view on national fiscal security: Look who owns U.S. debt now Other nations hold a record 52% of it, leaving U.S. economy vulnerable. For most of U.S. history, the national debt was something that America owed itself. What was borrowed by the government was lent by its people. The liabilities of one were the assets of the other. But that has changed as the federal government has increasingly looked abroad to finance its prodigious borrowing. Foreigners now hold a record 52% of the government's $4 trillion in outside debt, up from a quarter in 1995. Later this month, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke will go to China to ask the Chinese whether they could see their way clear to buy fewer IOUs and more iPods, Boeing jets and such. There is nothing inherently wrong with foreigners owning American debt. In fact, these and other investments pouring into the USA help keep interest rates relatively low and the dollar relatively strong. To some degree, these investments reflect confidence in the American economy. But the very things that make this infusion of cash attractive also spell trouble. The growing reliance on foreigners, in many cases foreign central banks, reflects a nation digging itself further into debt and denial. Perhaps the best comparison is the many credit card offers that come in the mail each month. In the short run, by making borrowing so easy, they can prop up living standards. In the long run, the bills come due. The foreign money is no different: It postpones the day of reckoning, allowing U.S. policymakers to act like bankrupt shopaholics, running up debt to pay for tax cuts and new programs while leaving it to another generation to repay. It props up the nation's other deficit — its chronic trade deficit. The purchase of treasury bills is part of a broader trend of foreigners recycling their dollars back to the United States to invest in everything from government debt to the home mortgages, instead of using them to buy more American goods and services. It makes the U.S. economy hostage to the whims of foreign investors, including governments. Eventually, they could decide they have better places to invest than in U.S. debt securities. This might be a gradual decision. Or it might not be. If the latter, it would cause a surge in interest rates (because the Treasury would have to offer more enticing terms to attract buyers) and trigger a recession. Many developing nations buy treasury bills not because they are deemed to be the best investment, but to support their own monetary polices. The Chinese, for instance, do so as part of a strategy to keep their currency artificially low against the dollar. This holds down the cost of Chinese goods, helping the Chinese economy but making U.S. goods less competitive. The problem needs to be attacked from a number of fronts. The government needs to borrow less. And foreign holders of all of these IOUs need to realize that a gradual diversification of their portfolios would be in everyone's interest. If that happened, maybe our products, rather than our debts, would be our leading exports. Wouldn't that be nice? _____________________________________________________________________ SO, WHO IS IT THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR DEBT?

How about all teh cops who get away with killing people in really unjustifued circumstances? A cop is in a political job. Happens accross teh board, usually these things getswept under tho.

ME: This is a great, 'then-vs-now' arg, but the now is that the R's are war crazy, likely to justify their throwing tons of cash at military contractors so those pesky poor people won't get medical care. YOU: I wasn't saying that President Kennedy was "pro-war" per se. I was saying that the fundamental principles of the foreign policy of the President and the party at that time were not the "touchy-feely" that they're criticized of today. And I’m not disagreeing with you, I’m saying that for you to use 40-50 year old mentalities as being contemporary shows desperation to defend the atrocities of YOUR party under current times. The R’s of that day were conservative in traditional terms, the R’s of today (neo-cons) are neither traditional R’s or D’s, they’re just out there is some neo-fascist / neo-corporatist quest to shift off all gov assets to corps. Can you disprove that assertion? Would you like more support? _______________________________________________ ME: I agree with that for the most part, but to define, "disgraced" I would add that as he fucked up VN, he also signed civil rights legislation for blacks, which chased away the Yellow Dog Dems, who were largely racist. That was the turn of the Dem Party. YOU: I was talking about foreign policy and prosecution of the war, not domestic policy. The disgrace I speak of is in President Johnson's incapability to run for re-election. Why was he incapable? You assume he was too ashamed to run for reelection? OK. When you use the term, “disgraced” you open the door for all things. Furthermore, when we have a draft to fight a foreign so-called war, the issue becomes quite domestic. ______________________________________________ ME: IOW's, lie. The Nixon reelection showed how really stupid the American voter was and the perhaps the Bush reelection could share that. Agnew stepped down for tax evasion and Watergate invest had just started when Nixon was reelected. YOU: My point was that President Nixon made a point about ensuring that politicians didn't micromanage the war the way President Johnson did. Well you wrote: President Nixon won his re-election on the platform of ending the Vietnam War. In order to do it though, he took the leash off the Air Force and bombed Hanoi into utter submission. So claiming to end the war meant to inflict the largest # of casualties of the VN war….OK. Perhaps the voters understood that to mean a pullout. Perhaps the voters got what they deserved since they reelected such a blatant crook. I think the reason Nixon was reelected was the stinging from LBJ’s civil rights legislation still burning the racist south. ________________________________________________ ME: Well what was Reagan's foreign policy? OK, it was a cornerstone, but what was it? Saying it was a cornerstone fails to define it. YOU: It could be summed up as "peace through strength". It was the opposite of "detente". It was a far more proactive involvement in combating communism throughout the world. That’s funny, I entered the Air Force in April 80 and in basic the slogans on the wall read, “Peace is our Profession,” so we followed it up with, “But war is our hobby.” So I think this mentality was already there before Reagan. There is no president who is a bigger credit whore than Reagan, yet people never want to talk about the debt being FUCKING TRIPPLED under our diaper-wearing president. Be sure to avoid that issue as always. As for combating Communism, what’s wrong with Communism? I personally don’t like it, but one of our biggest traders and holder of 1T of US debt is the most Communistic nation in the world. This fear of Communism is as pathetic as the war on drugs and all the other paranoia-based wars from that era. How about the war on labor? Looks like the party of maggots won that one, huh? They just didn’t call it as such as the “Clems” of the world are need for the R’s to continue their war on everything. _________________________________________________ ME: ...but that's only if you look at facts and data and forget he looked like grandpa Ronnie. YOU: You're overlooking quite a bit also, and you're bridging too many other issues. I'm speaking directly to the mindset of how the political parties have changed their stances in deciding when to go to war. These decisions stem from foreign policy. I'm not debating domestic achievements here. Let’s post all that statement: He was truly one of the worst presidents,.. Talk about microcosms. You made global statements, but when it comes to addressing the replies to them you run. So let’s talk Fascist Ronnie and foreign policy. Trade arms for hostages, lie to the public you knew about it, then be well insulated so you can defer all to stupid Ollie. Yea, Reagan foreign policy in only rivaled by Reaganomics. OOPS, there I go again, bringing in other aspects of your imperialist, Fascist president. Just ignore them as you will. ______________________________________________ ME: Cornering what on which social issues and how? Highly ambiguous. YOU: That's because that's not what the topic of this thread is about. I'm trying not to pursue any tangents, as the original question was quite interesting. This thread is about conservatives being able to talk about issues without running from them or tap dancing. Here, I’ll remind you of the first assertion: This is not about Iraq specifically. Now run like the wind. Or bring in the social issue to which YOU referred. _______________________________________________ ME: Come again? Anti-Bush is what 70%+ of what the country is about. Perhaps you missed the midterm election results. Yes, the focus is on the 08 election, do you have another focus they should be looking into? You act as if the war focus is just political...... maybe they actually want to end the war. Remember, the Dems are the party that ceased the rise in the debt and were going to turn the corner and lower it? Remember? Maybe stopping the spending of 2 B+ per week in Iraq is really neat place to start, as well as the cessation of killing 1000's of our kids. Maybe the Dems have an ulterior motive: to quit killing our kids and to stop the climb of the debt...... those Dems are always scheming. YOU: You have just epitomized what I was just talking about. You have just again one-linered your way out of addressing another issue. Address these issues or keep-a-runnin.

YEah that whole Civil Rights thing was soooo disturbing to the Democrats in the south.... that is when the whole Dixiecrat wing of the party moved to the Republican party... they were not going to be in any party with them N&(()*(*(&S Exactly what I said, the Yellow Dogs of the south hated blacks more that they hated big city repubs. LBJ was a trainwreck otherwise tho.

This is a great, 'then-vs-now' arg, but the now is tha the R's are war crazy, likely to justify their throwing tons of cash at military cintractors so those pesky poor people won't get medical care. I agree with that for the most part, but to define, "disgraced" I would add that as he fucked up VN, he also signed civil roghts legislation for blacks, which chased away the Yellow Dog Dems, who were largely racist. That was teh turn of the Dem Party. IOW's, lie. The Nixon reelection showed how really stupid the American voter was and the perhaps the Bush reelection could share that. Agnew stepped down for tax evasion and Watergate invest had just started when Nixon was reelected. Agree. Well what was Reagan's foreign policy? OK, it was a cornerstone, but what was it? Saying ti was a cornerstone fails to define it. See, this is what rubs me about the Reagan praise, people seem to think he some fucking hero for calling teh wall to be taken down, yet it fell 4 1/2 months into GHW's term. The fascist pig really just set teh cornerstone for extreme debt, and his successors have followed that. Reagan set the stage for teh busting of unions, stripping of benefits and rights from workers, overspending to pretend that teh economy is great, and furthering the spread of the classes. He was truly one of the worst presidents, but that's only if you look at facts and data and forget he looked like grandpa Ronnie. I think they are. Cornering what on which social issues and how? Highly ambiguous. Come again? Anti-Bush is what 70%+ of what the country is about. Perhaps you missed the midterm election results. Yes, the focus is on the 08 election, do you have another focus they should be looking into? You act as if the war focus is just political...... maybe they actually want to end the war. Remember, the Dems are the party that ceased the rise in the debt and were going to turn the corner and lower it? Remember? Maybe stopping the spending of 2 B+ per week in Iraq is really neet place to start, as well as the ceasation of killing 1000's of our kids. Maybe the Dems have an alterior motive: to quit killing our kids and to stop the climb of the debt...... those Dems are always scheeming.

The term, "neo-con" carries the definition of a new breed of conservative. The Dems were in office when all wars of the 20th century were started, with the exception of the Gulf War, but WWI and WWII were quite justified, as compared to Korea and VN. But as Korea was ending, Eisenhower said for Americans be aware of teh Military Industrial Complex and this defines the neo-con. So now that neo-cons have elected to throw our debt to the ceiling to benefit corporations, perhaps these wars are some kind of justification to use these toys. Point is, the new Dems don't get us into wars, the neo-cons do. Republicans used to be fiscally conservative, now they're the spenders. The Republicans used to be the moral monitors, now they're the sexual deviants as they would call them. Haggert calling for the heads of gays, Lott calling for Clinton's head, both in the acts of their crys while they were crying. We need to wind our clock and keep current with the times and the new Republican Party is bankrupt from all/most sides. Been under attack in venues where we are being imperialists, quite different than being attacked here on US soil. Don't think we are imperialists, go look up the definition. Helping Israel in the Palastinian war had zero to do with the USSR. See, you justify the acts with flawed reasoning. Furthermore, the USSR has never attacked us. And the people have spoken last Nov.... should exacerbate.

And that's teh neo-con approach, punish the whole to assure that you punish the evil. If a few innocents/needy get tied in with that, so the fuck what. It reminds me of Salem and the witchhunts. Capital punishment, welfare reductions, etc..... This, Ronald Reganesque paranoia that they are all out to get us, so we better give no one a thing, except for corporations, is so tired, yet the neo-cons of today still sing that tune. Because restless leg syndrome is a joke, so is carpel tunnel syndrome. I see, fuck em all, let Darwin rule take over. For a party pretending to be moralistic, the right sure is incompassionate; money over health. BTW, the erg bill was more to do with fasttracking medical attention for people, prevention was secondary. But as we all know, a small percentage of people would abuse the system so we must eliminate it from everyone.

I wish it was. Instead it was just another DEMOCRATIC move, right? Hmmm, why no answer the the rag you cited? ME: Irony is that even as righty as they are, they were smart enough not to endorse Bush his 2nd time around. Editorially, the News is conservative. It has never endorsed a Democrat for president, and has only failed to endorse a Republican presidential candidate three times--twice during the Franklin D. Roosevelt era and once again during in 2004, when it refused to endorse George W. Bush for reelection.

Has an ergonomic keyboard helped you type 'the' instead of 'teh'? Has illustrating simple typos helped misdirect your args? Ya see, when people have n arg, they initiate a grammar arg. If the opposite side of my args actually addressed my points I would painstakingly proofread them all for syntax and grammar. As it stands, the Repuklican Party is so easy to pick apart that my assertions don't honestly addressed. BTW, A) I don't use an erg keyboard, and B) the primary focus of the Erg Bill that your hero slashed was more about getting aid for injuries, altho it did also have provisions for preventative measures. What's more sad than the elite scum slashing the Erg Bill is the apathy deminstrated by working people. If they tried this in Europe the workers would strike.

I like their ideology on governmental intrusions, but the mechanical means in which things are paid for is out of a sci-fi thriller. Especially with healthcare, they act as if charitable contributions will cover it. Hell, even with billions of US gov help the system is still in trouble and doesn't cover n1/6 of the population, scantly covers the rest other than teh rich.

If this were a R initiating this I doubt you would care to post it. You'll deny, but I think we know teh tuth. Next thing you know they'll propose furnishing these kids medical coverage..... jeeez. Let's buy a corporation some land or machinery instead. As for your rag that you referenced, it is more rightwing than even FOX: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_News Irony is that even as righty as they are, they were smart enough not to endorse Bush his 2nd time around. Editorially, the News is conservative. It has never endorsed a Democrat for president, and has only failed to endorse a Republican presidential candidate three times--twice during the Franklin D. Roosevelt era and once again during in 2004, when it refused to endorse George W. Bush for reelection.

Uh, you imply the hell out of it w/o saying/writing it. That statement illustrates that. I just haven't read you slam great R ideas like Bush's plan to divorce employer-provided healthcare benefits from workers. Knowing your slant on politics, it is hard to believe that the dem part was incidental.

I am just wondering how iPods went to Lott want Clintons head? I am looking for that brick now. Good, then we are mutually perplexed; I wonder why a guy would post a I hate Michigan thread when he really means he hates Dems.