If only you'd included something about the prostitutes in Israel

Actually more of a snort. I SNOLed!

Hookers and Jews, nothin better for getting the peeps all riled up. Goddess, I love this place.

The natural concomitant to your hypothetical is "Some people drive 80 MPH and kill people - so let's outlaw cars."

Out of your element, Donnie!

you guys can whine.

new post

[DAVID] FROST: So what in a sense, you're saying is that there are certain situations [...] where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation or something, and do something illegal.

NIXON: Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.

FROST: By definition.

NIXON: Exactly. Exactly.

Yeah, you can swear your fuckin' balls off here. It's one of the few things I like about the commenting system, and it almost makes up for the goddamfuckindumbass lack of support for the <a> tag...

I'm not really sure what to think.

That's IMHO exactly the way to read GC! I miss his old name "clownsense." Goddess knows we need a lot more clownsense in this world...

Make your case.

Not supporting amnesty for lawbreaking corporations is support of terrorism why? Exactly why?

I accept as an indisputable axiom...

You lost me at "indisputable."

But thanks. I thought your argument would be probably be thin as tissue paper, but I try not to form opinions based on nothing but belief. Appreciate the validation, and the acknowledgement that "there is no point in further discussion."

The vast majority of Americans sit somewhere in the middle on most issues.

That's an interesting assertion. I wonder if you know of any evidence to back it up. That's not a taunt, by the way: it's a genuine question.

My own observation - which I freely acknowledge is based in nothing but my own unscientific experience and observation - is that most people who have an opinion at all are quite far to one "extreme" or the other (as defined by our conventional discourse). Quite a large number of people don't give a flying fuck about many things which I think most of us would consider rather important.

You may be referring to that last group as your vast majority. If so, however, I'd call those people "apathetic," rather than "centrist. "

The standard position of gay sex being doggy-style

It'd be so nice if you weren't here.

kthxbai

“Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached.” -- Antonin Scalia

Google is yer buddy...

There is no left in America. There should be.

Word.

Anyway, this allegation like most of the rest of your claims (including the ones that your client was an innocent merchant, much as Don Corleone was an olive-oil salesman) rests entirely on the veracity of your client, true?

See, E-Man, it helps if you actually read the article rather than cherry-picking the parts you feel like sniping at:

in Al-Ghizzawi's status review in November 2004, the tribunal unanimously found him not to be an "enemy combatant" (as was determined to be the case with some 35 other prisoners). The U.S. government proceeded to convene a second tribunal using exactly the same "evidence" against Al-Ghizzawi found to be worthless the first time around. One of the officers who sat on the first tribunal, Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham of the Army Reserve, testified to Congress in July 2007 that the evidence against Al-Ghizzawi was "garbage.

However, I guess that assumes you give a shit about anything other than grinding the same old damn axe, which is hardly borne out by my experience with you on these boards...

If you ask yourself the question: "who benefits?", and you ask it honestly, then the answer must be Islamic extremists.

How? How on earth did they benefit from 9/11?

You do know that there's a difference between rhetoric and science, right? Science has to do with rigorous, repeatable, documented and reviewed experimentation.

With rhetoric, on the other hand, pretty much any of us could make the case that the sun goes 'round the earth, but that don't make it necessarily so.

Are you being daft or adversarial?

Um, daft I think.

When I think cui bono, I don't think of the people getting hit by the bombs or crushed under the wheels of the tanks.

Quit the opposite.

I so love sentences that start "You would do well to remember..." Don't you?

I imagine this guy fancies himself a character out of Conan Doyle.

I thought they have Imans

You're thinking of David Bowie.

kthxbai

It was sarcasm.

http://tinyurl.com/yuqbht

The Repubs aren't going to attack Obama because of White's anti-American comments, they will attack because of his anti-White comments.

First, they are attacking on the "G.D. America" quote, and second... I'm wondering just what you think Rev. Wright said that was "anti-[w]hite?" Cause I haven't heard anything like that... unlss saying that America is a "culture that is controlled by rich, white people" is "anti-white."

I would, rather, call that an inconvenient truth.

Huh?

"anti-white" is A-OK!!

Did someone say that? Other than you, I mean?

Also, welcome!

I guess I didn't realise that "KKK" was a slur for "white." It rather to me sounds like a term used to describe racists.

Just at a guess, I'm going to posit that Rev. Wright was saying that America is a racist society. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me.

America is a "culture that is controlled by rich, white people"

Are you saying that it's not? Are you really saying that?

Anyone who doesn't toe the ideological line gets picked on.

There's an ideological line here? Where on the goddess' green Earth is it? Is it Libertarianism? Anti-libertarianism? Reform-from-withinism? Aux-barricadism?

I'm serious. Where do you think the line is?