sexual_chocolate

hip as in he wears rad clothes. with it, man.

?

can you mention a couple of these economic, legal, and intimidative governmental actions that the lefties here support?

chavez seems like a pretty hip dude to me.

that's a good point, but wouldn't you rather be in a country that had legal frameworks that supported your rights?

i think dru may have been put off by mr. jayb's typical smug delivery and inability to understand evolving contexts, thereby finding himself emotionally charged and as a result unable himself to respond in a more well-rounded fashion. inflexible right-wing authoritarian square meets emotive canuck. results don't vary.

hey kaskadhfihkshkh, perhaps if you stated why you think he's nuts, you might not seem like a nut yourself (if it matters to you).

wrong. jayb's delivery might cause you to believe this, and i think he may be deluded by some smug sense of superiority, but generally speaking, we in the west have structural cultural legal mechanisms in place that support the rights of women. this is lacking in many other countries (iraq had a progressive legal system protecting its women and minorities, but these have been completely removed as of late).

and what sort of sincere argument are you making? oh yeah, that you are glad that you don't live in a muslim country!

But Off, if having a female head-of-state was the best manner in which to asses the legal, political, and cultural status of women in a given society, then we'd have to conclude that Pakistan is on par with Finland, since they've both only had one. You might even have to cede the contest to Pakistan, because Bhutto held office before Jäätteenmäki. who is jatteenmaki? and how do i do umlauts?

without delving into my personal feelings about the situation, i'd say it's all kinda predictable and understandable. US: bellicose. response: iran hardliners, bellicose. now US even more so. classic escalation. and after ahmadinejad's statements about israel's legitimacy as a nation, i really don't see how israel or the US wouldn't respond militarily if iran doesn't buckle to demands. maybe some face-saving maneuverings will take place, i don't know. certainly israel and the US have shown an eager willingness to use extreme force to address situations that otherwise could have been diplomatically addressed.

i think the attack won't entail an "occupation", but rather a "strategic" "surgical" "precision" strike against specific facilities. if it comes, that is. which looks likely at this point.

hey no surprise there. they see this as the most important issue facing the US. cheney has said they'll do whatever it takes, and iran ain't backing down, far as i can tell. this'll go over well. i played a game of backgammon online with someone in iran last year sometime, and he was sincerely frightened of a US attack. at the time i thought it an impossibility; now it seems simply a matter of when.

that's the spirit! slap!

-3jbxCPVUA4

you guys don't know how to screw around.

try being a tree for a change.

buahahahahaaaaa, thought so!

you'll be more proud of your finished product if you hand-drill.

since the source of said premise was fairweather, in no way did i make such an assumption. now please, how do you make me look like cheney? funny answers welcome, but i'd like a serious one too! of christ, comments? we have entered a new age of accountability around here.

you are ruining a perfectly fine thread about important issues with your illegal banter. now who the heck bolted this climb that was illegally named the optimist after it was called the great roof which was its legal name? after i finish law school, i will be looking.

with those shoes, it was new back in '91. just saying.

commentary about sarcasm belongs in spray.

It's sarcasm, and you're still in kansas.

since the source of said premise was fairweather, in no way did i make such an assumption. now please, how do you make me look like cheney? funny answers welcome, but i'd like a serious one too!