Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
this 'obsession' about the 'obsession' with the hairdo lady -If you really worried that much about her put her 'wink' on every gay and lesbian magazine in the country -
That would be reeally funny (got it - Sarah winking to her friends) and you could write a lot of love letters (from me - 90-60-90 - and cute and blond and blue eyed) - and perhaps she would get a divorce and propse - and that would be reeally funny and would take care of your worries right away (got it?)
There is a colorful art painting by Peter Spohn (ethics_Professor. Don't gouge eyes out with a spoon, you were kidding. I hope.)
`The Pilgrimage to the the New Sanctuary` (Google?) The artist used beautiful colors. Yes. It's soon gonna be a October afternoon. The dea is it's a walk, as a individual and a collective spirit. the beauti ful colors in the artist painting,
... Spirit... which suggest joyful colors, the movement of light among tall fir trees, and a eagle is soaring overhead....
... The American artist Ben Sham wrote that the intimate and specific best represent universal truth.... reflections of our own personal and corporate (body) pilgrimages.
Yes. No get grim and morbid.
Institutional faiths can get fundamentally ill. Nauseating. Stay home and look at the out doors? Trees sway and birds provide a chorus.
A ugly snippet from Palin was this:`a tidbit from Harper's Magazine mentions her dangerous/scary belief: ~ ` "Those that die without Christ have a horrible, horrible surprise."
`I thought`Yikes. We People are in dangerous lands if these two get power/bombed on a 6-pack.
Well, ` The religious groups... SIBLINGS... of the monotheistradions can be fatal. It's best the rivalry get into fruitful dialogue.
O stale fruitcake, tsk tsk, we be.
This is by no means a defense of the Christian right, but very few people have moral beliefs that are free of contradiction. For example, I wonder how many people on UT are pro-choice and against capital punishment? These are in contradiction, just like being pro-death penalty and anti-abortion. The ethical principle that these issues share is the sanctity of life, but that principle is in conflict in the scenarios above.
You make the mistake of equating "pro-choice" with "pro-abortion". This is simply falling for the right wing framing of the debate. Being pro-choice means just that — that the choice about what to do about an unwanted pregnancy is a private decision that belongs to the people directly concerned, not to the legislature, the courts, or law enforcement. Most people that I know who are pro-choice are anti-abortion. They don't want to see more abortions but fewer unwanted pregnancies.
But you are quite correct that the "pro-life" stance of the right wing is a sham. These people are anti-abortion, but pro-war and almost invariably in favor of capital punishment. They are "pro-life" for fetuses or blastocysts, but not so much for post-natal life. If the Iraq war could be presented to them as 1,000,000 extreme post-natal abortions, they might consider that the war wasn't such a good idea after all. Just coming up with a statistic on how many pregnant women have been killed by the invasion of Iraq might even have an effect. But since these were by and large brown-skinned, muslim pregnant women, probably not.
Beauty contest for nun in Italy was called off.
Pontiff must have thought it was a bad idea?
Nuns in bathing suits parade contest o, wow.
O how about a ugly male leg judgement day.
The Supreme Court has had a majority of its justices appointed by Republican Presidents since 1969 when Richard Nixon appointed Warren Berger. It has been in the hands of Republican nominees ever since.
Your chart shows who had the POWER to appoint, but not who made the appointments.
GC!
A ugly snippet from Palin was this:`a tidbit from Harper's Magazine mentions her dangerous/scary belief: ~ ` "Those that die without Christ have a horrible, horrible surprise."
Jeepers is that sick. Imagine if these crazy people gain a powerful influence on, say, our educational system. Imagine children being taught such in such fear.
Imagine how they would use their fear ideologies to manipulate the public in the difficult economic times we are in and yet facing.
At Columbia Business school , a professor gave a personality test.
On the narcissism scale a student was not distressed. He aced it.
He bragged: `I got every single question right! He drinks Rd Bull?
He was a Republican?
Democrat's drinks ~6?
What difference does it make, really? Or are you making that silly old "Conservatism didn't fail, conservatives failed conservatism" bullshit argument that is the exact same one made by silly unreconstructed old communists who simply couldn't face up to the utter failure of that other pony-chasing ideology? Free market capitalism didn't fail because it was hijacked by corrupt people. It failed because it's an idiotic and simple-minded faith and greed-based economic ideology that you really have to be an idiot or a nutcase to believe in (or a sociopath to not care so long as you're raking in the big bucks). It has NEVER succeeded, unless your definition of success is massive short-term gains by corrupt assholes who rob everybody else blind.
A successful system has to be self-sustaining, no matter who's in charge, to be successful. We've had democracy in this country, however creaky at times, for 230 years. It's a successful system. It's self-sustaining. Not perfect, but successful (until fairly recently, but that appears to slowly be correcting itself, thus the self-sustained property). Free market economics is in no way self-sustaining, and thus successful. It depends on massive income and profit redistribution, accelerated deficit spending, and lots of fiscal tricks. And it always ends in a bust. So the fact that the latest bunch of Friedmanesque posers has done an even worse job of it than the previous bunch in no way changes the fact that the system itself is a failure.
But please, I'd love to know where it's succeeded.
Give up on the fantasy. Those ponies are illusions. You can't have a healthy system without tough rules that are enforced. Doesn't work in sports, doesn't work in business, doesn't work in science, doesn't work in engineering, and it doesn't work in economics. Why oh why is that so tough to grasp? It's really quite simple. Even a caveman can figure it out.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
