JohnnyD

No argument from me. It is what it is.

Ben Nighthorse Campbell is retired and was/is very respected in Colorado. His purpose was not to defend Churchill at all. In fact, his party was in the Governor's mansion at the time and very publicly called for Churchill's removal. The Native American community has been about as vocal as they can be in support of Churchill, although their voice is just not that loud. Also, there are many Native Americans who are against Churchill because they don't believe him to be a true Native American.

If a year long legal battle to keep your job and then losing and getting fired on national television is your idea of fun, I guess you can keep it.

Actually, Ben Nighthorse Campbell (A Colorado senator - now retired) gave an interesting and comprehensive explanation of how Churchill's Native American heritage claims are valid. He wasn't supporting him, just explaining the process of getting your name on the rolls. Churchill is on the rolls, therefore, he is basically a Native American.

No, I did not read or try to read it But after your post here I sure as hell am not going to try now Good points though and thanks. The only problem I have with profs like this is if they do not allow or acept differening positions, opinions or viewpoints. Thanks again Par for the course. You think they did the right thing in firing him and admit that it had to do with what he wrote. Of course, you haven't even read it, so you are just regurgitating what your favorite "opinion journalist" is saying on his/her show. Yes, I read the article. Twice. It sucked and was a nearly irrational grasp at a parallel between Nazi sympathizers and workers in the WTCs. Mostly seemed to be a large chunk of anger at the incident being directed at an illogical target. I would expect a failing grade if I turned it in. Lastly, I believe Churchill's popularity with the student body at CU was related to his embrace of differing positions, opinions, and viewpoints. Most characterize his classes as debate centric. Moral of the Story: The squeaky wheel gets the grease, but if the wheel is too squeaky, it gets pulled off and replaced.

With all the new arrivals, I wonder if Elvis and Jimmy Hoffa will have to share a cell.

Unfortunately. Most people I agree with or disagree with on certain issues, but in reality, most are single issues and we really aren't that far apart and can have a nice discussion with some actual substance and just agree to disagree. Some people seem to be so stuck on one issue that every topic turns into that issue. I would tend to avoid engaging those people unless I wanted to talk about that issue or get info. on that subject. A very few here have posted things that are so revolting that I would never engage them in real life - its just too short to be around people that have that much hate in them.

Go to a bike shop that has a knowledgeable person on tri-bikes. You need to get tri bars and reposition your saddle. It will make a huge difference in longer races.

You remain incorrect, too. You might do better to actually try and make some point on the topic, rather than to spend your time using mental telepathy to try and tell everyone else what you think I have or have not read. Actually, I did - posts #31 and 36. What I have yet to see is what exactly the congressman said that you find to be in the same vein as a terrorist. Do you think that Bush was the head of a conspiracy to blow-up the World Trade Center, Pentagon and Congress, in order to grab power and justify going to war? Yes or No? Of course not. I don't think Bush could pull off a one car funeral, let alone something of this magnitude. Also, I don't think even for a second that he would intentionally kill thousands of Americans in cold blood.

And you're not? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Go to Google and search on define:bigot One of the first entries is, "A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own." How do you *not* fit that description? Walt Interesting point. I don't think you have to actually be a bigot to point out bigotry.

If you are unable to figure that out on your own, then that confirms that I am wasting my time trying to explain things to you. Shame that you've wasted your time when it could have been spent reading the article. I actually did read it, so I know what he said and what he didn't. I remain convinced that you haven't read it.

Strike three, you're out! I'll help you out with your misunderstanding, even though I don't think you're worthy of my time here, but I'm feeling generous today. I didn't say he was a terrorist, I said he was acting like an irrational, illogical extremist, and those are some of the same attributes displayed by terrorists. But you can be an irrational and illogical extremist without being an actual murderous terrorist. Got it now? Now that you have the baseball, grammer, and insult lesson out of the way, how about posting something of substance? What exactly did the congressman say that is in line with being an irrational and illogical extremist. - if you respond, I'll at least know you read the article, which I still think you did not (or possibly did not even remotely understand)

I haven't heard anything on that. But since D.C. has one of the highest murder rates in the nation every year, and the decades-long gun ban has done nothing to change that, I would bet that the citizens there are ready to try something different - like armed self defense. kelpdiver made a very good point that public opinion is irrelevant. I was just wondering if the local gov't structure of DC had any role in this law being on the books for so long. As you know, I'm not in the crazy gun guy mold, but this seems to be a clear violation of the 2nd amendment and has stood for some time.

What an opportunity wasted. As the first Muslim Congressman in America, he had a prime opportunity to show the U.S. that Muslims living here are just normal folks who believe in American values of freedom and family, just like everyone else. But instead, he shows us that he fits the evil-Muslim stereotype of an irrational, illogical extremist, just like the terrorists who want to destroy this country. Yeah, that's really helpful. You obviously did not even bother to read the article. All aboard the bandwagon! ETA: Seriously, you're saying he's an evil Muslim terrorist that wants to kill you and you very obviously have no idea what he even said.

No there isn't. It's all part of the same problem, and that's where there's a disconnect. The adherents of the so-called "religion of peace" aren't speaking up against the violence, which implies that they are either cowards or sympathizers. Either way, they don't deserve any respect. The few that do speak up (like Dr Wafa Sultan) receive death threats, or are dismissed by types like Darius. islam isn't a religion - it's a form of psychosis. mh . Wow. You really are a bigot. And since you are spewing such hatred from the "true and only religion of peace", I'm guessing you're also a hypocrite.

Volunteering to help a guy chase his dreams?

How does the local gov't work in DC? Does the Mayor have a legislative function as well as an executive? Is there a city council?

The article hinted that the court has a history of not taking such cases, which would kill the law. The court also leans right, which would make the laws chances not very good if the court did take it. Seems like the pro-gunners are in a good position to win here. Do you have anything that would gauge what the public's support (I mean people in DC - not the NRA) is regarding the defeat of the law?

Two chicks at once.

Here's something interesting - i agree with you on this. However, to quote an intelligence report released today: The threat from Al Qaeda has increased in recent years as the network behind the September 11 attacks has gained strength and become entrenched at sites in remote northwestern Pakistan, intelligence officials said. We're in the wrong fucking country!!!!!!!!!

I feel sad for you as a person and offended by that as an American.

No, its not. That is why Bush pledged not to do it as part of his campaign.

He was against it, before he voted for it. Of course Kerry is a scumbag liberal and the president is just changing course (or flip flopping or breaking campaign promises, depending on how you look at it)

Here is the title of the article (cut and pasted): Bush like Hitler, says first Muslim in Congress Funny thing is: he didn't say that. So, is this a liberal media conspiracy, an oversight, or just a total piece of shit article that is trying to interject something into the article that wasn't even said or implied?

Do you honestly believe - even just a little - that over 50% of Congress actually wants the US to lose the war (however you define that)? You really think that the Democratic party wants American servicemen and women to die? If you are buying into the punchlines and rhetoric of right wing radio so much that you actually believe the Democratic party has a platform that amounts to treason, how is it even possible to have a remotely rational conversation with you? Close, but not exactly. They want the deaths of our military servicemen to stop. They are willing to achieve that by losing the war at any cost. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED The military objective was to stop the imminent attack by WMDs and remove SH from power. Those objectives are accomplished. The war is over. All we are doing now is nation building and you can't do that with the Army.