blike

lol

lol, i read that on slashdot. Apparently he's been evading authorities for years and years now.

Partially because I have confused myself somewhat over the issue. I understand what you're saying, but there is a difference between believing a statement is false and not believing a statement is true. Disbelief is a form of believe which actively denies that a statement is true. Nonbelief is a state of suspended judgement, in which the statement is branded neither true or false. I was going argue that science is in a state of nonbelief about things unproven, not disbelief. But I've never really read anything on the philosophy of science, so I decided I should probably inform myself before I make a case on gut intuition.

I really can't see the purpose of it. 99.9% of members speak enough english to communicate, and the ones that can't usually are from some country that no one else knows the language for.

Please. Every news channel has a clear agenda. It's all about who you want to be right, fair, and balanced. If we were to measure CBS, CNN, and others by the same stick, they would come out clearly leftist.

If spoofing names violated copyrights, the porn industry would be in a lot of trouble.

I disagree, and I'd love to debate anyone who agrees with the aforementioned statement. Just PM me if you're up to it. Anyhow, I just want to chirp in that this is a good discussion.

Wonderful. Thanks!

I won't argue that point, but Moore insinuated that we funded the taliban in 2000 with $113 million dollars.

Honestly now, I'd like some evidence to support that assumption. I'll respond to the rest of the post later.

Let's say there are two people floating towards each other in space at the same speed. Neither astronaut is experiencing any acceleration. They are both moving at 0.5c. I have two questions about what happens when they pass each other:' 1) Won't both astronauts measure the other ones speed at 1.0c? 2) Won't both astronauts see the other astronaut's watch ticking slower?

There were a couple of things in the movie that really irked me. The first was insulting the administration for not paying enough attention to terrorism and to ignoring threats that we were receiving. Then, later in the film, he says that the administration is trying to scare the american public by announcing the terrorist threats. Seems like he just wants something to complain about. Another thing that bothered me is how he stated that the US gave huge amounts of money to the taliban. That's actually incorrect. We gave huge amounts of money to UN and humanitarian agencies to help afghanistan. Moore made it sound like we had a money order with the Taliban's name on it. Also, Moore tried to make it look like Bush snuck out the bin Ladens during the air ban, when in-fact, it was on the 13th the were allowed to leave. The 13th is when they started allowing some flights. The Bin Ladens were not the only ones flying. Then he goes on to interview Richard Clarke and say that they should have detained the saudis and questioned them. In fact, they did. Ironically, it was Richard Clarke himself that approved the flights, not bush. But you didn't see that in the movie. There were a lot of mistruths and distortions. Moore ignores the chronology of things, which nullifies a lot of information. For example, Bush (sr) didn't join the carlyle group until after their deal with BDM. The secret service guards any embassy which requests it. The 9/11 comission determined that the threat of airplanes being hijacked didn't even reach ashcroft's desk (which moore claimed ashcroft deliberately ignored). I could go on and on

I'm not sure, probably has something to do with the absorption rate.

I know claritin makes a sublinguil allergy tablet. Nitroglycerine is also adminstered as a sublinguil spray.

Are you referring to me or people in general?

Because on the whole, my views line up pretty well with the GOP. As I said before, I do hold a different opinion on some issues, but I identify myself as a republican because I agree with and support the majority of the republican stance on platform issues.

Individual moral and economical responsibility, not big government.

I saw it, but I don't have time to respond thoroughly right now. Later this evening

Aha I see What level of education do you have? Are you an undergrad? If so thats some serious discourse you're having.

You mean on an ad? What's the name of the book?

The point of my catagorizing myself on the political spectrum was to give my viewpoint some context. For example, no one would be suprised if a homosexual were to post the same thing I did. However, if a right-wing republican posted it, then it tends to raise more eyebrows. It is only natural to be sympathetic and even apologetic towards people who think much in the same we do. If anyone denies this, they are either lying or are unaware of their own behavior. I felt it necessary to distinguish that I am a republican, and yet I still abhor this idea. It is correct to assert that personal values should over-ride any party affiliation, and that my opinion shouldn't need to be contextualized; but that's not how it is. Many people look to the party to determine their morals, instead of aligning themselves with a party that shares the same morals they do. It is an unfortunate situation, but it's very true. I don't want people to think that every republican is a right-wing apolgist and homosexual hater. There are many republicans, like myself, who think that George W. Bush clearly wrong on this issue. Not necessarily. People put labels on themselves for the same reason that the ingredients are listed on food products; so people know what's in them. If you say "I'm a republican", chances are that you are anti-abortion, pro-death penalty, pro-gun ownership, pro-personal responsibility, anti-big government, anti-social programs, etc. Of course, we all come in different flavors, but the basic ingredients are the same. It's like the abstract of a journal. You can read it and get a basic idea of what the paper is about. You are correct in that people affiliate themselves with like-minded people in order to "seek allies". That is human nature. That is why you have friends.

http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file_description/0,fid,6232,00.asp

Although I'm a republican, I'm quite frankly disturbed over the fact that the current administration is seeking to make an amendment to the founding document of this country because of his personal belief. Granted, the constitution was drafted around the convictions of the founding fathers, but those convictions included individual and state rights, and small federal government. In my opinion, the federal government should back up and let the states deal with it on an individual basis. I don't believe the states should ban homosexual marriages either. Marriage (the ceremony) is a religious event. Let the individual religious leaders decide whether or not they want to marry a couple. The state, however, has no right to impede on personal freedom by denying civil union to a couple. Even if you believe homosexuality is wrong, immoral, unnatural, whatever, there is no reason for you to impose your beliefs on others. I find it interesting that Christians are the most outspoken against gay marriage. While they have every right to hold that homosexuality is wrong, why don't they take a lesson from God Himself and not force people to do things their way. I always tell my Christian friends that God allows people to break His law and do as they please. So why should any Christian force someone to behave in accordance with their own personal "law".