birdlike

Aww, NO... That sucks hard! That guy was a pop-culture ICON!! I mean, there's no shortage of people who (like Pablo Francisco, whose parody of him is hilarious) who can sound like him, but no one will be him. My sympathy to his family and friends. He'll be missed, and he gave a lot, and we appreciate it. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Capitalism does not actually "operate on greed." Greed is just an extreme degree of a desire to possess some wealth. It's like a person with a compulsive eating disorder compared with someone who eats normal amounts of food. You take a guy who owns and runs a hardware store. He is not necessarily operating based on GREED. Just a desire to do business to earn a living! Calling it unmitigated "GREED" that drives capitalism is simply wrong. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

It requires that ORDER be kept, sure, but it doesn't require that the government, daily, stay clamped down hard enough on the people that they aren't free to be PEOPLE! Communism demands "compassion" to a degree that is not within human nature to provide. Where has there ever been a communist system that was run by people who, themselves, lived under its strictures? NOWHERE. And is it human nature to wish to live under rulers who won't live as they insist we live, without our resenting them to the point of disobedience, yea, insurrection? Our country was founded on capitalist ideals, and we are some of the most compassionate people in the fucking world! Who sends more aid overseas to distraught people than the U.S.? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Are you "sure" in spite of not having met or heard from a single one? Because I'm pro-gun (vehemently ) and I have never heard a person of my "faith" state adherence to that belief. On the other hand, I have definitely heard PUBLIC FIGURES in the gun-control debate state that they believe we have ZERO right as citizens to own guns, and that this means we should have them confiscated. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Well, I was charitable at first because you posted, "...there was a legal loophole that prevented a felon from being prosecuted from obtaining a gun," which is an incoherent construction and has no clear meaning. How does one "prosecute a felon "FROM" obtaining a gun? Did you mean "prosecute for?" Or did you mean "prohibit from"? I'll assume "prosecute for." The fact is, felons CAN be prosecuted for obtaining a gun (laws make doing so illegal) and for possessing a gun, but not for failing to register a gun, because compelling them to register them is viewed by the courts as compelling them to bear witness against themselves, which is a big no-no in American jurisprudence. >Besides, you said you've never met a gun control advocate who wants to >take away all guns from legal gun owners. Do you at the same time allege that >there are none? I am sure there are nuts that believe that, just as there are nuts that believe that owning any weapon up to and including surface-to-air missile batteries should be 100% legal. Oh, so you were just mincing words when you said you didn't "KNOW" any. You admit that they exist, in an as-yet unspecified number. Good, we're making progress with this one. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Democrats? Saying one thing but doing another? Nawwww! Never happens! "Nation Building - absolutely not", G.W. Bush "Our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short-term.", G. W. Bush "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." - G.W. Bush "Reforming Social Security will be a priority of my administration", G.W. Bush More examples available on request. By all means, post more, please. Tie up your time for a while. [;P] Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or is it past the tequila hour? I remember ... ah ... people ... being banned for calling others obtuse. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I said that it's one thing to consider. It does not blame her for being raped. You might be shocked, but I still fully blame the rapist for that. At the same time, I challenge the wisdom and intelligence of women who go out and get fucked up drunk, because surely prior to doing that they know that a woman in a drunken stupor can have all manner of nasty things done to her while her ability to spot and defend against aggression (sexual and otherwise) is suppressed. So yes, some people contribute to the ease with which they are victimized, but that does not put the blame for becoming victims on them. That still belongs to the victimizer. To recap: - a gun owner is not responsible for someone choosing to steal his gun, but still can be said to have contributed to the ease with which his property was stolen - a gun owner is not responsible for what the criminal later does with that gun - a woman is not responsible for herself being raped, but still can in some circumstances be said to have contributed to the ease with which she was victimized - a woman who is raped does not have an obligation to stop, maim, disable or kill her assailant, but when contemplating whether to do so while she has the opportunity and justification, ought to consider future victims just like herself. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I'll cherry pick if I want to, Mr. no name supplied. Ahh, "misdirect and attack, misdirect and attack." What the fuck does that have to do with what he asked? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Its more like the victim of a crime bears responsibility for a further crime. That's even more ridiculous. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Except these were NOT anti-war protesters; THAT is simply the spin the FoxNews headline writer attached to them. In the body of the article it says; Anybody that calls themselves "anarchists" are not anti-war, they're anti-government. They want Anarchy? We can give them Anarchy. Start by informing them that in an Anarchy, there is no such fucking thing as "due process" or "the right to an attorney." Let them rot in a fucking gulag. Let's not forget this part: "A group of protesters came toward the delegation and tried to rip the credentials off their necks and sprayed them with a toxic substance that burned their eyes and stained their clothes, delegate Rob Simmons told KMSP-TV. One 80-year-old member of the delegation had to be treated for injuries, and several other delegates had to rinse their eyes and clothing, the station reported." What the FUCK, man?! I'm telling you, GIVE the "Anarchists" their anarchy. Make a fuckin' reality show out of it. The world would get to watch just how much "Anarchists" love what they've been seeking once they get it. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Takes out .45, ensures it's loaded and chambered..... points at head and pulls trig..... Jkkn. nah, that's what I say about politics, most all people have both left and right ideals, the lock-stepped variety are just a joke. Yeah, but I've been getting the feeling that you likely believe (mistakenly) that I'm among the lock-steppers. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I agree, which is why I am so split on the whole subject of "should this even be an issue?" POLITICS IN GENERAL IS A HUGE FUCKING [I]MESS![/I] The fact that it is really now just a spectator sport is disgusting, in itself, and indicative of the kind of trouble we're in. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

So absurd it doesn't even require a rebuttal! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

That's FLYING Spaghetti Monster, heathen! I pray he smite thee with His Noodly Appendage for thy insolence! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

So, "degeneration will be a blessing." I disagree. We could end up talking in grunts and snorts again -- think of how much simpler that would be than articulating glottals and what-all. If simplicity is the goal, rather than specificity, you would be right. But specificity in language is the blessing that our intellects have provided for us, and you appear to be saying that reversing it would be beneficial. I disagree. Would be less specific if it were the same. And therefore not as good. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

But the question I ask is, would you like it if you picked up a book or magazine or newspaper, and found the text written that way, or in the way kids are writing their telephone text messages? It's not standardized, it's not clear, and it takes more time to decipher when reading than standard writing does. The problem as I see it is that if kids in school are submitting papers that contain this garbage, they are indicating that they might not even have command of the RIGHT way to write. What does the future hold for them besides McJobs? All because parents and teachers and administrators are not insisting that students in their charge do as they are instructed, and they tolerate the "rebellion" instead. This is what I refer to as "the inmates running the asylum." Adults have ceded authority and the results will be disastrous in the end. "Every kid gets a trophy" mentality is dangerous and will have a serious backlash. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

That's ok, I'll say that an astronaut is more "elite" than a hip-hop artist. I'm not going to worry about those who believe this. If they can't grasp this need for a right place and a right time for communication style, they either are dumb or just posturing for some other reason. What I'm saying is that I can't find a good reason to allow for the bad communication skills. Let the kids develop them, and they are not going to just switch to the good ones when they're obligatory -- they won't KNOW how to use the good skills! If they knew them, why don't they use them? Because their friends are impressed with their "rebelliousness"? "Oooh, look at how I refuse to use the grammar provided for me by 'Tha Man'!" And if it's just laziness that causes them to "slouch" in their language use, that itself is a different problem. I can't see that being the equivalent of the stuff we're talking about. "Can't" and "don't" and such are "legitimate" contractions. Leaving off the S in a plural that requires it simply leaves the singular, which is INCORRECT in context. No, but we'll have social unrest eventually (possibly) because of misplaced blame coming from the unread masses who want to claim the right to lead even though they are unread, and unskilled in the things they would need to know in order to lead well. My point there is that those who can't write those legal opinions will always have an excuse to say that the others are "elitist" and are "keeping them down." It might very well be, but I still find the sagging standards troubling. And if I myself were to be shown where I was deficient if society started to expect more, I would be glad for the opportunity to improve myself, rather than saying, "Yo, why you be disrespectin' my talkin'? Who you think YOU be?!" There's a big difference between people who get offended when someone shows them the correct way, and someone who takes constructive criticism (or who at least makes an effort to be able to do so). Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Hey hey hey -- ease up! It's not bad enough they pay what they pay for gasoline... Haven't you heard about the E.U.'s "Vowel Tax"?! Everyone has to conserve, now. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Behold, ignorant masses, and tremble!! I am The Fist To Argue!! You must mean like the New York State Regents Exam. However, your course grade is not based 100% on it, that's true. But if you do well on it, haven't you demonstrated that you retained the knowledge at least until the end of the course, even if your grade was not based 100% on your score? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

And just imagine the fun if you didn't limit it to spelling! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

dude, you're complaining about uneducated people, not being able to speak correctly or to find the cheapest kitty litter in the store, but you can't even divide 50 by 35 without using a calculator?!?! Are you kidding? 1.3, done just now with no calculator. Without calculator: it's between 1.4 and 1.5. {33 1/3 * 15 = 500, 35 * 15 = 525, 25 < 35} If that's not close enough, it's easy to get a more precise answer. You're right, I screwed it up. While doing it in my head I mistakenly took the remainder (15) and put it over the 50 rather than the 35 and simplified that. D'oh! It looks like you have a lot more mathematical expertise (and recent experience) than I have. Kudos to you. No, I never took calculus, although based on my grades and the New York State Regents Exam, I excelled in mathematics in high school Sequential Math courses I, II and III. (98%, 100%, 98% respectively.) Would I like to know Calculus? Yes. But when I was a senior, I had math as my last (8th) period class, and I had serious senior burnout (as in, ready to be out of there) so I did not focus on the course, eventually dropping from Calculus to "Math 12 (Pre-calculus) and didn't even do any work in that one, so I dropped math period (since my requirements had already been met). I'd love to be able to audit high school regents-level physics and math classes at this point, just to re-learn what I once knew. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Are you having a slight issue with A and AN... not to mention... a wee problem with role model and role models???? Hmm isn't this an interesting deja vu moment..... But I get called the "grammar Nazi"... Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Of course, you making the rather large assumption that we're civilised Well, you're not -- as long as you continue spelling it that way! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

"Prohibiting" pregnancy? Maybe "inhibiting fertilization," but certain not what you said. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire