NCclimber

100 percent here! There have been times when I have thought, "You know. The leash idea really DOES have merit." A leash is very helpful at times!!! With two daughters 15 months apart, a leash was great when my wife had to take both of them to a department store. For places like airports, busy stores or city streets it makes sense. For playgrounds? That's just obscene. What next? Helmet laws for playing outside?

How lovely, following that lie up with an insult. You're a class act. Whaddaya know. Kallend produced evidence to back up one of his (seemingly) far fetched claims. I'm impressed. Kudos to you Kallend. You made your case. Good job! this post has been edited because I went back and read post 169. Seems pretty compelling.

If nothing else, you are amusing.

After all the crap aimed at me over the years .. why bother with being tolerant of the intolerant. Yeah, You're just an innocent victim. It's not like you brought any of it on yourself.

I was talking about the article in the OP. Based on your posts, you don't seem to have read it. You seem more intent on making this about girls crying "wolf" or school boy fantasies.

Yeah, but this is about some posters making bullshit unsupportable claims... getting called on them... and then trying to spin their way out of admitting they were bullshit in the first place.

Apparently, we're talking about two different articles.

And then you said: Ever since fell off the slide at home he's been pretty careful.

Please provide a source for your claim that the US government deliberately exposed US civilians in Nevada and Utah. So you ADMIT that it deliberately exposed US soldiers and sailors. I guess we're getting somewhere. Now you're making up lies? That's rich. I'm not surprised. The possibility that people conducting the tests thought the fallout would dissipate to non-toxic levels before reach citizens is not an option, eh? If what you assert is true wouldn't there have been tons of lawsuits for the US government intentionally (key word - intentionally) harming citizens. I know of government actions to compensate those harmed, but none where it was shown the harm was intentional. Give it up, perfessor.

Let's say it's half. That still means each girl has a 10% chance of being target during her school years. Are you okay with that? If you say so.

There are a lot of busy-bodies out there. Just be a good parent. Part of that includes using tact in such situations, instead "colorful" language.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/T/TEACHER_SEX_ABUSE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Please provide a source for your claim that the US government deliberately exposed US civilians in Nevada and Utah.

SUCH AS "I am not a crook", "I did not have sex with that woman"? Those kinds of admissions of guilt? I didn't ask about "admissions of guilt". Nice try, perfisser.

Where did I do that? Link, please. Oops My mistake. Lucky brought it up. I asked him about and you started chiming in from there. However, that doesn't change the fact that no one has shown that our government intentionally sent the people of the Marshall Islands and Bikinis back home so we could study the longterm effects of radiation. By proof, I'm talking about any evidence about our governments motivations in this little drama du jour.

Do you have proof that our government intentionally sent the people of the Marshall Islands and Bikinis back home so we could study the longterm effects of radiation? I'm sure they were sent home for the good of their health. The US would never deliberately expose people to radiation. See attachment. Your snarky opinion doesn't qualify as proof. More often than not, 2 + 2 is equal to 4. We only need beyond reasonable doubt, not absolute proof, to sentence people to death in the USA. Since you seem reluctant to pony up, perhaps we should just accept your logical fallicies as proof. Is this standard practice among college professors? What would you consider "proof"? Truman or Eisenhower coming back from the dead and posting an admission on DZ. COM? The US had no hesitation in exposing humans to radiation from atmospheric bomb tests, quite deliberately. The AEC did it in Nevada and Utah, and in the Pacific Islands. What EXACTLY are you nit picking about at this instant? It's was simple question about our intentions, which you brought up. You can blather on and on about what was done all you want. It still doesn't prove the point you asserted.

I'm just trying to figure out how someone who (at times) seems capable of objectivity, seems so intent on validating/rationalizing/justifying Harry Reid's, et al, sleazy behavior.

Wanna cracker?

You first. They are your leaders.

Still kinda busy but how many hours did Congress debate the Clinton Christmas card list? You're digging up stuff from 10 years ago? That proves this was par for the course? ROTFLMAO

Polly Wanna Cracker..... you are such a good learner.... Got any other words you have learned Love your "A" game. It's quite revealing. Shouldn't you get back to stirring up Martial Law hysteria?

Do you have proof that our government intentionally sent the people of the Marshall Islands and Bikinis back home so we could study the longterm effects of radiation? I'm sure they were sent home for the good of their health. The US would never deliberately expose people to radiation. See attachment. Your snarky opinion doesn't qualify as proof. More often than not, 2 + 2 is equal to 4. We only need beyond reasonable doubt, not absolute proof, to sentence people to death in the USA. Since you seem reluctant to pony up, perhaps we should just accept your logical fallicies as proof. Is this standard practice among college professors?

Stoop? Are you kidding me? This is "par" Really? How about producing five examples of similarly trumped up nonsense use to attack a private citizen? Wow. Don't you think your task is a bit specifically designed to fit your agenda? Why not limit acceptable responses to people with the initials "R" and "L"? Okay. How about five examples of similarly sleazy (and petty) behavior by Congress. As much as you want to make this about my defending Rush's behavior, that's just not the case. My beef is with the behavior the United States Congress. Sorry you seem to have so much trouble getting this rather simple point.

Do you have proof that our government intentionally sent the people of the Marshall Islands and Bikinis back home so we could study the longterm effects of radiation? I'm sure they were sent home for the good of their health. The US would never deliberately expose people to radiation. See attachment. Your snarky opinion doesn't qualify as proof.

"Hiroshima is the largest untouched target not on the 21st Bomber Command priority list. Consideration should be given to this city", Gen. Leslie Groves, memo on guidelines for target selection, Manhattan Project Target Committee, April 27, 1945 Said quote, however, does NOT provide proof the city was left untouched solely to provide a target for an atomic bomb. Sorry. "To enable us to assess accurately the effects of the bomb, the target should not have been previously damaged by air raids. It was also desirable that the target be of such a size that the damage would be confined within it, so that we could more definitely determine the power of the bomb." Gen. Leslie Groves, memo on guidelines for target selection, Manhattan Project Target Committee, April 27, 1945. SORRY Want to nit-pick some more? Said quote, however, does NOT provide proof the city was left untouched solely to provide a target for an atomic bomb. Perhaps you could directly address the point, instead of talking around it.