ferdberfel

Case, in point! Have you seen the Drudge headlines, today?....Time to eat some humble pie, and wipe the egg off your face. Drudge Reports is not a factual news site. I don't waste time reading a load of right wing bullshit on a regular basis. I like reality based news sources that do fact checking and publish corrections when the fact checking is shown to have been in error.

You say that, like Al Gore bashing is a BAD thing The half wits that can't tell fact from fiction bash those that are much smarter than they are. The half wits parrot whatever they are told by their leaders. Fact - Al Gore wrote and pushed through much of the legislation that opened up the Internet to the general public. For the half wits who know nothing of history, the Internet used to be restricted to military and educational institutional access. It was NOT open to the public, as it is now. Fact - Global warming/climate change is real. It is caused by human activity. No reputable scientist denies this. Al Gore was able to bring this issue to the masses in a way that was understandable. It takes real morons to bash someone for their positive contributions to the world. None of the half wits has ever done anything even close to what Gore has accomplished.

That is an VERY HILARIOUS statement. The right wingnuts always demonize the liberals and progressives by insulting us. Turnabout is fair play. It is to be expected that you would be offended when the same techniques are used against you. It is the same right wing techniques in action. If you do it to others, it is fine. If it is done to you, it is not fine, and must be stopped ASAP. In any case, Olsen and Boies have quite a compelling argument that is easily understood by anyone with a small amout of common sense. You have written that you are starting to realize that freedom and equality applies to everyone, not just people like you. I hope that, if you have children, that at least one of them turns out to be gay. That would put the issue to you in a way that would make clear what exactly is at stake for the "others". When it is your own blood that is beaten, insulted, denied basic rights, etc, the injustice and WRONGNESS of that would become crystal clear. I would hope that you would have the strength of character to fight for equal rights for your child.

You have your facts 100% wrong on this one. Alaska is the biggest welfare (socialist) state in the country. Why do we waste federal dollars building stick built house for people who choose to live so far in the boonies that they would DIE without federal assistance? Why do we waste federal dollars building and maintaining remote runways to service communities of stick built homes for people who choose to live in the boonies? Why don't we allow those people to fend for themselves and live or die on the basis of their skills (or lack thereof) and quit wasting money on them? As far as I am concerned, they can live ANY lifestyle they want to, that they can afford to pay for themselves. FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS are spent to support them. That is 100% wrong. Those Alaskans are every bit as evil as the welfare queens in the projects that the righties rail about. Why does Alaska hand out thousands of Oil Tax dollars to it's citizens each year, while taking massive amounts of Federal dollars to make up for the lack of money caused by this policy? Alaska is a Socialist state. EXTREMELY socialist. There is no other possible conclusion, if you have any knowledge of of the FACTS of how the money flows. That state is so far upside down fiscally that it is amazing. Check it out.

Just a bit sensetive there, aren't you, partner. Did you see something of yourself in the first sentence of my post somehow? I am sorry for you, if that is the case. I have the stength of character to read through the right wingnut posts here and try to glean some iota of sense out of them. It might happen someday. You should try to expose yourself to ideas that might challenge your beliefs, insead of jumping to the "I'm offended, so you have no value" conclusion. I find most of the conservative crap offensive to practical common sense. I read it anyway to try to understand how people can be so easily led against their own self interests. If I happen to feel like filling out my profile, I will. In reading the rules here, there isn't any requirement to do so. Feel free to completely and totally ignore what I write, if a blank profile is so important to you. I don't expect you to reply to any of my posts, in that case.

Do you really believe that the Bush2 years, the Reagan and Bush1 years, were examples of a time of better government for the majority of the the citizens of the USA? Anyone who thinks that has an extremely superficial grasp of economic and political history. Nothing good for the country has ever come to pass due to conservative ideas. I can think of a massive amount of damage that has come to pass, but nothing at all positive. Can you show one example where conservative ideas have benefited ALL of society as a whole? I won't hold my breath waiting, because there aren't any examples available. Quite the opposite. If it was up to the conservatives, blacks would be unable to marry whites, women would not be able to vote, and slavery would still be an accepted practice. And conservatives don't feel any shame about this real truth about what they are.

I can't see how any of the right wingnuts could read Olsen's article, in full, and not start to see the light. It is as simple as right and wrong. Denying the same rights and responsibilities to one section of society, based on ancient superstions, is wrong. A book full of ancient superstions is not a rational basis for a modern society. Screw the Christian Taliban. Freedom OF religion is mandated in the Constitution. The corollary to that is freedom FROM religion. Keep your beliefs in ancient superstion out of my life, thank you very much. I don't give a crap what you do on your own time, as long as it doesn't afffect my life in any way. If you start stirring up a load of shit based on ancient superstitions, in a way that affects my life, you are in for one hell of a fight.

From the standpoint of the USA, a very large YES. We, the USA, invaded and occupied Iraq, with no legal basis to do so. The supposed WMD and "Saddam is bad man" arguments don't hold up in any way. Saddam's so called illegal acts were the basis for a much greater illegal act. Invasion and occupation of a country that HAS NEVER attacked your country in any way, is illegal, by international law. The last time this was done was in the thirties, by the German army. In a really sick demonstration of how incredibly ignorant most of the US population is, many people think that we were legal and justified in conducting the invasion and occupation. The precedent has been established. Feel free to come up with another argument that isn't so easy to "blow out of the water". Pun intended.

read up on paul watson and the sea shepards. they are eco-terrorists. they've been on a show on animal planet not for 2 seasons called "whale wars". its a great show, and surely this ramming will be the climax of season three. at the end of last season, they rammed a japanese boat. paul watson is an idiot and a danger to the lives of his crew and the lives of the japanese whaling fleet, but like most people of his ilk, human life is far less important to him than animal life. Commercial whaling has been banned by international treaty for a long time. Japan and Norway are signatories to the treaty, as in, they agree to abide by the terms of the treaty. Due to their lobbying efforts when the treaty has been negotiated, and re-negotiated, and exemption for "research" whaling has been present in the treaty. You can buy canned whale meat off the shelf in Japan. New cans, recently produced. The meat is popular with older citizens. If the whale take was for research, why does the Japanese government allow the meat to be sold commercially? Any rational person should come to the reasonable conclusion that the "research" whaling is actually commercial whaling, for profit. There has been no physical challenge to the commercial whaling by the Japanese by any of the signatories to the treaty. Quiet complaints that fall on deaf ears have been the miniscule response. Nothing of any real substance has been done to stop the illegal whale harvest, except by the Sea Sheperd organization. Fouling the decks and trying to disable the whaling ships by fouling the propulsion systems are reasonable tactics to take against criminals. The Sea Sheperd organization is shining the glare of publicity on this illegal commerce. The signatories to the treaty aren't doing any real enforcement of the treaty. Enforcement of the terms can, and should, be taken up by private organizations. That is what Sea Sheperd is doing. There is a very simple step that could be taken by the Japanese government. That step would be to ban the sale of whale meat. All whale meat. Their commercial whaling industry would disappear, as it was supposed to happen under the treaty. It is a FACT that they have not done this. That makes makes crystal clear that their whaling activities are a commercial operation that is a flagrant and "in your face" violatition of the treaty. It is clear that the criminals in this matter are the Japanese. The Sea Sheperd organization are the good guys. The Japanese are the bad guys. The Sea Sheperd people need to keep up the good work of shining the glaring spotlight of publicity on the Japanese government's disdain for international treaties. The Japanese will come around when they are shamed into compliance.

Commercial whaling has been banned by international treaty for a long time. Japan and Norway are signatories to the treaty, as in, they agree to abide by the terms of the treaty. Due to their lobbying efforts when the treaty has been negotiated, and re-negotiated, and exemption for "research" whaling has been present in the treaty. You can buy canned whale meat off the shelf in Japan. New cans, recently produced. The meat is popular with older citizens. If the whale take was for research, why does the Japanese government allow the meat to be sold commercially? Any rational person should come to the reasonable conclusion that the "research" whaling is actually commercial whaling, for profit. There has been no physical challenge to the commercial whaling by the Japanese by any of the signatories to the treaty. Quiet complaints that fall on deaf ears have been the miniscule response. Nothing of any real substance has been done to stop the illegal whale harvest, except by the Sea Sheperd organization. Fouling the decks and trying to disable the whaling ships by fouling the propulsion systems are reasonable tactics to take against criminals. The Sea Sheperd organization is shining the glare of publicity on this illegal commerce. The signatories to the treaty aren't doing any real enforcement of the treaty. Enforcement of the terms can, and should, be taken up by private organizations. That is what Sea Sheperd is doing. There is a very simple step that could be taken by the Japanese government. That step would be to ban the sale of whale meat. All whale meat. Their commercial whaling industry would disappear, as it was supposed to happen under the treaty. It is a FACT that they have not done this. That makes makes crystal clear that their whaling activities are a commercial operation that is a flagrant and "in your face" violatition of the treaty. It is clear that the criminals in this matter are the Japanese. The Sea Sheperd organization are the good guys. The Japanese are the bad guys. The Sea Sheperd people need to keep up the good work of shining the glaring spotlight of publicity on the Japanese government's disdain for international treaties. The Japanese will come around when they are shamed into compliance.

In the proper context, like a sales contest. it makes sense. For most professions, not so much. Intangible contributions, like being a peacemaker between talented buttheads, is often far more valuable than any quantifiable measurement your usual management weenies come up with.

Like any "merit" system, it will be LOADED with politics and do far more damage than it fixes. School administrators and Counselers select which students will have which teacher. If you are on the shit list at your school for some reason, you WILL get all of the crappy students with psycho parents. The reality is that "merit" systems for teachers are a load of bullshit, for the most part. The results are easily manipulated by the administrators. The non-asskissing teachers will be the ones who "fail" on the "merit" system. If there was to be a merit system for teachers, there needs to be a "merit" system for parents. If the parents don't show up to meet the teacher, don't show up for parent/teacher conferences, don't reply to a teacher's phone calls or emails, then the STUDENT gets expelled so as to make room for more motivated students. Ship the expelled kids off to remedial boarding schools. Force the parents to attend parenting classes while the kids are off at boarding school. Failure to complete parenting classes means the kids stay in boarding school. These steps will improve schools FAR beyond a bullshit "merit" system for teachers will. It is the PARENTS responsibility to make sure that students show up at school, dressed, fed, and ready to learn. The PARENTS are responsible to oversee the students performance in school. NOT the teachers.

Sovreignty is important however when terrorists use it as a shield from which to attack us it invites a violation of that sovreignty. The Syrian secret service has been helping these guys, much as you'd like to claim plausible deniability and immunity from attack for the guys murdering our troops and Iraqi civillians it just doesn't fly. The result from this well planned and well executed operation makes it clear that this was a legitimate target. The difficult questions now are those Syria is left to answer, but those are the questions you have no interest in asking. If China invaded and occupied Mexico, would the US be morally correct to aid and abet Mexican citizens in fighting back against the occupying army? Would China be doing the right thing if they conducted military operations on US soil in pursuit of those that were siding with the Mexicans? Same situation, different players. How sturdy is your moral compass? Pretty flimsy, would be my guess.

Correct, however, I don't understand how that translates to a "negative" liberty (?)... Sen. Obama's (then State Sen. Obama) clearly has/had an issue with the fact that the Constitution doesn't say what the government should do, where that is clearly not the case. Let's see here. On one side, we have a Harvard educated lawyer, who spent many years as Constitutional Law professor. On the other, we have Max, who writes "Sen. Obama's (then State Sen. Obama) clearly has/had an issue with the fact that the Constitution doesn't say what the government should do, where that is clearly not the case." Max in no way has the background and credentials of Obama. Draw your own conclusions as to which person is likely to make accurate statements WRT the Constitution, and its meaning.

I continue to be stunned at how many people on this forum have the view that "we're the bad guys". That's a simplification of many views here, but it's relevant in what is happening today. We're about to elect a radical liberal who's good at being opaque, while saying all the right things to whoever happens to be standing in front of him. Biden was right. Obama will be tested. And, it's not going to stop, for years to come. I continue to be stunned how many people on this forum have the view that "We're the good guys, so anything that we do is OK.", no matter what treaties, international laws, national borders, etc, that are violated by our actions. When we violate national borders while executing military operations, according to the rest of the world, we ARE the bad guys. When we invaded Iraq, we committed a premeditated war of aggression against a country that NEVER attacked us. We ARE the bad guys, as far as the rest of the world is concerned. What part of this is hard to understand? It really is very simple, if you have even a remote understanding of international politics.