Stonehead

PhD---posthole digger

Well, I wasn't being serious about that statement but since you responded. Maybe the reason is that Norway doesn't have an overarching foreign policy. Oh wait, this is that absurbo adhominem thingy.

Maybe they extol the virtues of da kine.

Norway is a country that enjoys the virtues of freedom. So, why don't THEY hate Norway?

The Safety Smock

Yeah and maybe a few clandestine British commandos to agitate the Shiite south.

Who would have thunk that snaffles ( )were so sensitive?

Arrrggghhhhh!!!

I was edumacated on Cascadeclimbers.com

Why do GU when you can have a Buzz Bomb ?

The Pasta is my masta.

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. Never one to miss an opporunity to be smug but rarely one to respond directly. The abortion debate is a smokescreen designed to stop more substantial debate. Here is something to mull over: link --snip-- Miers said last year that "[t]he future of the American economy depends on ... making the president's tax cuts permanent, lowering the costs of health care, [and] reducing the burden of frivolous lawsuits and unnecessary regulation," --snip-- -- Source -->Miers, Roberts, And Inequality Ya, PP is just pointing out that even though the abortion issue is getting much of the attention, Miers' economic views might be rather interesting. In one case for Microsoft, she helped the company stave off a lawsuit brought by dissatisfied customers. The customers bought a product with defective code but that in itself was not enough for damage claims.

http://www.gizoogle.com/ Ok, this might not be what you think it is. Try it, SFW. Type cascadeclimbers in search.

I mean, just watching that video, seeing actual footage of Bush, even though it's a parody...makes me realize that there are varying degrees of intellect that play into his role. It's not just force of personality that injects one person's influence into what becomes policy or the presentation of that policy. For example, it's my impression that Clinton appears to have personally grappled with some the issues (insert joke here about him grappling and being hands-on). In contrast, Bush appears to be barely articulate and if that is any indication of his ability to advance ideas, then...do you see where I'm coming from? How the hell do some of these guys get there? What if something had happened to G.H.W. Bush and Quayle had become President?

Wow, you're really tough! Wouldn't you agree that there's a degree of difference in how 'hands-on' a President is, e.g., Clinton vs. Bush?

I see on the news today that the high court is considering taking on the physician-assisted suicide law in Oregon. Remember all the brouhaha surrounding the Terri Schiavo issue? Regardless of where you stand on the controversy, this is another ‘sanctity of life’ issue, just as the abortion issue. Bush’s new nominee is on record as stating that life begins at conception and therefore from that standpoint, abortion could be tantamount to homicide. As all of us understand, abortion is available for health reasons and for personal choice. It’s where you draw the line. For instance, if you found out your baby would be defective but otherwise healthy, would you abort it? It seems that the conservative members of the court will let Roe v. Wade stand since it is the ‘law of the land’ and there have been repeated assertions of nominating candidates who would not use the bench to push activist agendas. However, ‘life’ is stranger than fiction. The underpinning of Roe v. Wade is the penumbra right to privacy, nowhere is this right specifically addressed in the Constitution. If Miers is correct in her reasoning, does one individual (the mother) have the right to deny the other individual (the child) his rights?

The realization is that there are various 'interests' who express their agenda through the vehicle of the Presidency and that the President appears much more as a figurehead of his Administration. He who has the ears of the king is more powerful than the king. I thought this when Ronald Reagan was President. How fitting was it that a former actor became the Chief Executive of this country?

"What the hell did you say about me on Cascadeclimbers? Huh! What?"

Ya...Pavlov's response Sex, violence, and gratuitious cruelity

Would you recognize it as the potential animal in you or are you just projecting it onto the Other? It's one thing to see a video of someone's throat being cut in the act. It's altogether another thing to see soldiers posing for a picture in which they may or may not be the killers.

Yeah, the guy who has that site recognized it for it is, fucked up, as in nowthatsfuckedup. It’s another thing to characterize these guys as psychopaths because, really, all you’re doing is moralizing based on a knee-jerk reaction. Can you get behind the intent in everyone’s mind as he’s posing for the picture? Maybe it’s one guy’s way of saying, ‘hey, it sucks here but I’m alive and that poor sucker is dead.” Or maybe, ‘damn, I’m lucky to be an American where I don’t have to live in this shit, just a brief stopover before I go back to sanity.’ This is the aftermath of war and together with its marriage with technology, it’s brought to our attention where otherwise it would slumber, a distant world unknown to our oblivious consumer-drenched lives. The situation sucks and I recognize it for what it is, too. This awareness is finally getting through, but slowly: The cost of this war may outweigh its benefits.

-- source