Andy9o8

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    24,277

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by Andy9o8

  1. Quote

    What they call MSM...



    It doesn't take a Master of Science in Management to be a member of Men who have Sex with Men, even if you attend the Morehouse School of Management and and eat Mechanically Separated Meat while touring the Miami Science Museum. Tell us the truth: You're really a Master-Slave Manipulator, aren't you? Search your Memory-Save-Memory and get back to me.

    OK, so much for my morning coffee jolt.

  2. Quote

    Please give us a “yes” or “no” answer along with your thoughts and comments on Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/pages/International-Bodyflight-Association/271653796189080



    Looks like your support on FB has objectors, too. I agree with the guy who compared it to the difference between running, and running on a treadmill.

  5. That seems to be an implied concession that it was NOT an abortion, despite the public campaign by many of my own ideological soul-mates that it was. It either was, or it wasn't.

    And the quote was by Karen, not Rick.

    Santorum appalls me in many ways. Politically, he's a prick; and I can see why so many people say he has it coming: what's good for the goose, etc.

    Still - even if Santorum himself might not personally deserve a lot of fairness - evidence is evidence, and spin is spin. Was it an abortion or was it not?

  6. If you marinade them in vinaigrette and olive oil overnight, then slow-cook them at a low heat for several hours in a covered pot with plenty of moisture, the meat is remarkably tender.

  7. Quote

    Quote

    Quote

    Santorum advocates the banning of all abortions, including ones done to save the mother, EXACTLY LIKE THE ONE HIS FAMILY DID. They won't even acknowledge it was an abortion.



    Are you sure? The articles I found, after a fair amount of searching, are still sketchy.

    From one detailed article I read, it seems Karen agreed to have antibiotics administered to her, but refused to allow labor-inducing drugs to be administered to her, because that would be abortion, since the child was too young to survive outside the uterus. Then labor began, and Karen asked for drugs to stop the labor, but her doctors refused, so the spontaneous delivery (i.e., miscarriage) occurred.

    Frankly, the articles are all over the place, mainly debating on whether Karen was, or was not, administered labor-inducing medication.

    If you have a source that clears up this ambiguity, that would be helpful.



    This came courtesy of NerdGirl
    http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/2011/06/19/santorums-wifes-abortion-was-different-you-see/

    It's a column, though it does give a lead on an interview in 2004 that if verifiable, seems to be rather conclusive and would suggest they're doing some window dressing now.



    I'd already read-thru the complete article on which your cited article was derived (but only partially quoted from) before I posted my previous post. In fact, it was that article that I was referring to in my previous post. Here's the link:

    http://oursilverribbon.org/blog/?p=188

    As you can see, if one reads the whole thing (beyond the title and first few paragraphs), it's not clear at all.

    I'm all about evidence. I'd still like to see an authoritative source clear up the ambiguity.
    Anyone?

  8. Quote

    >>christian apologetics

    I took a detailed course in it once at a private school. The result was me going from cultural christian to atheist. Perhaps if you give a more specific topic I could try and recall what I was taught and state why I disagree.

    I think that the whole approach is wrong. Instead of starting with the result and working backwards to distort and misrepresent the evidence to fit your inflexible conclusion based on an ancient book, why not just follow the physical evidence and be skeptical of everything?



    NB - your 2nd paragraph answered your 1st one.

  10. Quote

    Santorum advocates the banning of all abortions, including ones done to save the mother, EXACTLY LIKE THE ONE HIS FAMILY DID. They won't even acknowledge it was an abortion.



    Are you sure? The articles I found, after a fair amount of searching, are still sketchy.

    From one detailed article I read, it seems Karen agreed to have antibiotics administered to her, but refused to allow labor-inducing drugs to be administered to her, because that would be abortion, since the child was too young to survive outside the uterus. Then labor began, and Karen asked for drugs to stop the labor, but her doctors refused, so the spontaneous delivery (i.e., miscarriage) occurred.

    Frankly, the articles are all over the place, mainly debating on whether Karen was, or was not, administered labor-inducing medication.

    If you have a source that clears up this ambiguity, that would be helpful.

  11. Quote

    Quote

    And some gun-o-phobes here might call this brave woman "another nutter with a gun".



    Doubt it. You really don't help the cause by being so belligerent.



    Actually, I think it's ingeniously calculated: he wants to piss liberals off so much that they'll want to start shooting people who constantly insult them, so they'll go out and buy guns! At which point they'll be damned if they'll give them up. Problem solved!

  12. Quote

    Christians don't need to apologize for, or explain to anyone for their beliefs.



    Perhaps you're kidding a bit (re: definition). Anyhow, apologetics has noting to do with "apology"; it is an intellectual exercise - sometimes just for the sake of the philosophical exercise, and (historically) sometimes for the sake of promoting a certain agenda.

    Also, to the OP: apologetics re: God need not necessarily be Christian-oriented.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics

  13. The "conventional wisdom" has been that Santorum won't get much traction in New Hampshire because he's too much of a religious nut, and that therefore Santorum's money is better spent saturating South Carolina. Yet his donations are rolling in now, thanks to his 2nd place showing in IA. With that, along with this (story), maybe it's worth Santorum's while to invest some serious time & money in NH.

  14. Quote

    I generally like our (Canadian) system.

    Party members elect leaders at party conventions according to party constitutions.



    That was prevalent in the US until the post-WWII era. Philosophically, I prefer a closed primary system ("closed" = you must be a registered member of a party to vote in its nominating primary), rather than the convention system, because primaries allow more direct participation by ordinary folk, and not just a series of backrooms filled with hacks and power-brokers. Here's my longer explanation of this:

    http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4234510;search_string=primaries;#4234510

    (I don't like open primaries, where you can vote in any party's primary, because that gives too much ability for non-party members to sabotage a party's nominating process by deliberately voting to nominate a weak candidate.)

  17. Update:

    http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/01/03/montana-supreme-court-defies-citizens-united-decision-upholds-state-ban/

    Quote

    Montana Supreme Court Defies Citizens United Decision

    January 3, 2012, 11:59 AM

    .... On Friday, the Montana Supreme Court restored a 100-year-old state ban on direct spending by corporations on political candidates or committees, saying that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC dealt with federal laws and elections, but the “vast majority” of elections are held at state and local levels, AP reports.

    .... Montana’s 1912 Corrupt Practices Act blocks certain political speech by corporations; plaintiffs in the case sought to have the century-old law declared unconstitutional. Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock, who represented the state in defending the ban, said the case was the first to examine state laws and elections.

    Montana has “a compelling interest” to uphold its campaign-finance laws that include both restrictions and disclosure requirements, the court held, according to the Great Falls Tribune. The state Supreme Court overturned a lower state court ruling, saying it couldn’t find that current laws unfairly impeded corporate owners from engaging in political activity.

    The court also said political corporations like American Tradition Partnership, which brought the suit challenging the 1912 law, “act as conduits for anonymous spending by others and represent a threat to the ‘political marketplace.’” Corporations can remain politically active by forming voluntary political action committees, which are subject to disclosure requirements, the court said.

    “With this ruling, the Montana Supreme Court now sets up the first test case for the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit its Citizens United decision, a decision which poses a direct and serious threat to our democracy,” John Bonifaz of Free Speech For People, a group that seeks to return corporations to being economic, rather than political, entities, said in a statement.

    American Tradition Partnership Executive Director Donald Ferguson said in a statement the Montana Supreme court showed “contempt” for the law of the land and “thumbed its nose at the United States Supreme Court.”

  20. And I, for one, despair the tendency to rip someone a new asshole about the minutest aspects of their personal lives just because they're politicians. As I've said in other threads, it's the aspect of politics that disgusts me, and it's why I've chosen not to be a player, not even as a "hobbyist", in elective politics.

  21. I don't think "playing with the body" is a fair description of what the Santorums did. They were mourning over the body. Have you ever held, caressed and spoken to the body of a loved one who had just died? I have, more than once. It's pretty normal and typical human behavior.

    I've also known some people, not very religious, who chose to treat the miscarriage of a fetus as the death of a child, complete with baptism/naming and funeral. No, it's not very common, but that's how some people choose to deal with it.

    I dislike Santorum on so many levels. And yeah, he's kinda weird. But he and his family were in grief, and coping with it as best as they saw fit. They should be left the hell alone about this.

  22. Your point may have some traction re: Congressional Democrats, who've been pretty quiet about this so far. But, that dynamic is pretty typical of any president's Congressional party-mates, even on ideological "articles of faith", in election years. But pointing out that partisan office-holders wheel and deal is like pointing out that dogs bark. Yeah, that's what they do.

    As for liberal and moderate-Democratic NON-office holders, though, they're all over it. The ACLU, other similarly-inclined advocacy groups, opinion pieces by many liberal and moderate writers and pundits, bloggers (including that guy in post #8), etc. are pretty vocal in their criticism of the NDAA generally, and of Obama for signing it.

  24. Quote

    >Bush immediately removed those and the deficits quickly soared.

    Is *that* why there were record tax receipts during Bush's term?



    Regardless, the deficit soared. Why? Because the expenditures soared, mainly related to the wars in Afghanistan and especially Iraq, and the Post-9/11 Apocalyptic Security Theater.
    Oh, and paying smart-ass contractors; can't forget them. ;)

  25. Quote

    Quote

    >To be fair, CFL's were at one time, $30 each too.

    Yep. Heck, early incandescent light bulbs used platinum filaments. They were well over $30 each. But advances in materials science brought that down quickly.

    $30 each in inflation-adjusted dollars, or $30 in 19th-century dollars?



    The online calculator I just used stops at 2010 dollars. Using dollars in 1802, when Sir Humphry Davy reportedly used platinum filaments, $30 in 1802 dollars would equal $450.39 in 2010 dollars.

    Bastards. Always trying to soak the little guy.