jclalor

If God sacrificed his only son, why is he still around? My understanding of the word sacrifice means that what ever is sacrificed is gone forever. Sounds a bit fishy.

???

Give me a little credit. All I could find was the web site still under construction, I was just wondering if anyone knew of a new DZ being started in Gilroy. This would only be 2 miles from my house.

Anyone ever heard of this. Thanks.

But this isn't a question of always sticking to one opinion (Bush), in spite of new information. This is a repeated pattern of talking about doing something and then deciding it's not politically expedient. Quite a different thing. Not true with Obama, looks like he has changed his mind on gay marriage. He says he may be in favor of it now.

What about the thirteen year old child in Utah that agrees to be married to her fifty year old uncle? She may know what she is doing and her parents may give her permission, yet society has regonized that some decisions are not to be left to a child, regardless of what the parents think.

I like Penn Jilette's answer:

I hope he is punished to the full extent of the UCMJ. For an officer to disobey deployment orders in a time of war is completely inexcusable and they should make an example out of him. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101216/ap_on_re_us/us_army_birther_18

I, as an Atheist would have no problem with it, as long as they do not discriminate. I would always have the option to go to another bank, which of course I would do.

160 billion is 18% of 1 trillion, If you think that is a drop in the bucket, salute. 160 billion for one year and what do we have to show for it, thousands of troops who are dead, injured or suffering with PSD for the rest of their lives. If the Soviets could not win with their brutal style of warfare, we don't stand a prayer. For the last ten years all we have heard is the "progress we are making" WTF, ten years with no end to this war in sight. Afghanistan is the corruption capital of the world, just a few weeks back their VP was caught at an airport at the UAE with fifty million dollars in his luggage. wonder if that was US money or money from the opium trade. I'm taking any and all bets that this is a fucking loosing battle. While I voted for Obama, this is his biggest mistake throwing good money and lives at a lost cause.

There are "news networks" that will tell you anything you are foolish enough to believe... The great thing about this study is you can try it your self. Ask some of your friends who watch Fox some of the same questions in the study, I did and got the same results. Coreece sent me a sincere apology and I wish him well during this sometimes difficult time of year. Sometimes this forum can bring out the worse in us, I know it can to me.

Nice try, buy I am just not that easy to offend.

I had zero pop ups, you probably watch too much porn on your computer. Nice video, very Jesus like.

Heres a shocker: http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/maryland-study-finds-a-massive-amount-of-misinformation-spread-through-media

Are you fucking kidding? You have that low an opinion of yourself? I'm quite confident that I'm as qualified or better than the majority that will vote for it in the Senate. And I don't think the bar is all that high. This isn't nearly as complicated as economics. It's pretty simple economics, and some game theory. That said: The reduction in number of nukes will not change our deterrent capability. So long as we can have a few hundred nukes on each of the 3 platforms (subs, bombers, missiles), we have sufficient capability. The lack of verification in Russia, and the alleged ability of them to bail if we do a missile defense plan are flaws, though they don't significantly affect the US because Russia is now a 2nd rate world power. It's the Euro's problem, not our's. They can start spending for their own defense again. Additionally, there's no point in blowing money on a Star Wars, Part III when our deficit is so high. An ineffective result (the most likely) will cost a fortune and not work. An effective one will cost even more, and just encourage our enemies to delivery the bomb along with the illegal drug traffic. It would also encourage an enemy to use a surprise attack over a slower, diplomacy driven escalation. But the real problem I see here is that whether or not the Senate properly reviews it, I don't think this is appropriate legislation for a lame duck Congress. There is no time urgency here, so something with bearing on our foreign relationships for the next decade should be taken up in February. I dont think we will ever see war heads on either side ever reduced to only a few hundred each in our lifetime. I do know that the theory of MAD is that if one side was able to destroy 98% of the others war heads in a first strike, that they should still be able to have enought to retaliate against hundreds, if not thousand of their targets. Of course parity of the nuclear triad is what these treatys are all about and I think it gets way to complicated for the average person or Senator to have any handle on this. I still have not seen a response as to why all the former secretarys of state are insistant this treaty be ratified. what would be their motive.

I'm gonna go with Glen Beck, who's head will then simultaneously explode.

You're a good man Ron.

Nice, very good observations. My personal favorite "Nothing new to learn here" Now get ready to be pummeled by all the guilty parties.

There very well may be good people opposed to it, I choose to side with the same men that negotiated all the other previous nuclear treaties that were not only responsible for keeping the planet it one piece but also helped to accelerate the collapse of the USSR. The bill has had plenty of time to be vetted, How could so many offer opinions if it had not been. There is no comparison to the health care bill, I am for this bill being passed, the sooner the better. To hold up all legislation until 2% of the country gets a tax break is just silly And to suggest that Democrats are anti-Christian for wanting to work the week before Christmas, just like the rest of us have to work, is just bizarre. What is up with all these Republicans that are against the very bills that they themselves have laden with pork? Fact truly is stranger than fiction.

Most of these guys here are always longing for the days when these same guys were running things. Now all of a sudden they forgot who they were.

And yet when 99% of these same scientist believe in evolution, you choose to ignore them. It reminds me a bit of when a Christian researcher finds an artifact that may be of biblical importance and offers it's carbon dating as evidence. always selective evidence for the creationist.

I think the simple fact of the matter is that you nor I have the qualifications to determine the merits of a nuclear arms treaty. We have to put our trust in those that are qualified. If it were only Democrats pushing for this treaty I could very easily see how the Right could have opposition, and probably with good reason. It seems when Presidents and their top cabinet members retire from public office, they seem to mellow out with the rhetoric ( With the exception of a certain VP) and with no longer having to cater to the prevailing political winds, focus on whats best for the country. When it comes to national security, I trust all of the before mentioned secretary's of state emphatically, if they were against it, it would be suspect in my mind. I have yet to see a response from you or anybody that can show a reason why this group of such esteemed and legendary Republicans would now advocate for a treaty that you claim is so error ridden and would also put our nation at risk. What would be their motivation? Why would they now be willing to put their necks out and risk their legacy to help the Democrats? They must now truly believe this treaty is what's best for the long term security of this country, and not just for a few cheap political points.

What a bunch of hypocrites. http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/john-farrell/2009/03/05/republican-hypocrisy-on-earmarks-ask-senators-cochran-wicker-and-vitter

Even Condie Rice is for it now. But the republicans would rather hold out for tax cuts for the top 2%. Their latest crap now is to say if they have to be in session next week it will be anti-christian, after all, it is Christmas and we all know how all of us get two weeks off at this time of year. How much more out of touch with the common person can they be? You're average person is lucky to get Christmas eve off. Poor little fucking babies.

Yea... the smarter heads on both sides want it passed.