Search the Community
Showing results for 'weasel' in content posted by kallend.
Found 114 results
-
The Obama Definition of Civility Is Now Very Apparent
kallend replied to rushmc's topic in Speakers Corner
I must have missed where the OP claimed it was a call to violence - is that what "civility" means now? The weasel has landed. Hope you had a good landing, then. Wow, now he's back to the rubber/glue debating style. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. -
The Obama Definition of Civility Is Now Very Apparent
kallend replied to rushmc's topic in Speakers Corner
I must have missed where the OP claimed it was a call to violence - is that what "civility" means now? The weasel has landed. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. -
Republicans Propose New tax on Everyone but the wealthy.
kallend replied to jclalor's topic in Speakers Corner
Short term memory giving you trouble again, or just lying about my posts as usual? I provided the data for individual years, not data comparing them. Feel free to show where I that there X percent more/less tax collected in total between the years, or X percent more/less returns between the years - you know, something that would actually make your claim be TRUE. The weasel master strikes again. Your posts are self-explantory and there for all to read. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. -
"Almost wish"....sound the alarms...theocracy alert!!! Weasel alert. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
-
Lindsey Graham demands more government spending
kallend replied to billvon's topic in Speakers Corner
Well, you're certainly the red herring expert on the site, you throw enough of them around, like below. New Mexico: $2.00 in fed spending for $1.00 in taxes. Biggest 'moocher state' in the lower 48. BLUE state. . One data point does not constitute a trend line. But then you have previously admitted knowing nothing about statistical analysis. Never claimed it was a trend, perfesser. But then, reading comprehension has never been your strong suit. It appears that YOU were the one with the reading problem. I wrote "Funny how the biggest moocher states are more likely to vote Republican." I didn't write that all moocher states voted Republican. Hence your comment was irrelevant and missed the point. No, it didn't - it actually shows MY point which is that what way a state votes in a Presidential election has exactly JACK SHIT to do with it. It comes down to population and wages, which has been posted before. States that are more rural will always be at a disadvantage over states with a more urban population in that sort of accounting. Translation - you can't actually dispute that the data YOU supplied show that red states are more likely to be moochers than blue states, so you proceed to weasel in the usual way. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. -
Please tell us, Marc: Do you think the current state of the laws that allow disturbed people like Cho and Loughner easily to obtain weapons with which they then massacre a bunch of people is the best that can be accomplished in the USA? Yes or no? Does it concern you that the USA has the highest rate of gun homicides among first-world countries? Yes or no? Can you come up with just one idea of your own that would make it more difficult for the likes of CHo and Loughner to obtain guns? Yes or no? Try not to weasel out of answering, they are easy questions. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
-
uh, no, I accurately described his argument to you. You just don't accept it, like kids on your lawn. It's not my fault if what you wrote was not what you meant. Now you're just talking nonsense. I wrote exactly what I meant. That was never in question. You really do have a need to get in the last word, despite nothing to say. Apparently not, you've been trying to weasel out of what you wrote for pages now. Here. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
-
Weasel all you want. The FACT remains that Bush's war was based on false pretenses and was (and continues to be) a monumental waste of money that could better have been spent improving the lives of Americans. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
-
Why don't you check to see if the problem exists BEFORE whining about it? You are sounding like a broken record. If you cannot think of anything better to say than that . I don't need to. You whined about some "maybe" occurrence that you don't even know happened and now you're trying to weasel out of it by attacking me for pointing out your whining. That's all there is to it. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
-
A wise person would recognize that the requirement is there for a good reason (the BSRs are "written in blood") and not try to weasel their way around it. And then there are those with Mad Skilz for whom the rules don't applky. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
-
Wriggle and weasel as much as you usually do, the hard evidence is there that the Republicans (and their apologists on this site) were in denial long after the recession had begun. That IS the way it is. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
-
You have yet to prove YOUR claim in any way - I've already given data from CDC and others that show that lifestyle choices are strongly correlated with health issues. Nice but futile attempt to weasel. The only person you're fooling with this straw man, is yourself. The only claim I've made is that you haven't proved yours relating lifestyle choices differences in comparison with other nations that have better life expectancy outcomes. And you haven't. (Your lame attempt to deny that healthcare is not a synonym for medicine is just laughable) So how about giving us some data that compares the US lifestyle choices with, say, Germany, France, or Japan? ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
-
You're funny when you try to weasel out of being totally and completely WRONG. PS the picture was on Omniskore. You DO know what that is, right? How's the clarification on the Constitution coming - you've gone very quiet on that. Were you wrong again? ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
-
Same as the title of the thread YOU started (without quotes of course).. Gee, what a feeble attempt at weaseling that was. Tell us some more about the APS's official position, Marc. MY attempt was/is feeble??? kallend: same shit different day! Must be an interesting world you live in. Now, what about the OFFICIAL APS, AMS and NAS statements? (Or are you going to weasel some more?) ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
-
The Shock Doctrine...The rise of disaster capitalism
kallend replied to vortexring's topic in Speakers Corner
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3259904#3259904 I then explained how his carbon neutrality with his utility bills is in SERIOUS doubt. Then you wrote: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3260068#3260068 And I explained that his footprint is likely massive. "Likely", a weasel word if ever I saw one. Do you have data or not? You made statements to that effect, but you have provided NO evidence to support any of your supposed "explanations". A little algebra goes a long way. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. -
Ah, timmy boy was a US Citizen.[/red ] You are proving you do not understand the constitution or showing that you just do not agree with it. Which might it be? Are you now claiming that US courts can only try US citizens. Another LAME attempt at misdirection And you reckon it's me that doesn't understand the ConstitutionWrong again Here's a HINT. What was the nationality of the individual convicted of terrorism on January 30, 2003 at a federal court in Boston, Massachusetts? What are YOU saying sir kallend? (I really know but I want to see if you have the guts to make a direct reply post) Don't weasel. What exactly WAS the relevance of your comment about McVeigh's citizenship with respect to the Constitution? Looking in your mirror again? ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
-
Doesn't that depend on what is being addressed? . Of course it does. Trying to prove something about the selection process is different from trying to prove something about he attribute of having a CCW. One might say Mike's data, if accurate, indicate that the selection process works (the criminally inclined are mostly, but not completely, excluded). It doesn't say anything much about whether the subset of selected CCW holders is more law abiding than any other subset of Texans (for example, engineering professors) from whom the criminally inclined have also been excluded. I mean, take any group of people and exclude known criminals, and you'd expect the rest to be pretty law abiding. The entire populace is law abiding up until they commit a crime. Indeed they are, but for any year whose data you quote, that point has already passed for many of them (those that have already committed a crime) and your data sort all of those into the same pile. You can't weasel out of it that way. That the crime rate for CCW holders is non-zero indicates that some of those "law abiding" folks are going to go bad. If you want to prove that there's something special about CCW holders, then your control group should have all the same attributes (passed the background check, etc.) except their CCW status, which should be unknown. Your control group is the rest of the population, but you have already guaranteed that this contains all the known felons! ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
-
Well, there you have it. State Universities receive significant government subsidies. That's why tuition at U of Illinois is less than 1/3 of what it is at the private U. of Chicago or Northwestern U. You are a social leech after all. The govt paid it, and I earned it thru my efforts. It's called a contract. Would you say IIT shouldn't have their tax exemption? They're so eager to recruit ROTC students and their paid in full-tuition... it costs the US Govt less to pay for a Cadet at State U than IIT... You can't weasel out of it. YOU received a tuition subsidy from the state's taxpayers in order to attend a state university. Your ROTC scholarship didn't offset that subsidy. Your heroic "efforts" and "sweat" were for your own benefit, not the university's or the state's taxpayers' benefit. It costs them the same whether you get straight "A"s or straight "D"s. Sorry, you are a recipient of government handouts. Do you teach students whose tuition is being paid by ROTC? If so: Pot, Kettle. Kettle, Pot. Pay attention - this is not about your ROTC scholarship, this is about the state subsidy to your university. I am not whining about poor children receiving taxpayer funded healthcare, YOU ARE. Now it turns out that ExAFO himself received taxpayer subsidized education. I helped pay for your education! ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
-
Well, there you have it. State Universities receive significant government subsidies. That's why tuition at U of Illinois is less than 1/3 of what it is at the private U. of Chicago or Northwestern U. You are a social leech after all. The govt paid it, and I earned it thru my efforts. It's called a contract. Would you say IIT shouldn't have their tax exemption? They're so eager to recruit ROTC students and their paid in full-tuition... it costs the US Govt less to pay for a Cadet at State U than IIT... You can't weasel out of it. YOU received a tuition subsidy from the state's taxpayers in order to attend a state university. Your ROTC scholarship didn't offset that subsidy. Your heroic "efforts" and "sweat" were for your own benefit, not the university's or the state's taxpayers' benefit. It costs them the same whether you get straight "A"s or straight "D"s. Sorry, you are a recipient of government handouts. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
-
Pay attention to the weasel wording. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
-
Officers Respond To Wrong Address; Homeowner Shot
kallend replied to warpedskydiver's topic in Speakers Corner
That's because your original post was in response to kallend (that's ME), said : "you", "your house". Don't weasel. I'm glad you have corrected your original ideas. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. -
Now go ahead and weasel out of that statement. As long a there are positive assurances that the government follows due process in regard to intel gathering, which includes judicial oversight (which BUSH did NOT) I agree with you. You have a long posting history on these topics which indicates clearly what your positions have been, and indicates your support for Bush's violations of constitutional protections and international law at every turn. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
-
Again you raise cogent points. There are those in the Catholic Church who can easily be accused of "idol worship" by the way they apparent fawn over what appears to be miraculous images from heaven in edible objects and the like. However, your quote from Exodus needs a little explanation. If the verse in Exodus means what you think it means, and you want to be a faithful bible-believing person and follow said book, you must immediately dispose of all of your pictures. Your wedding album, your baby photos, your skydiving memories, etc. You shall not make for yourself any likeness of anything.. that is in the earth beneath." Is this really what this verse means? We can't have any sort of representations of the objects of our affection? Does this really mean that we can't have reminders of what is important to us? The important events in our lives? All of you with a cross around your neck then, you must throw it out. On the other hand, the issue here is about idolatry: WORSHIPING these images, as if the statue or the picture or the representation were the thing itself that they merely symbolize. This is one of the most fundamental misconceptions that non-catholics have against catholics. They often see Catholics praying at the foot of a statue of Mary or Jesus or a saint and they think we're worshiping the statue. Not true. Instead, we're communicating with the PERSON that the image represents. Haven't you ever looked lovingly at the face of your significant other, or your grandmother, or whomever and said "talked" to them? Is the act of having the image of them hanging from your wall an act of worshiping THEM, either the picture OR the person? No, rather it's a reminder to you of who you love. Of who is important to you. That is what statues are to the Catholic. They help keep us grounded, focused on what is important. They remind of what our goal is -to get to Heaven, and of who went before us marked w/ the sign of faith. Now, that having been said, I agree... people who are bowing before chocolate, IMO, may have a little eccentricity in them. There may BE some idolatry. But this is far different from the practice of having statues and icons and paintings of saints in our churches and homes. That's just weasel-wording your way out of a fundamental contradiction in your church's dogma. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
-
And Gravitymaster is totally convinced that the only US domestic spying going on is that which the government tells us about. Oh, you mean the phone numbers with no identifying information attached that the govt. used to track when you call your aunt so they can come for you in the middle of the night? Is that the info you are talking about or is it the computer which recognizes a few words in the English language like Osama, bomb, etc. which you are worried will end you up in a govt. torture chamber with your nuts hooked up to an electric diode while they beat out of you which restaurant you ate at last week? Ooohhhh.. beware, beware. edited to add: Almost forgot. Are you talking about the Chinese guy who speaks 12 words of English having the ability to monitor your conversations? Beware beware the govt. is out to get you. You always TRY to weasel out of an answer to that question. HOW do you know WHAT the government is doing in the way of domestic spying, when all you ever get told is what is dragged out of them unwillingly. Do you REALLY believe that what we've been told by whistleblowers is the FULL extent of the government's prying? ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
-
OK, last time and I'm done. Listening for words in a conversation is not the same as listening to the conversation. Believe what you want. Strange, I tried to find the article I posted and while looking at my posts by date, they jump from June to January. Do you think the Govt. has them under review? Conversation are made of words. Your statement is just an imbecilic attempt to weasel out of a corner you painted yourself into. And words do not make a conversation. Your snotty statement is just plain imbecilic without any furthur qualifiers. So you often make phone calls just using random strings of words. (Rather like some of your posts). You're strange. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
