ivan

the historical irony of the party of lincoln now championing the supremacy of individual states is...uh...uh...well over the head of most republicans? The Confederacy was not an "individual state". the confederate states said the supremacy of state rights over federal rights allowed them to secede (and having divorced their first wife, now being free to remarry whoever they want) - that if their state right to set internal policies was being abused by the feds, that they had the right to leave the country. republicans, of course, at that time said that was bullshit, that states were subordinate to the federal governmetn (it's there in article 6 n' everything) and that south carolina and her little bitch friends couldn't just take their ball and go home.

Can you cite a source for this? I did a search for "romney campaign hacking facebook" and found plenty of independent sources disputing such an idea. (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/10/mitt-romney-fraudulent-facebook-likes) *like!*

the historical irony of the party of lincoln now championing the supremacy of individual states is...uh...uh...well over the head of most republicans?

it's hard to imagine the feds sitting on their hands when legal washington weed starts showing up in idaho and oregon?

rumors? [video:youtube]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/01/14854036-sandy-power-outages-for-hundreds-of-thousands-into-next-week-as-new-storm-builds?lite seems like comparing the power distribution system of a city and a sub-urb/rural community is distinctly apples n' oranges.

you're doing the lord's work sir, keep it up that said, it's gonna take a big set of nuts to actually set up the first state-sanctioned stores, given that the feds will be itching to seize the whole shooting match in the name of sneering at the will of the people...reckon obama *might* be better in that respect, given that he won't have to run for re-election w/ the cloud of "soft on crime" hanging over his head?

for a defense of weed, sure sounds like it was writ by a coke-head

yes, but in a republic/democracy, where every person is, at least in theory, a part of the government, all social interactions carry much larger implications. my expectations of the two-toof beyotch ringing up my groceries at my local safeway ain't too much different from the 3-piece suit wearing mother-fuckers working in the capitol building in me n' my neighbors' names: do your job, recognize i exist, don't fucking jerk me around (same as every other relationship i'm a part of) government in a republic is just the aggregate of all these smaller relationships.

That's how you define it, not how I do. what relationship doesn't have its politics? confucius' whole construction of the best government/society boiled down to every member of it accepting certain rules of behavior, based on the relationship, be it father-son, subject-emperor, safeway clerk-shopper, etc.

sounds shockingly pro-human... BIAS ALERT!!!

hitler had no idea how to debunker, poor guy

the trouble of course is "politics" is roughly defined as the way human-beings interact w/ each other, and thus the only way to not politicize anything is to Go Big, like lao tzu, and simply hike off into the boonies to be alone for a good long while any natural disaster offers a perfectly valid occasion to compare n' contrast one party's approach to the others - it doesn't seem that big a deal, so long as the distracted ones ain't firefighters n' doctors, right?

you musta eaten yer weedies this morning

if you're posting in spray, it's a positive bet you're already an expert in bullshit

take a picture of that picture and put it up here, eh?

how many folks working on the arena of terror platform are currently up to their balls in zombie-flesh i wonder?

i respect phd's - in my limited sampling of them, i've found the majority of them bigger drunks then meself

I thought JFK was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald... common misconception - actually it was john wilkes booth george carlin said it, never trust a motherfucker w/ 3 names

speaking of orders, make mine a super-size!

not really. might add a b-25 also wasn't running on jet fuel, nor was the building that it hit a glancing blow to of the same design as the wt tower. the sample size of giant jumbo jets hitting anything (for good reason) is quite small - however, i have seen pictures of seriously bad-ass metallic objects like tanks n' battleships after incredible high-temp fires have raged in them which yielded some pretty dramatic mechanical deformations - a fun personal tragedy, i once started a forest fire that consumed my big old gregory denali backpack - it had metal stays in the back that were originally straight, but when the fire was done they'd rolled up like bubble-gum tape

i did actually watch it - i'd didn't understand, nor do they much explain, how their experiment reproduced the reality of a gaint ass jumbo-jet w/ a full fuel load burning away in a large, enclosed space 1000 feet off the ground. i'd be much more interested if a much larger chunk of engineers were like-wise minded, but then it's probably them bastards that did it all in the first place i don't know shit about building demolition, but it seems to me that, to have done it on so large a scale as the two towers, that some folks would have noticed shit seemed fishy.

i wonder what john nash makes of all of this? for the sake of argument, bone, if we are to accept this was all a gubiment conspiracy, does that also mean the first 1st wt attack, the kenyan embassy bombing and the uss cole were all crafty manipulations as well? is aq then just a total patsy, a true shadow-man?

makes you understand why them muslim-fellers don't like visual depictions of the prophet - jesus, she looks like some-one turned the zombie michael jackson into a white-chick n' then shot her face fulla botox...still, the only difference between this loon and joe smith is...is...is...what again? poorer marketing?

"if you will it, it is no dream"