NCclimber

The article that I got the information from regarding the tax rate reductions and subsequent increase in revenues was from the Heritage Foundation, which *does* espouse conservative views. Was he really implying the Heritage Foundation is on par with "bob's rightwing rumproast blog"?

You're kidding, right? propaganda (noun): information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some CAUSE I think he's saying that the CAUSE is "send money to iraq now". When I read stretches like your's, I'm reminded of the people who imagine today's warm temps prove global warming is happening.

I'm surpised you would forget something like that. Guess what, they gave money to Democrats, too. You're right........even though Haliburton has a history of contributing to mostly republicans, some employees did contribute money to the democrats. Less than 10%, but some did. How convenient that only look at recent history. Those guys were buying Democrat influence back in the 40s. Do a little search on Clinton and KBR.

You should READ it. Really. Read what? The concept of conditional rights? That's right up there with "I know you are, but what am I?" Try reading it and comprehending it. What "it" are you talking about?

And you bitch about supposedly right wing sources.

I heard it too. Good story. Here's a link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15854465&ft=1&f=1001

The cause of what? About your definition of propaganda - do you know what pedantic means?

I'm surpised you would forget something like that. Guess what, they gave money to Democrats, too.

Still waiting for an explanation on how the thread title applies to the OP... or are you too busy blaiming the VP for corruption tied to military contracts?

More "set" theory by the learned perfesser?

I have it pegged at $1.72, about $2.60 of its '06 highs. Considering daily volume is less than 100, I'm not convinced the futures prices have much correlation to the cash markets.

I'm constantly amazed at how some people seem so incapable of discussing a given topic without pigbacking their favorite bitch issue onto it. It's like they lack the ability to make distinctions. They accusse you of being indifferent to their pet peeve, simply because you don't respond "appropriately" to their bait. They get insulting because the don't get the answers they want, to their off tangent subjects And even when you spell it out, they seem incapable of grasping the obvious.

One thing that distinguishes him is that he was aware of the consequences of his actions and did it anyway, for what was believed to be the "greater good". In my book, that's a heavy cross to bear. RIP Paul Tibbetts

Nice tribute.

You should READ it. Really. Read what? The concept of conditional rights? That's right up there with "I know you are, but what am I?"

Too bad you couldn't just leave it at "I second that", instead discounting his contribution.

That was kinda my point. I understand we were at war, I dont understand looking at this http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/7114/258/1600/892042/foto1.jpg and then thanking the guy who was ordered to aid. You all keep Tibbett as a hero, thats fine, but I reserve the right to consider him a solider, who obeyed the govt. Why do you feel compelled to piss all over a thread where people are trying to pay tribute to the man? Is that necessary?

Oh, absolutely. The nation's priorities were the war against terror and cutting taxes. Except that it was about gay marriage. And flag burning. And what Kerry did on the swift boat. Because that was important. And it wasn't about Bush using the Air National Guard to stay out of the Ricebowl, and then barely showing up part-time for that, anyway. Because that wasn't important. Clear. Unambiguous. And while we're at it, Fair, Balanced and Unafraid. Love the drama.

I guess you're not familiar with the concept of conditional rights. You should google it. Really.

Wow. Talk about a stupid question. We were at war with Japan. A War that Japan started. Perhaps you're familiar with the events of December 7, 1941. Or the Bataan Death March. Considering he participated in delivering the knock out blow to Japan, I doubt he's one of their favorites.

Yes, he was clear, unambiguous. He was also wrong, had been proven wrong and was adhering to the notion that no matter how wrong he was he was not going to change his mind. Which brings us back to the OP As long as we're clear that you were just blowing smoke in post #8.

Are you saying that rights that are conditional are not rights at all?

Okay. Now look at the 2004 presidential race. Whether or not you liked Bush's message, doesn't change that it was clear and unambiguous.

Are you saying that most gasoline we buy at the pump contains ethanol? If so, could you direct me to a source where I can find out about this.

That's because main stream candidates have to speak less clearly or run the risk of being unambiguous, thereby alienating potential campaign donors. Riiiight