caeron

So if we don't care to have heated pointless arguments about politics, we're avoiding thought provoking debate. Do you not see where this line of discourse leads? These debates provoke, but I don't think it's thought they provoke.

Yeah, let's just shut down the whole internet cause people are doing pervy stuff on it!

What I didn't like, was that the previous administration wanted to call it a war, but didn't want to treat the prisoners like it. It's either a police issue, and courts apply, or its a war, and the geneva convention applies. I think there can be a case for both definitions, though I lean toward war myself, with the important caveat that you have to define a scope. Otherwise it becomes a blanket endorsement to lock up whoever you want, for as long as you want. That I don't feel comfortable with.

There were several. If they're gone, it's because political discourse is discouraged here. No one changes their mind about their politics based on what's posted on the internet, and the discussions end up in a lot of heat, and no light.

I don't know you, but you clearly have a chip on your shoulder. It's a free country, you're allowed to do what you want. But if you're really interested in having a conversation, this probably isn't the best approach. But then again, you create a thread just about you, so maybe you're getting exactly what you want, no?

I doubt it. Rush has made a career out of entertainingly trash other people. He's always the loyal opposition, even when the republicans held sway. That isn't the kind of person that can build something up.

If you want to let your SUV smoke cigars, then I guess that's your business. I'm a fiscal conservative, social liberal who votes democractic on the principle that I can always make more money, I can't make more rights. Others come to different conclusions. I don't like Pelosi either.

I used to love the show, but stopped watching in the miami season when they tricked the chefs about going out, but made them work food trucks outside bars. Maybe I'm a bit sensitive, but the women were all in high heels, and then they got totally trashed by the judges for not performing. The sexism of it just ruined the show for me.

I assume this was a link (now broken) to the article on the head of the RNC apologizing to limbaugh for telling the truth - that limbaugh is an entertainer who gets off on rabblerousing. I don't want to get into politics, but I feel bad for the republicans. I wish they would rediscover their roots as a fiscally conservative, government should stay out of people's business party. I could vote for that party. And it is a sad day for the republican party when a talk show host is running the show.

I think it's pretty open and shut. Harlow should have begged to cut a deal before his partner did. They have plenty enough to convict, and he can make excuses 'til the cows come home and it won't change the verdict.

Thanks for the tip on Anna Russell. Some of the clips of this are on youtube, and very funny.

If he weren't so old, I'd buy some berkshire hathaway. I played some bridge with him online years ago. He's quite a nice guy.

Well, 8 of the top 10 porn consumer states voted for McCain. Randy Red States, I guess!

Seizing assets of drug users would probably decrease drug use, at the cost of creating a smaller class of now destitute and desperate drug users who would turn increasingly to crime to fuel their habit. I don't think it's a workable solution. Just like locking them up just fills up our jails to no point. I think legalization or status quo are the best available options. Status quo may be a mess, but it does have to be balanced against the social cost of all the stupid people who will end up messing themselves up if we legalize more drugs. They'll assume that legalization means that they're ok. Still, I think legalization is the best approach. I think drug crime is worse than drugs and this is the only way to really deal with it. I just don't think there's much will to do it, however.

And I loved the matter of fact reporting about it in the george mason student paper. It's cool that the students voted for a drag queen.

Well, I managed 13 of 24 correct. I thought Wall-E would do better on sound than it did.

I think it was me that complained, but I wasn't complaining about Ralph Fiennes performance, but the character itself. I didn't really understand his motivations.

There you have me. I read the times online, but know nothing about the other NY papers, so there may be a track record there that makes the allegation carry weight.

I wish I still had my foreskin, but I'm not very tin foil hat about it. getting cut is more hygienic, and can ward off some problems. It's a reasonable thing to do. And it's nothing compared to the genitital mutilation some places in africa do to women. Yuck!

I don't get the hysteria at all. The bill was written by congress, not Obama. It _was_ written by monkeys. Color me insensitive I guess.

My luck looks like neither Benjamin Nicholas or Noah Driver are in San Antonio when I'm here. On to the crapshoot of craigslist....

There really was no proof that it was the vaccines. It was built on a bunch of speculation. The sad part is that the hysteria they generated (and still do) over the vaccines has caused a lot of gullible parents not to vaccinate. It's both sad and infuriating.

Today the court ruled that there is no proven link between autism and getting vaccinated. http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/02/12/court.autism.reactions/ I've been following this case because it plays to a particular pet peeve of mine, namely stupid people reaching dumb conclusions, then pretending it's science. Don't get me wrong, Autism sucks. No doubt in the desperate attempt to find an explanation, many parents had decided, with no evidence, that getting vaccinated causes autism. Why? Because these kids got vaccinated and then developed autism! Never mind that autism's onset is typically at the age you vaccinate, clearly there had to be a causal linkage! Quoting from the article above: "Fournier said her daughter was a happy, healthy toddler who developed autism after receiving shots. She said she's heard countless similar stories from other parents." Well, of course you did. Did you ask, if by chance, their children also were breathing before developing autism? What about potty training? Maybe learning not to poo themselves set it off? Why, oh why, did you become insanely fixated upon this as THE answer. When studies didn't confirm this, why did you fault the study rather than your hasty conclusion? I wonder how much more progress could have been made if people had looked at the science objectively. /rant off

I think that much driving would have exhausted me. How many hours is it? Though cute boys disrobing in the back seats would have probably been a suitable distraction if I could avoid ending up in a ditch. Is it it really that expensive to fly? I guess if you have enough bodies it's cheaper to drive.

I think if you make the blindness off limits, you're dehumanizing those who are worse than making jokes about it. Like it's so horrible that it should only be spoken of in hushed whispers and with looks of pity. When it becomes the fodder for jokes, then it's just another thing about you, like ex Illinois governor Blago's hair. The jokes might have been tacky or crass, but I don't see how making the subject off-limits is doing the blind any favors.