turtlespeed 212
benny 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIf Kerry would quit, Bush could donate the 200 million in re-election funds to the national treasury.
If Bush would quit he could still do that.
Yeah, but the country would get beat up then. Like in kindergarden when the fourth graders beat up the "New Guy"
Nice analogy, how bout when the "new guy" grew up and learned to make bombs and blow the bully's ass to kingdom come?
So now you campare Kerry to Bin Laden?
The analogy wasn't about Kerry really, it was about the "big badass" i.e. Bush, who has globally pissed a hell of lot of people off in comparison to friends he's made, and eventually, somebody (that little wimpy new kid) is gonna kick his (our) ass. I don't want it to happen, but it unfortunately will at the rate we're going.
Never go to a DZ strip show.
pajarito 0
This is awsome! The best the left has to offer.
skydyvr 0
QuoteThis is awsome!
The picture is a Photoshopped fake.
. . =(_8^(1)
kallend 1,649
QuoteQuoteThis is awsome!
The picture is a Photoshopped fake.
And even if it wasn't, so what?
"If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons" - Winston S. Churchill
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
pajarito 0
Didn't know that. It was just sent to me. Whoops. Sorry about that.
nbblood 0
QuoteThis reminds me of a "knight fork" in chess. I'd recommend a thread hijack at this point.
Are you kidding me? This thread was hijacked long, long ago....that's how it got to this.
Blues,
Nathan
Blues,
Nathan
If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.
Nathan
If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.
skydyvr 0
QuoteDidn't know that. It was just sent to me. Whoops. Sorry about that.
I fell for it too, first time it was posted in these forums.
. . =(_8^(1)
kallend 1,649
QuoteQuoteDidn't know that. It was just sent to me. Whoops. Sorry about that.
I fell for it too, first time it was posted in these forums.
You fell for it because you wanted to fall for it.
I strongly recommend a healthy dose of skepticism. This kind of thing is only going to get worse for the next 9 months.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
skydyvr 0
QuoteThe picture is a Photoshopped fake.
And even if it wasn't, so what?
It would just add more negativity to Kerry's record on Vietnam.
. . =(_8^(1)
pajarito 0
Was it posted in this forum? This thing has been going on forEVER! Nbblood is right. This thing has been all over the road, in the grass, and through a few ditches.
skydyvr 0
QuoteYou fell for it because you wanted to fall for it.
That is correct, I did want to believe it for obvious reasons. And the sad part is, I routinely check Snopes for stuff like this.
QuoteI strongly recommend a healthy dose of skepticism. This kind of thing is only going to get worse for the next 9 months.
Yep, good advice.
. . =(_8^(1)
kallend 1,649
QuoteRecord deficit
Loss of jobs
Plummeting dollar
Be realistic. We were in a recession before Bush. Got hit on 9-11 to further drive the economy down. Went to war. War is expensive. We're still in it. The general public has just forgotten. Most people don't care about anything if it doesn't affect them in their immediate future. Very short term memory. There's going to be a loss of jobs anyway. Do you think there hasn't been job creation. They don't talk about that on the news. You're just talking about a particular segment of the work force. Not as a whole. The dollar may have dropped but plummeting is a stonger term than I would have used. I don't think we're going to fold just yet.
Wed 18 February, 2004 08:55
LONDON (Reuters) - Sterling has risen above $1.91 for the first time in more than 11 years as investors continue to dump dollars in favour of currencies with higher interest rates.
Sterling pushed as high as $1.9128 in early trade on Wednesday, its highest since Britain withdrew from Europe's Exchange Rate Mechanism in September 1992. Its latest push higher means sterling has gained 12 cents against the dollar in the past month.
"We are seeing a continuation of broad-based dollar selling," said David Mann, currency strategist at Standard Chartered Bank.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
benny 0
The fall of the dollar is even more ominous when combined with the ballooning deficit. We are saddling my generation and the generation to come with an enormous burden. Eventually we will have to pay that debt, and it will be even larger due to the decling value of the dollar. Eventually, interests rate will rise again and the dollar will rebound. Now the debt is going up even further, and the money we have to use to pay it off represents an even greater loss of buying power then it first appeared.
Never go to a DZ strip show.
Never go to a DZ strip show.
skydyvr 0
QuoteQuoteApparently it's OK to break the law if its' about gay marriage but no OK to post the 10 Commandments.
I don't know if you noticed this, but the mayor did it on a special day called a "weekend", when courts and lawyers don't tend to work. See, it's got to do with this thing called a "5 day work week", which basically means that most white collar workers don't work on two special days, called "saturday", and "sunday".
The court has said they will hear the case on a day called "tuesday", which comes after today, which is called "monday". "Monday" is the first day after the "weekend". To make matters a bit more complicated, "Monday" in this case is a special day called "holiday", where again people with white collars don't tend to work. In this case, the "holliday" in question is called "Presidents Day".
Hope that helps,
_Am
Well, it looks like that special thing called the "weekend" and the even more special "holiday" have passed by, and even a whole "work week" have gone by, and nobody has yet "jumped in" to stop the "weddings".
Maybe now "the people" can see that "California liberals", who know "better" than "the regular folks", are fond of exercising their "right" to say "screw the law" and "screw the people", and do whatever the hell they want.
Hope this "helps".
. . =(_8^(1)
QuoteQuoteQuoteApparently it's OK to break the law if its' about gay marriage but no OK to post the 10 Commandments.
I don't know if you noticed this, but the mayor did it on a special day called a "weekend", when courts and lawyers don't tend to work. See, it's got to do with this thing called a "5 day work week", which basically means that most white collar workers don't work on two special days, called "saturday", and "sunday".
The court has said they will hear the case on a day called "tuesday", which comes after today, which is called "monday". "Monday" is the first day after the "weekend". To make matters a bit more complicated, "Monday" in this case is a special day called "holiday", where again people with white collars don't tend to work. In this case, the "holliday" in question is called "Presidents Day".
Hope that helps,
_Am
Well, it looks like that special thing called the "weekend" and the even more special "holiday" have passed by, and even a whole "work week" have gone by, and nobody has yet "jumped in" to stop the "weddings".
Maybe now "the people" can see that "California liberals", who know "better" than "the regular folks", are fond of exercising their "right" to say "screw the law" and "screw the people", and do whatever the hell they want.
Hope this "helps".
Would this qualify as a "LIE" under the Kallend model?
billvon 2,435
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>are fond of exercising their "right" to say "screw the law" and "screw
> the people", and do whatever the hell they want.
Yeah, what he said! Next thing you know, they'll be allowing interracial marriages, an abomination clearly against the laws of god and man. Imagine, a black man with a white woman! It would nearly extinguish the sacredness of the institution of marriage.
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
-Virginia State Supreme Court, in the 1958 Loving v. Virginia ruling.
> the people", and do whatever the hell they want.
Yeah, what he said! Next thing you know, they'll be allowing interracial marriages, an abomination clearly against the laws of god and man. Imagine, a black man with a white woman! It would nearly extinguish the sacredness of the institution of marriage.
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
-Virginia State Supreme Court, in the 1958 Loving v. Virginia ruling.
Michele 1
I do find your continual overthetop dramatic illustrations of your points somewhat humorous, Bill...
I have a question: didn't CA voters pass the no gay marriages thing?
I agree with you (not your illustration, but your base point), and I think that the marriages that took place will eventually make it to the Supreme court, but I am not at all sure that this was the best way to go about it. Why not a discrimination suit filed in the courts against the State of CA (because the state constitution demands no discrimination) and walk it up the ladder that way instead of the mayor breaking the law, and doing so knowingly?
That's the essential crux, I guess. If local law says no gay marriage, but state constitution law says no discrimination, then there is an issue. And the issue is: is being gay a constitutionally protected status? If so, then yes, legally there is discrimination. If no, then ???
I just think that there is a better way to go about deciding the issue than how it was done.
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
I have a question: didn't CA voters pass the no gay marriages thing?
I agree with you (not your illustration, but your base point), and I think that the marriages that took place will eventually make it to the Supreme court, but I am not at all sure that this was the best way to go about it. Why not a discrimination suit filed in the courts against the State of CA (because the state constitution demands no discrimination) and walk it up the ladder that way instead of the mayor breaking the law, and doing so knowingly?
That's the essential crux, I guess. If local law says no gay marriage, but state constitution law says no discrimination, then there is an issue. And the issue is: is being gay a constitutionally protected status? If so, then yes, legally there is discrimination. If no, then ???
I just think that there is a better way to go about deciding the issue than how it was done.
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
QuoteIf local law says no gay marriage, but state constitution law says no discrimination, then there is an issue. And the issue is: is being gay a constitutionally protected status? If so, then yes, legally there is discrimination. If no, then ???
I just think that there is a better way to go about deciding the issue than how it was done.
The only way I now of to challenge a law that is on the books is to take it to court. You do that by violating the law and then defending yourself based on constitutional rights. Seems to me, they're enabling a whole lot of people to just that. If they do declare the licenses invalid, there will be a whole lot of people with a vested interest in challenging that ruling.
kallend 1,649
QuoteI do find your continual overthetop dramatic illustrations of your points somewhat humorous, Bill...
I have a question: didn't CA voters pass the no gay marriages thing?
I agree with you (not your illustration, but your base point), and I think that the marriages that took place will eventually make it to the Supreme court, but I am not at all sure that this was the best way to go about it. Why not a discrimination suit filed in the courts against the State of CA (because the state constitution demands no discrimination) and walk it up the ladder that way instead of the mayor breaking the law, and doing so knowingly?
That's the essential crux, I guess. If local law says no gay marriage, but state constitution law says no discrimination, then there is an issue. And the issue is: is being gay a constitutionally protected status? If so, then yes, legally there is discrimination. If no, then ???
I just think that there is a better way to go about deciding the issue than how it was done.
Ciels-
Michele
Why didn't you do it your way, then?
They chose to make the challenge their way.
PS what do you think about the backpedaling on the jobs predictions in the President's report?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
skydyvr 0
QuoteYeah, what he said!
Thanks Bill, I finally have something cool for my sig line!
Quote"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
-Virginia State Supreme Court, in the 1958 Loving v. Virginia ruling.
I'm glad the mindset that supported that kind of ruling has begun to melt away in our country, but it really has little to do with my take on the issue, which is that if gays want to be legally joined and have equal rights, then fine -- just call it something besides "marriage".
I just wish people would try to change things through the system. I've seen examples cited here where breaking the law and civil unrest were justified, but I don't think this qualifies by any means.
. . =(_8^(1)
kallend 1,649
QuoteQuoteYeah, what he said!
Thanks Bill, I finally have something cool for my sig line!Quote"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
-Virginia State Supreme Court, in the 1958 Loving v. Virginia ruling.
I'm glad the mindset that supported that kind of ruling has begun to melt away in our country, but it really has little to do with my take on the issue, which is that if gays want to be legally joined and have equal rights, then fine -- just call it something besides "marriage".Quote
I agree. Evolution of the language is one thing. Having the language hijacked by a special interest group to serve its own ends is something completely different....
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
I think I see his point.
Werd.
On retrospect - would he be that esteemed in your eyes?
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun