narcimund

You know what's odd? You respond to people who (you say) aren't saying anything important but DON'T respond to people who address substantive comments. We learn a lot both by what you do and also by what you don't do. First Class Citizen Twice Over

Forgive me because I know nothing at all about this case, but I had to respond: Not illegal. Also not illegal, although it's incredibly tacky to say ANYTHING on TV if you ask me. Also not illegal. And again, not illegal. Possibly illegal, but not related to the crimes in question. Uh... I don't know one way or another about the "perversian" part but not only is this not illegal, influencing people with money and power is the reason for money and power. All I can say is I'm glad defense lawyers get to disqualify prospective jury members. If anyone I know is ever prosecuted, I sure hope their jury doesn't vote "guilty" based on reasons like these. First Class Citizen Twice Over

Got it. That was not at all the meaning that came to my mind. Thanks for the clarification. First Class Citizen Twice Over

No offense meant (I'm sure) and none taken. But what does the phrase "closet queen" mean here? Is this a new trendy insult? First Class Citizen Twice Over

It's surprisingly easy to misunderstand a carefully thought out idea. And it's also surprisingly easy to pull out emotionally charged, but misapplied evidence to prove someone wrong who wasn't saying what you're confronting them for saying. Or, as a philosophy professor said once, "I'm not attacking the point you're defending." Or was it the other way around? Whatever. The rabblement is hooting and my work is wasted here. First Class Citizen Twice Over

The difference between Cuba and the US isn't which rules are in place but which rules ARE ALLOWED. If a rule is allowed, it's just a matter of cultural shifts and attitudes which change wildly over time. If the US government saw a security reason to enact this rule (or others like federal identification cards, secret detentions, torture, bureaucratic subpoenas, etc.) it's the Constitution which would prevent it, right? The US Constitution forbids a federal "internal commerce" authority. In the US a federal rule such as this Cuban one would be unconstitutional. Or would it? [URL "http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-1454"]Supreme Court opinion on federal internal commerce authority[/url] First Class Citizen Twice Over

And, right on cue, we have the definitive statement of fact. Notice the unusually literate spelling of Steve (typically "Adam and Steav [sic]"). First Class Citizen Twice Over

Popular votes are similarly a poor indicator of fitness for a job. And the results of elections are a mediocre indicator of popular votes. First Class Citizen Twice Over

I'll go even further. As of this case, all state law exists at the pleasure of congress. The conservatives have had their dream come true. The states have been effectively dissolved during conservative control of federal power. The liberals are freaking out because the disenfranchisement of the states happened when they were out of power. They timed it so poorly. Either way, since they were both working toward essentially the same thing, everyone wins! Right? First Class Citizen Twice Over

Consider these upcoming cases: Homemaker's backyard herb gardens, banned as a part of a congressionally-declared legitimate comprehensive federal program of stabilizing interstate food commerce. National uniforms, mandated as a part of a federal program of regulating interstate garment and fashion commerce. Prohibition of out-of-office political parties' websites as a part of a federal program of regulating interstate graphic design commerce. Mandating registration, licensing, and seven years of record keeping of all sexual activities as a part of a federal program of regulating interstate lubricant, condom, and maternity clothing commerce. Pretty silly, but the supreme court just declared all of these to be constitutionally protected functions of congress. All congress has to do is pass two laws simultaneously, one of which regulates commerce and the other of which they self-declare to be related to the first. First Class Citizen Twice Over

First Class Citizen Twice Over

And if your grill is big enough to warm smoke, then: Rub sea salt on a couple of chickens. Stand them up on wire smoker frames or on empty beer cans with both ends removed. Make the coolest fire you can and get it as far away from the chickens as possible. Put a chunk of soaked pecan wood on the fire and let the smoke pass freely through the bbq and out the top. Use a smoker thermometer to get the temp to 225-250 degrees more or less. Open the cover a bit to cool it off. Smoke the chickens, turning occasionally and adding wood as necessary for 4-5 hours or until done. WARNING: Pecan wood smoke turns chicken meat deep pink. It looks raw even when fully cooked. Judge cookedness based on meat temp, clear juices from deep meat, and/or loose leg joints. Oops. Forgot to mention: Smoked chicken skin isn't good. Peel it off and throw it away after the chickens are done. The meat is MORE than flavorful enough and the skin gets leathery. First Class Citizen Twice Over

Yes. This is my very favorite chicken recipe I've ever come up with. Mash up a paste of: 1/4 c olive oil 1/4 c balsamic vinegar 1/4 c italian saba (syrup of dried nebbiolo grapes) 1/2 c water 2 dried persian black lemons, ground to powder 1 head of garlic plenty of sea salt plenty of fresh black pepper Using your fingers and a spoon uninhibitedly, stuff 1/2 of this mixture under the skin of a chicken. Don't tear the skin. Get it under the breast, legs, thighs, and even into the wings. Shove it all around. Massage it in to the meat. Repeat with the other half on a second chicken. Let them sit in the fridge for 24 hours. Cook them on a rotisserie with light wood smoke. I prefer pecan wood for chickens. Collect the drippings for gravy. GRAVY Pour off oil then deglaze the drippings pan with white wine. Add some butter, 1/2 lb of chanterelle or maitake mushrooms. Cook 10 minutes then sprinkle in a little flour and pour in 1/4 c heavy cream. Serve with garlic mashed potato. Whoever you serve it to WILL sleep with you that night, so choose your dinner companion carefully. First Class Citizen Twice Over

Speaking of motels, [URL "http://doubletree.hilton.com/"]Doubletree[/URL] First Class Citizen Twice Over

Whew! I'm safe. First Class Citizen Twice Over

I'll take a stab at it: Governments survive only so long as the populace is calm. Nothing's so calming as pairing off and making babies. Families by and large don't start trouble. First Class Citizen Twice Over

That's absolutely ridiculous! I clearly remember at age 7 hanging out with my little playmates, playing marbles and baseball, while thinking, "Given all of the alternatives, and after deep consideration, I have concluded that a lifetime spent screwing men, while immoral and vilely unappealing, will give me the greatest chance at promoting perversion, mocking God's law, and recruiting others into a twisted 'death cult'*." It's clearly a choice. After all, can't everyone switch their sexual orientation at will simply by making a choice? * Thanks to radio celebrity Michael Savage for this excellent euphemism. First Class Citizen Twice Over

Wow. Your logic is a little obscure but I think you're saying that you aren't a believer in a religion if you do anything the religion prohibits. By that logic, since Christianity holds that EVERYONE is a sinner, then everyone is automatically excommunicated so NO ONE is a Christian. Ron says, "There are no Christians. FACT!" Edited to add: Ok, I'm feeling guilty now. This is way too much fun and way too easy. I'm gonna retire from this amusement and get back to other cool things. FACT! First Class Citizen Twice Over

Is that when you'll admit you make things up, press the caps-lock key, and then type "FACT"? First Class Citizen Twice Over

Well, the good news is I've asked you three times to explain where you got your FACTS about my religious beliefs and three times you've sidestepped even acknowledging the question. Now we know where you get your FACTS. You make them up. First Class Citizen Twice Over

You sure do love to make claims then hide under a rock as soon as they're challenged. First Class Citizen Twice Over

Absolutely nothing you wrote has anything at all to do with my post which you were responding to. I'll repeat it for you if you like: First Class Citizen Twice Over

Reminds me of the anti-miscegenation argument: "Both the white man and the black man have exactly the same rights: they can both marry women of their own race." By the way, Ron, I'm still waiting for you to explain how you came by authoritative information (in ALL CAPS no less) about my religious beliefs. First Class Citizen Twice Over

That's funny! Can you imagine the reaction if I offered to kiss them? First Class Citizen Twice Over

I would but someone else would just harrangue me for not using scientific data gathering methods. Anyone else think it's tiresome that these guys keep turning every single thread into a Narcimund-bashing thread? I mean it's flattering and all, but jeez! First Class Citizen Twice Over