john5746

One time I can remember these nice looking girls giggling as i walked by in college. It happened again right before I got to class. My ego was sky high, I had finally reached the apex of my physical attraction! I then discovered as I sat down that my fly was wide open! It was amazing how we all seemed to remember that incident months afterwards. They would always smile when I passed.

Why does # of Gods matter? Hinduism has numerous incarnations of Gods, you can take your pick. Why can't there be some inconsistency? Does everyone have to drink the kool-aide? Religions that are founded on matters that can be disproven might have problems. That's why you don't see many God-men running around. So even External consistency might be dangerous, since it is still open to new information Sounds good.

Looks like it is far from proven, but if it is true, what a self-loathing individual. Hard for me to believe, but anything is possible I guess.

If you pee near a fence, make sure there isn't an electric one behind it.

Sorry, I voted yes - bad joke.

Let's say that you believe the following: Anyone who doesn't believe that democracy is ALWAYS the best form of government in ALL situations is wrong. Ok, that is your belief and it seems to be reasonable. But, lets expand it. 1) It is inherently understood that Democracy is always the best form of Government.(no true evidence can suggest otherwise) 2) All other forms of government are wrong and may corrupt existing democracies. 3) Democracies should fight to reach the goal of the world being ruled by Democracy. 4) Democracies will promote peace in the world. Now it is starting to look more like a "bad" religion to me.

That's why I think it is most likely a moot point. I think the next President, Democrat or Republican will not veto such a bill. But, having a majority in congress couldn't hurt his goal.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200409100006 http://sodsbrood.com/pilgrim/2004/11/12/i_was_mr_gray_part_three An excerpt from the above: I remember Limbaugh doing it and that was one of the reasons I quit listening, that and boredom over Clinton railings. So what's the problem? For you nothing maybe, for the majority they think Rush is being a jerk. He wasn't fired for it, just told it was inappropriate. Then he cries. Who's the baby?

My thoughts exactly. I think we can generalize this discussion to a more abstract level. What makes beliefs or ideas bad ones? Is it belief without proof itself? Or belief contrary to proof? Is it the intolerance of a belief? Is it the perceived consequences of disbelief? I lean toward the consequences. For example, if we decide anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is evil, that doesn't make evolutionary theory incorrect or bad, just the part that considers the non-believer evil. But it isn't quite that simple either. If you have a belief that says any country that is not a democracy is an enemy to democracy, then you must expect violence and hatred to rear its head eventually. I guess it is a combination of: 1) How adaptive the belief is to new information 2) How tolerant the belief is to opposing views 3) The perceived consequences of disbelief(the stakes) 4) Actions called to support the belief.

Rush attacked him personally, OK? Do you understand? That is the problem. He does the same to McCain, a war hero. Instead of talking about the issues, he mocks his time being tortured, etc. It is disgusting, but that's what people like.

Yeah, this guy should be smothered in lawsuits. All his money should goto medical research.

I have used ARM's in the past and they worked well for me as they do for millions. I didn't use it to qualify for something bigger though. It is obvious that lenders were desperate to qualify people. I think people should have to qualify for a fixed loan, then get an ARM if they choose to gamble a bit. With more money going to less people, this will continue to be a problem. The middle class will find it harder and harder to afford housing, cars and insurance. They will need to tighten their belt more, but also learn to live with more risk as well.

Thanks! It was talent on loan from God... I have to give it back now. Sarcasm to prove a point. I think he does that as well, just not as good as many people on this board.

What? I can't attack the guy? He is obviously on drugs, acting the way he does, jibber-jabbering. He enters the political arena every day, so he is fair game... That is his argument anyway.

That's a false argument. People aren't complaining about ANY disagreement with Fox, they are complaining about him making fun of his illness. He was wobbling around in his chair, personally attacking the guy. Same with Colter attacking the 9/11 wives. During the civil rights movements, they would have called MLK the "N" word and then complained that they couldn't attack him. He apologized, so even he realizes he screwed up. He is a drug abuser anyway, he probably had too much that day.

That is better than how he tries to portray everyone he disagrees with. The ironic thing is he is probably one of those closet conservatives who laughs at the religious right. I doubt he really cares about religious values at all.

The war was won exceptionally well. The transition has been a disaster. I think everyone would agree that the transition could have been handled better. Maybe keeping the military intact would have been a good idea, but there would probably be no nice way to transition. In the United States we still have people who wish the South had won the civil war. I think they rushed too quickly and didn't anticipate how they would handle the occupation, IMO.

Give them liberty or give them death!!

Use the phone - call old friends. Depending on how long out of school, call the school, maybe find out who is organizing reunions, teachers, etc. The personal route will probably be more interesting as well.

I don't think Bush will change anything until he gets severe heat from his own party, which will probably start as election 2008 heats up. The repubs will look for a way to signal progress in Iraq, i.e pullout of some troops according to 'plan'.

If North Korea started spilling over in the South, it would be amazing how quickly the Iraq civil war would become unimportant. I think we are better able to respond to conflicts that can be met with technology versus ground troops.

Yeah, I actually thought about this scenario after my last post. If a parent has alcohol and car keys in the house, and the kid gets drunk and goes driving, is the parent responsible? Well, this is similar to the kitchen knife question. Many things can be used to harm people, but the primary use for a gun is to harm living things. An assualt rifle is primarily used for harming several living things. I think that is a good line in the sand to draw. We can't keep every potentially harmful thing locked away, but we can lock guns in a reasonable manner. It is easier to keep guns locked away than reading the mind of a teenager, so that is why I bring up this issue. I am not 'defaulting' blame from the teenager. They can lock him away, but in terms of prevention that doesn't do anything. To me, if someone has a gun at home and they do not lock it in a gun safe, then they are negligent if thier kid gets the gun and uses it. Especially if the kid walks to school on their own like this one apparently did.

That is true, we need to know more detail as to how he got the gun, but I would say a gun, especially of that calibre should be kept in a gun cabinet, locked. Not under the bed or in the closet or in a box with a lock on it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11322873/ I think the hybrid will lead to electric cars, once battery technology catches up. Once you have a battery, then you can concentrate on eco-friendly ways of charging the battery. I would imagine solar panels on houses would increase if people could charge their cars overnight, etc.

http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/feeds/ap/2006/10/09/ap3077504.html A boy took an AK-47 assault rifle to school with the intent to kill. He got this weapon from his parents. I think the parent(s) who owns the gun should go to jail. It is ridiculus to allow a child access to a gun and not know that they took it to school. No need to comment about gun control, everyone has discussed that to death. Shouldn't the parents have some responsibility if they own weapons?