chucK

thus speaks the Bush-obsessed assclown, who can not tolerate ANY political position a nanometer to the right of his own. and the hypocrisy... I don't think anyone considers Bush benign. Bush is affecting our lives and millions (billions?) of people throughout the globe. Gore is a movie star. Ranting so vehemently about Gore is like ranting about Paris Hilton. It shows you need a diversion to feel good about yourself.

Gore Derangement Syndrome surfacing once more. It just amazes me how someone as benign as Al Gore can cause so much negative passion in you. But then again, you do seem like a rather intolerant individual.

Dude, everyone on the bus talks loud. Add to the fact that usually everybody else is sorta bored and can't get away, you're basically right there in the conversation. It's forced eavesdropping (unless you have the refuge of your IPOD isolation chamber). Hopefully everyone who talks on the bus, whether it's on a phone or to the person next to them understands that all their co-passengers are paying careful attention to everything they say. I get the idea that some of those dumb teenagers aren't clued into this. So whatever. It is what it is. But one of the great things about riding the bus is that someone else is doing the driving so you have the freedom to do other things like read, work, or talk to people. Loud cellphone talkers are a funny phenomenon, that's for sure. You think people would realize after a point that they are yelling, but cells have been around for a while now and I don't see the propensity going down much. My wife practically screams on the cell. It's like I've got a speakerphone on the other end. I hold the phone about two feet away.

I ride the bus. I'm not going to begrudge people the right to talk to someone, next to them, or in New York. It can be annoying, but that's just the kind of thing you have to deal with if you decide to forgo the single-occupancy vehicle. You have to coexist with OTHER PEOPLE

YOU HEARD THE MAN!!!! NO TALKING ON THE BUS!!!! AT ALL!!!! it annoys him. And don't sit by him either and make sure you smell good. and that hat you are wearing, lose it. and what's with your IPOD, IT'S WAY TOO LOUD...

Al Gore Rules Kaskadfuckzak drools ...

I slept in a very buggy Stuart Pass one time in a BD Pyramid. The bugs came in, but then went straight for the apex, trying to get out I guess. So there were a ton of mosiquitos in there with us, but they were all buzzing around up at the top. Didn't bother us at all! Guess it pays to stink! If you're not too afraid of poison you can get a couple pieces of those mosquito coils that you burn and give off bug-warding smoke. Those seem to help in a floorless tent situation.

Like almost everybody else has said, they don't have to go, they can quit. I think this will lead to people quitting and make people very disenchanted with their employer and be looking to find a better job. The qualified people will find other work and leave. Brain drain from the FSO. The more stupid shit like this happens the more it makes me believe the formerly unbelievable that the Bush administration actually is trying to kill the government by loading with incompetency. I believe radical conservatives think this is a reasonable option, of fucking up the government so much, that it will collapse under it's own weight. Viola! No more big government. As long as you're independently wealthy or have a survival bunker in Colorado/Wyoming/Idaho you can ride out the chaos. Case in point look at this guy that Bush is nominating to head the VA. This guy was in on the ground floor of all the crap that has built up with regard to the VA, and now he's getting promoted to fix the problem? It really makes you wonder what the hell is going on. Either Bush is purposefully trying to destroy competency in government or he's just picking a fight with Democrats (playing politics with the health and well-being of our veterans). It's just unbelievable how crazy this is getting.

OK, I guess that would. How do home-ownership tax breaks help these people? That was my original question, but actually I don't think I care much anymore. I now am guessing that JayB's original assertion was just some sort of sarcastic dig that I don't understand. Carry on. Blah blah is right.

KkkKk your solution is stupid. I think taxing the shit out of the top %1 could feed a lot more people than just cooking up their bodies.

OK restate federal poverty level to "people too poor to even think about buying a home".

Yes Iraq and Iran were/are certain to be titans with world domination right around the corner.

Fair enough. I think this guy having his gay sex is just fine and dandy. No complaints, as long as he isn't hurtin no one. That guy extorting him for money is repugnant! When we get something happening like this to two-faced politicians though it is quite nice in a "truth in advertising" type of way.

Here's some stuff to argue about (no particular order other than when I thought them up) Waddington? Davis Peak? Nooksack Tower? Mox Peak? Nothern Pickets? The Tooth Old Settler Southern Pickets (N side)? Johannesburg? Stuart? Chimney Rock?

Yes, as already agreed, #1 is a bit loose. I think the basic idea of my #1 is self-defense. Though that's a bit hard to codify, and gets into KkkKk's gray areas. But please don't write any more about this "imminent" stuff and draw Peter Puget into this!

Sorry JayB, but you'd better dumb it down a bit for me. I am so confused by what you wrote that I can't even tell if you were being sarcastic! I guess I just figured that if you define poor as like below federal poverty level or thereabouts that home ownership seems tangential since none of these people will be able to buy a house. And also tax breaks seem a bit superfluous as these folks have zero tax liability already. And KkkKk, I just jumped in this discussion. I haven't referred once to "rich", so I don't understand the basis of your question.

Again my history is foggy on this, but I thought North Korea invaded South Korea, and we came to South Korea's aid. Perhaps #1 should have "or one of our allies" ammended to it. I guess you could consider Iraq II legal from the point of characteristic #1 if you considered gulf war II just a continuation of I. But that would be pushing it, since I's purpose, defending Kuwait had already been well accomplished. I'll agree that "legal" is a continuum and can vary by beholder, but still, your second paragraph is total bullshit. Aggressively invading another country is way less legal than responding in self-defense or in the defense of allies.

How do these home-owning tax breaks help the poor? What are you defining as poor?

I won't put words in Bugs mouth (please give us your take too Bug!), But for my part, characteristics of illegal wars would be: 1. invading another country that has not attacked us. 2. lieing to the people fronting the war about the reasons for going to war. 3. leaders consciously deciding to disregard articles of the geneva convention. There could be others too, but I'm just listing the characteristics I think the Iraq war has. In hindsight it appears that the Vietnam War was illegal according to characteristic #2. I don't know enough of my history about Vietnam to be sure about #1 (but didn't NV invade SV and we were helping them out?). North Korea seems legal as did WWII. And yes, women and children die in just about any war (except maybe that lovely conquest of Grenada). That's one reason why we should be a bit less cavalier about starting them (note "starting", that logically implies violating characteristic #1 above)

One of the best Halloween songs

Jeeze! Looks like she got a spinal adjustment there. Sounds like Rick Moranis at the end.

Sorry to get all serious here, but are you seriously suggesting that the libs are better/more frequent users of fear mongering than their counterparts in the GOP?

THE POLITICS OF FEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1