sexual_chocolate

2012 is also the end of the Mayan calendar. Also the Egyptian calendar? And the Kalevala.... Hmmmm....

6:30 full north ridge car to car (from Ingall's side?) is fuckin' cruising king missile speed. We did it somewhat casually in 17 hours car to car over ingall's, not complete.

The "left" was quite vocal in their opposition to the Taliban, even back when the Bushies were inviting the Taliban to Texas for the latest business conference on a pipeline through Afghanistan. And certainly the "jihadi" has never been a favorite of the "left", even before Bush's war allowed them to appear for the first time in Iraq. It's just that the Taliban and the jihadi have been replaced with a threat much greater in scale, but an apologist for our current administration would fail to see this. Just for the record, it would seem that you were a supporter of our Iraqi invasion; is this true, or am I projecting assumptions based on your hubristic arguments and reductio ad absurdums?

That's right you guys. If you even discuss the ramifications of conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, you're playing right into the hands of this administration, because conservative appointments are simply a SMOKESCREEN intended to distract y'all from something MUCH BIGGER and more important. Hehe.

If the protections afforded by Roe v. Wade were removed, I'll name 25 states right now where abortion would become illegal. And Kaskads, I don't share your "confidence" (may I call it that?). Roe v. Wade was based upon an interpretation of Constitutional protections; with an ultra-conservative interpretation, it could come out very differently. Even without an out-right over-turn of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court could, with its conservative agenda, allow states more leeway to interpret Roe v. Wade, slowly chipping away its protections, yes?

"This" has nothing to do with the death penalty. "This" is simply an Equal Protection Clause issue under the 14th Amendment, trumping any state-attempted end-around. No state can be in violation of the Constitution, which they would be if they attempted to abridge a woman's right to an abortion. The death penalty has, unfortunately, never been ruled unconstitutional (although it is beyond ripe for such a ruling). Because of this, states maintain the right to execute individuals (a barbarity shared by no other 1st world western nation).

So fairweather, you said you responded in the "appropriate" thread, but I couldn't find it! Maybe you didn't really want to talk about it anymore, since the facts had been actually exposed? And JayB, I'm certain that someone as astute as you would have become quite familiar with the common misgivings about the 2000 elections shared by many.... The Election Commissioner's scrubbing of the eligible voter polls is one example. You seem to think that it takes a concerted effort headed by an Illuminati-type secret cabal to effect political change through means highly suspect; I think this type of thinking is naive, and reeks more of a paranoia that you accused MattP of possessing (who simply brought up legitimate concerns regarding the elections). By the way, your passive/aggressive nature is coming out on display again. Camouflage quickly!

No state can violate the Equal Protection Clause; No state law can over-ride the 14th amendment. Pretty simple really.

Instead of arguing about whether or not one's concern about the validity of the two recent presidential elections constitutes paranoia, it would be more fruitful to actually look at the charges. I'm not sure if the involved parties would actually wish to engage in a discussion of facts; rather, a continued blathering of theoreticals and the impossibility of "conspiracies" seems to be the preferred recipe for a safe harbor. And Fairweather, are you still objecting to the validation by multiple organizations of Venezuela's elections? How about those pesky Amnesty International charges against the US? (I didn't think I'd see the day you'd use that organization as support for an argument of yours! Next you'll join me as a card-carrying member of the ACLU.)

It seems as though it would necessarily be an eliminate, unfortunately.

Hey thanks for the link. I read it with interest. It did bring up a couple of points that are worth mentioning: -I think we would need to know what the EU's "standard methodology" is, regarding election observations. I couldn't find their standard protocols, nor any explanation as to why they couldn't be implemented. I do find it telling though that the OAS and Carter Centre both gave the elections (referendum) a clean bill of health, especially when the EU states the following: "In the context of the current crisis, the EU has fully supported the role as facilitators of the tripartite (OAS, UNDP and Carter Centre) led by the OAS." If the EU has this type of confidence in these organizations, one could logically conclude that indeed their observations regarding the vote would be also respected, yes? As to the HRW and Amnesty International assessments: 1. Read their assessments of the US. Seems as though they have bigger issues with us than they do with Venezuela; 2. I take the points seriously, and I think we SHOULD work to make this world a more fair and equitable place, but we can't do it while we are guilty of the very sins we blame others for. Doesn't this make sense to you? Do not pluck the sliver out of your neighbors eye while a timber blinds your own? (I only include a biblical reference because I know the crowd here to be quite religious. ) The Latin countries have suffered from centuries of western oppression and hypocrisy, watching their labor and resources be exploited. Why you can't see this, and the very understandable reactions (Chavez, Castro, Allende, Marte, Gueverra etal) is really beyond me.

If a company sells something that does nothing else except enslave and then kill people, then fuckin' a they gotta go. Tobacco co's are evil fuckers, exceeded only by the advertisers who work for them.

Hey fairweather. You might consider the fact that I don't hold Chavez or the steps being taken in Venezuela as ultimate ideals, but given the history of the country, the current trend certainly seems a marked improvement over past inequities. I don't see how a reasonable mind could doubt this. The US needs to clean up her own diapers before attempting to get others to change theirs.

the precedent is to confirm the President's nominees unless they are grossly unqualified. If you want to talk precedent, it was also precedent to not threaten rule changes to block fillibusters. Irregardless, a senator's "boss" is his (or her?) state's citizens, not the president. In any event, I was never really against this Roberts character. I think he is certainly unqualified to be Chief Justice as I tend to think Chiefs should be nominated from existing Justices, or at least somebody with a history at the federal court level. He has nither. (oh really???) But aside from that, i'll take him as a presumed improvement to Renquist. 1)The use of Irregardless is poor form. 2)The ABA rates Roberts as "exceptionally well qualified". Its highest rating. 3)Like you, I would have preferred to see Scalia appointed chief justice. 4)Roberts was previously appointed to The DC Circuit Court of Appeals. This is a federal court. Josh, forget about that "American Political Systems" course. You obviously aren't learning anything. Might I suggest you take a sub-100 level course in English, and then move forward with your post-primary education? Hey fairweather, don't you have some unanswered questions waiting for you on another thread? Perhaps you were feeling a little embarrassed, and tried a few diversionary tactics over here? I still want to know your .... answers please!

So I still haven't received an answer to this.... Really? So international election observers were all in cahorts with Chavez, or perhaps duped? Please tell me your reason for doubting the validity of their election, an election that by all measures was seemingly a much more credible and verified process than the ones we have experienced in this country during the last two presidential cycles.... A couple of interesting points: -A somewhat recent opinion poll conducted in Venezuela (can't remember source; perhaps google it) gave around 60% support to Chavez, and around 10%-15% to the opposition that spearheaded the coup. With their current windfall from high oil prices, his support has understandably only increased, due to his heightened ability to implement the "reforms" promised. -There is an active and vocal opposition, a very monied class, owning a television station which is devoted to pretty comical attacks on Chavez. It's pretty incessant, and completely free in its maneuverings, from everything I've gathered. So, freedom of the press, anyone? Inform me please of the extraconstitutional measures he is taking. Inform me also about the nature of their constitution, its history, who helped craft it, and who it was meant to serve. I don't necessarily "support" him right now. What I DO support is Venezuela's independence, and her people's choice in electing who they want, without the self-serving hypocrisy of US meddlings in the process.

Somoza was leader of a South American country??? I guess all those 'latinas' down south fall into the same mental pot you have created in that big open mind of yours, eh? That's the best you can do? After making a valid point about the nature of Venezuela's democratically instituted reform; after making a valid point regarding your support of a military ouster of a democratically elected leader, all you can come up with is a nit-pick about Somoza being from Central America as opposed to South America? Please respond as to whether or not you support the will of the people in Venezuela, or the will of the minority through militant violence.... The choice is yours, and I am curious as to your answer.

I never realized how deeply your ignorance pervades your being until reading the above statement.

He was through his party's victory. Go read a history book. Dru's posting on the other thread is just an exercise in useless semantic games, meant merely to obfuscate - modus operandi for liberals. Just because Chavez was "elected" does not mean the process was anywhere near to the principles of democracy, nor is he given a carte blanc to act however he wishes once he gained power. You liberals are so f**ked in the head with your rationalizations that it's unbelievable. Yeah I also thought Hitler was pretty much elected? Certainly he had much appeal to the lower middle class, regardless, and the business elite.... But, how was the political process in Venezuela not in accordance with the "principles of democracy"? Curious about your take on that.... Also, is the course of action he is following not the one that was his platform during the election process? I have personally not found any inconsistencies....

Should the fact that he taught at Maharishi automatically discredit him? I would think that true scientific method dictates an analysis of hypotheses, not discreditation based on the source of said hypotheses. Now do I personally believe that a group meditation lowered the crime rate somewhere? That'd be a tough one to prove, even if a correlation existed. I WOULD assert that if you could get everyone in NY to meditate for one hour at the same time, NY would experience NO CRIME during that hour.

Your ability to do thus would depend greatly on your ability to believe that indeed it might be possible. I think what the emotive reaction to the movie might be partly based on is the fact that we are highly conditionable creatures who depend on this conditionability for our very survival. If something begins to disturb our sense of our chosen or unconsciously adopted collective zeitgeist of our time, we naturally react in a very defensive manner, hostile to the intrusion. We will use anger, innuendo, threats, outright violence to deflect from that which so threatens us. We see it so clearly when it's someone like Pat Robertson or George Bush who does it, but are we able to see when WE do it? Probably not, cuz it's so much easier to point our finger at others. but what we forget is that when we point a finger at others, there are THREE pointing at us. My point is that indeed the movie was a rather blithe failure in the department of sharp pointy witty pieces of film-reel such as I heart Huckabees, but it still brings up some things that I find beyond fascinating, and I truly don't give a shit if the whole thing was bank-rolled by Ramtha the Warrior himself.

You seem to be having great trouble answering my above question regarding the particular points made in the movie that you deem fallacious. You are beginning to sound like Pat Robertson, relying on emotive innuendo devoid of substance.

I would question your need for validation of this sort. I think the movie-maker did a good job NOT identifying the "talking-heads" until the very end. This way those so inclined might look at the ideas without prior prejudice (simply believing what they hear because the source is a PhD, or dismissing because it's some new-agey loon). The more I think about it, the more I realize: Boy, what a great movie.

And yes, some like their "science" in a very orthodox form, sticking exclusively to the packaging of a Nova or Nature presentation. Quite dogmatic though, if you ask me. People will build anything into a "religion", including "science". I especially like emotive defenses of "science", full of hubris and profanity; I would think that a scientific mind would realize the handicap of over-emotionalism, thereby curtailing its power. Spock is a good role-model for those aspiring to scientific neutrality.

I would again invite you to present the particular "factual" inadequacies presented in the movie.... Perhaps just one?

Besides Ramtha (actually JZ Knight) being in the movie, what is the connection? It's kinda funny to me the reaction a movie like this can elicit.... I'm somewhat neutral to it overall, thinking it was at least an attempt by someone investigating in movie-form something pretty damn interesting. I haven't really heard a response to the material in the movie, more just emotive reactions based on vague generalizations....