The argument that because some people calling themselves environmentalists have burned car dealerships and ski lodges, thrown blood on people (which I believe is pretty much a tactic of animal-rights whackjobs, not environmentalists) and committed other outrages, ALL environmentalists are out-of-control whackjobs is silly at best and dangerous at worst. It's no better than the position of certain leftist loonies that all corporations are evil rapacious entities that will do anything they can get away with to increase their bottom lines, which presupposes that simply by taking a job with a "corporation" one sells one's soul and abandons all moral and ethical beliefs.
I have met such folk, Bill. They talk about "The Corporations" the way that folks like Limbaugh, Sam and Iceman talk about "liberals" and "environmentalists." It's stereotyping and prejudice.
I don't think Michael Moore necessarily thinks that way, but Ratfuck Ralph is pretty close to that position. "Corporatization" seems to be his favorite word.
And yes, I am aware of Halliburton, et al, but I work for a very large company in an industry that gets a lot of name-calling from my liberal bretheren. You may call me naive, but I believe that we are not guilty of the abuses other companies in the field are noted for. Yes, we make money, but our goal is to make a dramatic difference in people's lives.
Yes, we make money, but our goal is to make a dramatic difference in people's lives.
your goal is to make money. the people whose lives your goal is to make a difference in are called stockholders (assuming this is a publicly traded company) and the only difference you are interested in making for them is in the size of their wallets.
If making a difference in people's lives helps them do that, all the better...but don't think that tail is wagging the dog.
GDubbya, will NOT go there anyway (hydrogen). He only wants to DRILL...
Bush pushes hydrogen fuel
Proposal would aid development of cells
February 7, 2003
BY CRAIG LINDER
STATES NEWS SERVICE
WASHINGTON -- Saying that the next generation of automobiles can "help change the world," President George W. Bush rallied support Thursday for his plan to spark development of clean-burning hydrogen fuel cells... link
Bush touts benefits of hydrogen fuel
Cites risk in reliance on 'foreign sources' of oil
Thursday, February 6, 2003 Posted: 4:39 PM EST (2139 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States can change its dependence on foreign oil and "make a tremendous difference" in the world and the environment, President Bush said Thursday as he announced details of a $1.2 billion initiative to make hydrogen fuel competitive for powering vehicles and generating electricity... link
Bush sells vision of hydrogen future
FreedomFUEL program to promote fuel cell vehicles
By Miguel Llanos MSNBC Updated: 6:52 a.m. ET Oct.24, 2003  Jan. 29 - Using the national spotlight to sell a technology still foreign to most Americans, President Bush on Tuesday proposed a $1.2 billion program to help build the infrastructure needed to revolutionize the cars we drive. The goal is to replace the polluting internal combustion engine with battery-like fuel cells that run on nonpolluting hydrogen... link
the people whose lives your goal is to make a difference in are called stockholders and the only difference you are interested in making for them is in the size of their wallets.
Not so, crabby. The people whose lives we are trying to make a dramatic difference in are people with grievous diseases. We've had a few successes, and that's what keeps me going to work. We don't make me-too drugs, and we're not working on the next boner pill. Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, severe osteoporosis and crippling arthritis are just a few of our disease targets.
The people whose lives we are trying to make a dramatic difference in are people with grievous diseases.
no...you are trying to make a difference in the lives of people with grievious diseases because to do so would be very profitable...if it wasn't potentially profitable, you wouldn't be doing it. Let's face it, you aren't a non-profit outfit. If it doesn't have the potential to make you a lot of money, you don't do it.
Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, severe osteoporosis and crippling arthritis are just a few of our disease targets.
How many "orphan" drug programs have you worked on lately?
Most, if not all, of the good things in life are possible because of profits. How's the medical care for the average Joe in China? How many types of cars and trucks are made in Cuba? How productive are the farmers in Sudan?Â
Profit is what gives this country the strongest economy the world has ever seen, with by far the best standard of living in history. Profit is the incentive to create and produce.  Profits create jobs. Try living in a country that doesn't allow them. You'd hightail it back here in a New York minute.
Well then, i'm sure crabs doesn't have a car or any type of internal combustion engine that would require him to do business with criminal/unethical oil companies.
Well then, i'm sure crabs does not purchase his diabetes medication produced from those criminal/unethical drug companies. You know, the meds that keep him alive.
to think large corporations are driven by some sort of altruistic motive instead of simple profit is naive.
Does it have to be one or the other? I'm saying it's both, and there's an corporate ethical culture that's carefully nurtured to keep us on the straight and narrow. Corner-cutters get their asses fired; I've seen it more than once.
fold: I have serious reservations that anyone, even including Michael Moore(who was a terrific guest on Bill Maher's Show last night...?)sees ALLcorporations as you described. But of course, we all know that...right?
Yeah, I guess if you like bald faced liars.
Newspaper accuses Moore documentary of using fake front page
July 30, 2004 (Bloomington, Ill.)— Filmmaker Michael Moore's Bush-basing documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" apparently has upset more than Republicans.
T he (Bloomington) Pantagraph in central Illinois has sent a letter to Moore asking him to apologize for using what the newspaper says was a doctored front page in the film.
Bush ain't selling hydrogen, he is selling HIMSELF by making statements he has NO intention of evercarrying out. It's called "Election Year Political Gobbledegook". Fold
I never knew that 2003 was an election year. I guess I missed my chance to vote.
Hey, Karl! Where's the beef?
The President’s Budget - Fiscal Year 2004                                                                                 http://www.house.gov/budget/bb04energy2.htm
Looks like he has already started "carrying out" his promise. Please investigate before making such statements as it makes you look like an extremist and ignorant.
To understand modern liberalism and its political party, it is vital to understand Democrats' desire to blur any distinctions between child and adult. Ever since the 1960s, liberalism has been largely a movement dominated by children (of every age).
So the best Dennis Pompous can do is pick on a 12-year-old girl? Shameful. But then, he probably couldn't deal with this sort of challenge:
[A]longside our famous individualism, there's another ingredient in the American saga. A belief that we are connected as one people. If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child. If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandmother. If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It's that fundamental belief -- I am my brother's keeper, I am my sisters' keeper -- that makes this country work. It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. "E pluribus unum." Out of many, one.
Yet even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there's not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there's the United States of America. There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America. The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.
Prager is a handwringing Nellie. Listen to his show, and everything is vitally important, and civilization hangs in the balance.
That Group Pro-Life Across America co-opts kids all the time, when they're way too young to have a say. The Democrats could have done without the girl, but at least she was old enough to make a choice.
So the best Dennis Pompous can do is pick on a 12-year-old girl? What is shameful is that the demcrats used the poor girl that doesn't know any better.
The Democrats could have done without the girl, but at least she was old enough to make a choice. You'll believe just about any democrat lie, won't you, Rick.
It's that fundamental belief -- I am my brother's keeper, I am my sisters' keeper -- that makes this country work. It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. Just a variant of the communist's "From Each According To His Abilities, To Each According To His Needs".
Yet even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. That would be the democraps.We worship an awesome God (that would be man, not God) in the Blue States, Â
You equated "I am my brother's keeper" with communism, therefore Cain, who denied that he was his brother's keeper, must be your role model -- unless you've gone commie on us when we weren't looking . . .
While you're at it, Matthew 25:31-46 endorses that which sounds a lot like what you call communism.
"Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;
for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink;
I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.'
"Then they themselves also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?'
"Then He will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.'
"These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
You equated "I am my brother's keeper" with communism, therefore Cain, who denied that he was his brother's keeper, must be your role model -- unless you've gone commie on us when we weren't looking . . . That IS faulty reasoning. Maybe it should be called lack of reason. But that is all I expect from you.
While you're at it, Matthew 25:31-46 endorses that which sounds a lot like what you call communism.
Exactly where does He say anything about government enforcing good deeds in those verses? In order to receive one's reward it appears that one must voluntarily commit oneself to neighborly acts.
It's that fundamental belief -- I am my brother's keeper, I am my sisters' keeper -- that makes this country work. It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family.
To which you responded:
Just a variant of the communist's "From Each According To His Abilities, To Each According To His Needs".
Now if that's not equating a recognition of interdependence and responsibility for one's fellows with communism, I don't know what is. Unless you meant something else, in which case you should write more clearly.
Exactly where does He say anything about government enforcing good deeds in those verses?
It's somebody a lot more powerful than the government in charge of enforcement, according to the Gospel, and it's not "good deeds" that Jesus is talking about there, he's talking about everyone's duty.
You're certainly not shy about wanting the government to enforce your version of morality in other areas, jethro, why are you suddenly reluctant to have the government facilitate the Christian duty -- not mere "good deed" or "neighborly act" -- of charity?
Yea that's like Billie's book when he claimed his biggest priority was Bin Laden.
The final policy paper on national security that President Clinton submitted to Congress — 45,000 words long — makes no mention of al Qaeda and refers to Osama bin Laden by name just four times.     The scarce references to bin Laden and his terror network undercut claims by former White House terrorism analyst Richard A. Clarke that the Clinton administration considered al Qaeda an "urgent" threat,
Or Richard Clarke, another proven liar. Great fiction though.
Or Joe Wilson, you remember him don't you ? He wrote a book too, sems he's disappeared from radar and Kerry dropped him from his website after he was found to be another lying sack.
Just a variant of the communist's "From Each According To His Abilities, To Each According To His Needs".
The I nailed it exactly.Â
Now if that's not equating a recognition of interdependence and responsibility for one's fellows with communism, I don't know what is. Unless you meant something else, in which case you should write more clearly. Maybe if you weren't so dense you would understand.Â
Exactly where does He say anything about government enforcing good deeds in those verses?
It's somebody a lot more powerful than the government in charge of enforcement, according to the Gospel, and it's not "good deeds" that Jesus is talking about there, he's talking about everyone's duty. He is talking about a reward for good behavior based on the individual's choice.Â
You're certainly not shy about wanting the government to enforce your version of morality in other areas, jethro, why are you suddenly reluctant to have the government facilitate the Christian duty -- not mere "good deed" or "neighborly act" -- of charity? You obviously do not understand my positions then. Killing human beings is wrong in most people's book. What I want enforced is a penalty for violating that moral principle. It is you that appears that you want the government to enforce "brotherly" principles. There is nothing more brotherly than stopping the execution of unborn children.
What I want enforced is a penalty for violating that moral principle.
A moral principle that is based on a particular narrow interpretation of Christianity, not shared by all Christian denominations.
Killing human beings is wrong in most people's book.
Definitions of when a fetus becomes a human being differ widely.
Interesting that you keep referring to those charitable duties as things that will be rewarded, which is not what Matthew wrote that Jesus said. Jesus said that you will be punished if you do notdo these things; in other words, they aren't optional.If ignoring your duty to show hospitality to strangers, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, comfort the sick and incarcerated will condemn you to hell, I'd say that those are moral principles just as strong as your opposition to abortion, a subject on which Jesus had nothing to say, by the way.
 moral principle that is based on a particular narrow interpretation of Christianity, not shared by all Christian denominations. No. That is the left wing propaganda that you have bought into. Logic establishes that at conception you have a human being. Try to find that in the Bible.
Killing human beings is wrong in most people's book.
Definitions of when a fetus becomes a human being differ widely. Logic establishes that the at conception there is a human being. It is mysticism that argues that there is no human being until sometime later.
Interesting that you keep referring to those charitable duties as things that will be rewarded, which is not what Matthew wrote that Jesus said. Jesus said that you will be punished if you do notdo these things; in other words, they aren't optional.
You will be rewarded if you do them. Read the passage again.If ignoring your duty to show hospitality to strangers, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, comfort the sick and incarcerated will condemn you to hell, I'd say that those are moral principles just as strong as your opposition to abortion, a subject on which Jesus had nothing to say, by the way.I think Jesus did have something to say about abortion when He told us how to treat your neighbor. But that does not meanÂ
that one has to support government programs or be coerced by government in any way to achieve those goals. You apparently do. It appears that you do not believe in freedom, or man, if you will argue for a communistic state.  I believe those goals are more efficiently attained without government and we have freedom, too..
Logic establishes that at conception you have a human being. Try to find that in the Bible.
It's your operator's manual, you try. My logic says that a fetus or embryo becomes a human being when it is able to live on its own, which is not a precise gestational age. As far as the Bible's definition of when life begins, all I can find is Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
That's a somewhat later point than I accept, but it's the only one I find in the Bible.
Logic establishes that the at conception there is a human being. It is mysticism that argues that there is no human being until sometime later.
I believe you have your definitions reversed. Logic says that a fertilized ovum is not a human being; it can become one under the right circumstances, but it isn't one at that stage.
You will be rewarded if you do them. Read the passage again.
I did -- it says that you will be rewarded, but more importantly, that you will be punished if you don't. Perhaps next week we can discuss the apparent contradiction between this and Paul's position that you are saved not by deeds but by grace.
I think Jesus did have something to say about abortion when He told us how to treat your neighbor.
In other words, he never specifically addressed the issue; he did, however, specifically address the issue of our duties to the less fortunate among us.
It appears that you do not believe in freedom, or man, if you will argue for a communistic state.
I think communism sucks, and have never argued for a communist state. I do, however, believe that governments are instituted of men to, among other things, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare; I know that's a really radical idea, but I'm stuck with it.
It's your operator's manual, you try. My logic says that a fetus or embryo becomes a human being when it is able to live on its own, which is not a precise gestational age. At conception there is a human being becuase it is an essential stage in the life of all people.As far as the Bible's definition of when life begins, all I can find is Genesis 2:7Â And I said that there wasn't much there. I keep trying to tell the narrow minded demon fellow but he won't listen.
Logic establishes that the at conception there is a human being. It is mysticism that argues that there is no human being until sometime later.
I believe you have your definitions reversed. Logic says that a fertilized ovum is not a human being; No, logic certainly does establish that it is a human being. Let me put it this way. The child may be in a rudimentary stage of development but it is essential to all human existence. it can become one under the right circumstances, but it isn't one at that stage. You have zero logic for determining that the child becomes a human being only at the time of "viability." It is just a matter of convenience.
It appears that you do not believe in freedom, or man, if you will argue for a communistic state.
I think communism sucks, and have never argued for a communist state. IIt appears that you have been doing so. I do, however, believe that governments are instituted of men to, among other things, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare; I know that's a really radical idea, but I'm stuck with it. Ah yes the platitudes of "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare." They have no real meaning.
One must deal with reality, you know. And in reality those platitudes often in conflict.
I love that you consider the US Constitution "platitudes." Charming. What is "charming" is that there are people that think these words have real meaning. If they wouldn't have went any further.
At conception there is a human being because it is an essential stage in the life of all people.
So the lawyer who was arguing a few weeks ago that an eight-months-pregnant woman should not be deported because her unborn child was already an American citizen under the Laci Peterson Law was correct? Idon't think so. I do think the Constitution does says born or naturalized in the US. I think we know when a child is born, except for those that promote partial birth abortion. That does not change the fact that every instant of existence from conception onward is an essential party of the human condition. The courts disagreed with you. Maybe you shouldn't assume what my answer will be. It just makes you look foolish.
So how does Mrs. Heinz Kerry spend John Heinz's money?   > Just one example:   > According to the G2 Bulletin, an online intelligence newsletter of   > WorldNetDaily, in the years between 1995-2001 she gave more than $4   > million to an organization called the Tides Foundation. And what does   > the Tides Foundation do with John Heinz's money?   > They support numerous antiwar groups, including Ramsey Clark's   > International Action Center. Clark has offered to defend Saddam Hussein   > when he's tried.   > They support the Democratic Justice Fund, a joint venture of the   > Tides Foundation and billionaire hate-monger George Soros. The   > Democratic Justice Fund seeks to ease restrictions on Muslim immigration   > from "terrorist" states.   > They support the Council for American-Islamic Relations, whose   > leaders are known to have close ties to the terrorist group, Hamas.   > They support the National Lawyers Guild, organized as a communist   > front during the Cold War era. One of their attorneys, Lynne Stewart,   > has been arrested for helping a client, Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman,   > communicate with terror cells in Egypt. He is the convicted mastermind   > of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.   > They support the "Barrio Warriors," a radical Hispanic group whose   > primary goal is to return all of Arizona, California, New Mexico, and   > Texas to Mexico.   > These are but a few of the radical groups that benefit, through the   > anonymity provided by the Tides Foundation, from the generosity of our   > would-be first lady, the wealthy widow of Republican senator John Heinz,   > and now the wife of the Democratic senator who aspires to be the 44th   > President of the United States.   > Aiding and supporting our enemies is not good for America,   > regardless of your political views.   > If voters will open their eyes, educate themselves and see the real   > Teresa Heinz Kerry, they will not appreciate her position as ultra rich   > fairy godmother of the radical left. They will not want to imagine her   > laying her head on a pillow each night inches away from the President of   > the United States.
I believe you have your definitions reversed. Logic says that a fertilized ovum is not a human being; it can become one under the right circumstances, but it isn't one at that stage.
Ok, at what stage then does it become a human? Don't you find it just a bit icky saying today zygote, ok to abor. Tomorrow baby, not ok to abort?
Ok, at what stage then does it become a human? Don't you find it just a bit icky saying today zygote, ok to abor. Tomorrow baby, not ok to abort?
I do not believe that there is a specific moment at which a fetus becomes a human being. Legally, for the purposes of (for example) US citizenship, it's at birth, defined as when the complete child leaves the mother. The Laci Peterson Law defines it as when the fetus is viable which is not specifically defined further, to the best of my knowledge. Some religions say life begins at the moment of conception, some say at birth, some sort of shrug their theological shoulders and say "somewhere in between."
Some things require what's called fuzzy logic. For example, if you pluck a hair from your head, it does not make you bald. If you pluck one every minute, at some point people will start to describe you as "bald," and that point is somewhere between the start of the plucking and the point at which all the hairs have been plucked, but it's not going to be at the instant that a specific number of hairs or a specific percentage of them have been removed.
Moonbeam Unit Zappa could be his running mate.
The argument that because some people calling themselves environmentalists have burned car dealerships and ski lodges, thrown blood on people (which I believe is pretty much a tactic of animal-rights whackjobs, not environmentalists) and committed other outrages, ALL environmentalists are out-of-control whackjobs is silly at best and dangerous at worst. It's no better than the position of certain leftist loonies that all corporations are evil rapacious entities that will do anything they can get away with to increase their bottom lines, which presupposes that simply by taking a job with a "corporation" one sells one's soul and abandons all moral and ethical beliefs.
pieter b 7/30/04 12:54pm
Bingo!
I have met such folk, Bill. They talk about "The Corporations" the way that folks like Limbaugh, Sam and Iceman talk about "liberals" and "environmentalists." It's stereotyping and prejudice.
I don't think Michael Moore necessarily thinks that way, but Ratfuck Ralph is pretty close to that position. "Corporatization" seems to be his favorite word.
And yes, I am aware of Halliburton, et al, but I work for a very large company in an industry that gets a lot of name-calling from my liberal bretheren. You may call me naive, but I believe that we are not guilty of the abuses other companies in the field are noted for. Yes, we make money, but our goal is to make a dramatic difference in people's lives.
your goal is to make money. the people whose lives your goal is to make a difference in are called stockholders (assuming this is a publicly traded company) and the only difference you are interested in making for them is in the size of their wallets.
If making a difference in people's lives helps them do that, all the better...but don't think that tail is wagging the dog.
GDubbya, will NOT go there anyway (hydrogen). He only wants to DRILL...
Bush pushes hydrogen fuel
Proposal would aid development of cells
February 7, 2003
BY CRAIG LINDER
STATES NEWS SERVICE
WASHINGTON -- Saying that the next generation of automobiles can "help change the world," President George W. Bush rallied support Thursday for his plan to spark development of clean-burning hydrogen fuel cells... link
Bush touts benefits of hydrogen fuel
Cites risk in reliance on 'foreign sources' of oil
Thursday, February 6, 2003 Posted: 4:39 PM EST (2139 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States can change its dependence on foreign oil and "make a tremendous difference" in the world and the environment, President Bush said Thursday as he announced details of a $1.2 billion initiative to make hydrogen fuel competitive for powering vehicles and generating electricity... link
Bush sells vision of hydrogen future
FreedomFUEL program to promote fuel cell vehicles
By Miguel Llanos
MSNBC
Updated: 6:52 a.m. ET Oct.24, 2003
Â
Jan. 29 - Using the national spotlight to sell a technology still foreign to most Americans, President Bush on Tuesday proposed a $1.2 billion program to help build the infrastructure needed to revolutionize the cars we drive. The goal is to replace the polluting internal combustion engine with battery-like fuel cells that run on nonpolluting hydrogen... link
Not so, crabby. The people whose lives we are trying to make a dramatic difference in are people with grievous diseases. We've had a few successes, and that's what keeps me going to work. We don't make me-too drugs, and we're not working on the next boner pill. Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, severe osteoporosis and crippling arthritis are just a few of our disease targets.
no...you are trying to make a difference in the lives of people with grievious diseases because to do so would be very profitable...if it wasn't potentially profitable, you wouldn't be doing it. Let's face it, you aren't a non-profit outfit. If it doesn't have the potential to make you a lot of money, you don't do it.
How many "orphan" drug programs have you worked on lately?
So now it's a crime to make a profit?
Most, if not all, of the good things in life are possible because of profits. How's the medical care for the average Joe in China? How many types of cars and trucks are made in Cuba? How productive are the farmers in Sudan?Â
Profit is what gives this country the strongest economy the world has ever seen, with by far the best standard of living in history. Profit is the incentive to create and produce.  Profits create jobs. Try living in a country that doesn't allow them. You'd hightail it back here in a New York minute.
I didn't say that.
I'm just saying that to think large corporations are driven by some sort of altruistic motive instead of simple profit is naive.
it's a double edged sword...it's also what provides the incentive to cut corners, commit crimes and forgo ethics.
Well then, i'm sure crabs doesn't have a car or any type of internal combustion engine that would require him to do business with criminal/unethical oil companies.
Well then, i'm sure crabs does not purchase his diabetes medication produced from those criminal/unethical drug companies. You know, the meds that keep him alive.
"Quit talking to me crabgrass" - Torpedo-8
Does it have to be one or the other? I'm saying it's both, and there's an corporate ethical culture that's carefully nurtured to keep us on the straight and narrow. Corner-cutters get their asses fired; I've seen it more than once.
a dog has both a body and a tail.
fold: I have serious reservations that anyone, even including Michael Moore(who was a terrific guest on Bill Maher's Show last night...?)sees ALLcorporations as you described. But of course, we all know that...right?
Yeah, I guess if you like bald faced liars.
Newspaper accuses Moore documentary of using fake front page
July 30, 2004 (Bloomington, Ill.)— Filmmaker Michael Moore's Bush-basing documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" apparently has upset more than Republicans.
T
he (Bloomington) Pantagraph in central Illinois has sent a letter to Moore asking him to apologize for using what the newspaper says was a doctored front page in the film.
Â
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/news/073004_ap_en_moore.html
imagine that.
He's taking the classic advertising advice of "Sell the sizzle, not the steak," Bill.
Hey, Karl! Where's the beef?
Bush ain't selling hydrogen, he is selling HIMSELF by making statements he has NO intention of evercarrying out. It's called "Election Year Political Gobbledegook". Fold
I never knew that 2003 was an election year. I guess I missed my chance to vote.
Hey, Karl! Where's the beef?
The President’s Budget - Fiscal Year 2004                                                                                 http://www.house.gov/budget/bb04energy2.htm
Freedom Car website http://www.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/index.shtml
National Hydrogen Association http://archives.openflows.org/electronetwork-l/pdf00000.pdf
Looks like he has already started "carrying out" his promise. Please investigate before making such statements as it makes you look like an extremist and ignorant.
Look It Up. HYDROGEN FUEL FOR AUTOS, From Dubbya?
HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah, look it up. HA!!!!!!!!!!!
only thing is, he wants the hydrogen cars to be used for driving on Mars
What's the mother ship powered by, crabs?
"Quit talking to me crabgrass" - Torpedo-8
To understand modern liberalism and its political party, it is vital to understand Democrats' desire to blur any distinctions between child and adult. Ever since the 1960s, liberalism has been largely a movement dominated by children (of every age).
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20040803.shtml
I really like this sentence: "The Democratic Party is as shameless as it is immature."
So the best Dennis Pompous can do is pick on a 12-year-old girl? Shameful. But then, he probably couldn't deal with this sort of challenge:
Prager is a handwringing Nellie. Listen to his show, and everything is vitally important, and civilization hangs in the balance.
That Group Pro-Life Across America co-opts kids all the time, when they're way too young to have a say. The Democrats could have done without the girl, but at least she was old enough to make a choice.
So the best Dennis Pompous can do is pick on a 12-year-old girl? What is shameful is that the demcrats used the poor girl that doesn't know any better.
The Democrats could have done without the girl, but at least she was old enough to make a choice. You'll believe just about any democrat lie, won't you, Rick.
It's that fundamental belief -- I am my brother's keeper, I am my sisters' keeper -- that makes this country work. It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. Just a variant of the communist's "From Each According To His Abilities, To Each According To His Needs".
Yet even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. That would be the democraps.We worship an awesome God (that would be man, not God) in the Blue States, Â
You don't have much use for community, do you jethro?
So let me get this straight -- God's a Commie? Cain founded the Republican PArty?
You don't have much use for community, do you jethro? Sure I do. C
ommunities work better from the bottom up rather than from the top down.
funny that the words "brother's keeper" was spoken by a murderer.
The murderer was clearly denying that he had any responsibility to look after his brother. Nice role models you pick, bodine.
my role model? how do you figure?
You equated "I am my brother's keeper" with communism, therefore Cain, who denied that he was his brother's keeper, must be your role model -- unless you've gone commie on us when we weren't looking . . .
While you're at it, Matthew 25:31-46 endorses that which sounds a lot like what you call communism.
You equated "I am my brother's keeper" with communism, therefore Cain, who denied that he was his brother's keeper, must be your role model -- unless you've gone commie on us when we weren't looking . . . That IS faulty reasoning. Maybe it should be called lack of reason. But that is all I expect from you.
While you're at it, Matthew 25:31-46 endorses that which sounds a lot like what you call communism.
Exactly where does He say anything about government enforcing good deeds in those verses? In order to receive one's reward it appears that one must voluntarily commit oneself to neighborly acts.
I quoted from Barack Obama's keynote speech:
To which you responded:
Now if that's not equating a recognition of interdependence and responsibility for one's fellows with communism, I don't know what is. Unless you meant something else, in which case you should write more clearly.
It's somebody a lot more powerful than the government in charge of enforcement, according to the Gospel, and it's not "good deeds" that Jesus is talking about there, he's talking about everyone's duty.
You're certainly not shy about wanting the government to enforce your version of morality in other areas, jethro, why are you suddenly reluctant to have the government facilitate the Christian duty -- not mere "good deed" or "neighborly act" -- of charity?
Yea that's like Billie's book when he claimed his biggest priority was Bin Laden.
The final policy paper on national security that President Clinton submitted to Congress — 45,000 words long — makes no mention of al Qaeda and refers to Osama bin Laden by name just four times.
    The scarce references to bin Laden and his terror network undercut claims by former White House terrorism analyst Richard A. Clarke that the Clinton administration considered al Qaeda an "urgent" threat,
Or Richard Clarke, another proven liar. Great fiction though.
Or Joe Wilson, you remember him don't you ? He wrote a book too, sems he's disappeared from radar and Kerry dropped him from his website after he was found to be another lying sack.
Maybe Sandy Berger can help them.Â
Â
Â
They couldn't find a bowling ball in a bowl of rice
Hilarious shit! LOL I always love those quips of his. Keep em comin' Rick. I think they're funny as hell, and I'm one of them.
Â
I quoted from Barack Obama's keynote speech:
To which you responded:
The I nailed it exactly.Â
Now if that's not equating a recognition of interdependence and responsibility for one's fellows with communism, I don't know what is. Unless you meant something else, in which case you should write more clearly. Maybe if you weren't so dense you would understand.Â
It's somebody a lot more powerful than the government in charge of enforcement, according to the Gospel, and it's not "good deeds" that Jesus is talking about there, he's talking about everyone's duty. He is talking about a reward for good behavior based on the individual's choice.Â
You're certainly not shy about wanting the government to enforce your version of morality in other areas, jethro, why are you suddenly reluctant to have the government facilitate the Christian duty -- not mere "good deed" or "neighborly act" -- of charity? You obviously do not understand my positions then. Killing human beings is wrong in most people's book. What I want enforced is a penalty for violating that moral principle. It is you that appears that you want the government to enforce "brotherly" principles. There is nothing more brotherly than stopping the execution of unborn children.
A moral principle that is based on a particular narrow interpretation of Christianity, not shared by all Christian denominations.
Definitions of when a fetus becomes a human being differ widely.
Interesting that you keep referring to those charitable duties as things that will be rewarded, which is not what Matthew wrote that Jesus said. Jesus said that you will be punished if you do notdo these things; in other words, they aren't optional.If ignoring your duty to show hospitality to strangers, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, comfort the sick and incarcerated will condemn you to hell, I'd say that those are moral principles just as strong as your opposition to abortion, a subject on which Jesus had nothing to say, by the way.
 moral principle that is based on a particular narrow interpretation of Christianity, not shared by all Christian denominations. No. That is the left wing propaganda that you have bought into. Logic establishes that at conception you have a human being. Try to find that in the Bible.
Definitions of when a fetus becomes a human being differ widely. Logic establishes that the at conception there is a human being. It is mysticism that argues that there is no human being until sometime later.
Interesting that you keep referring to those charitable duties as things that will be rewarded, which is not what Matthew wrote that Jesus said. Jesus said that you will be punished if you do notdo these things; in other words, they aren't optional.
You will be rewarded if you do them. Read the passage again.If ignoring your duty to show hospitality to strangers, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, comfort the sick and incarcerated will condemn you to hell, I'd say that those are moral principles just as strong as your opposition to abortion, a subject on which Jesus had nothing to say, by the way.I think Jesus did have something to say about abortion when He told us how to treat your neighbor. But that does not meanÂ
that one has to support government programs or be coerced by government in any way to achieve those goals. You apparently do. It appears that you do not believe in freedom, or man, if you will argue for a communistic state.  I believe those goals are more efficiently attained without government and we have freedom, too..
It's your operator's manual, you try. My logic says that a fetus or embryo becomes a human being when it is able to live on its own, which is not a precise gestational age. As far as the Bible's definition of when life begins, all I can find is Genesis 2:7
That's a somewhat later point than I accept, but it's the only one I find in the Bible.
I believe you have your definitions reversed. Logic says that a fertilized ovum is not a human being; it can become one under the right circumstances, but it isn't one at that stage.
I did -- it says that you will be rewarded, but more importantly, that you will be punished if you don't. Perhaps next week we can discuss the apparent contradiction between this and Paul's position that you are saved not by deeds but by grace.
In other words, he never specifically addressed the issue; he did, however, specifically address the issue of our duties to the less fortunate among us.
I think communism sucks, and have never argued for a communist state. I do, however, believe that governments are instituted of men to, among other things, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare; I know that's a really radical idea, but I'm stuck with it.
It's your operator's manual, you try. My logic says that a fetus or embryo becomes a human being when it is able to live on its own, which is not a precise gestational age. At conception there is a human being becuase it is an essential stage in the life of all people.As far as the Bible's definition of when life begins, all I can find is Genesis 2:7Â And I said that there wasn't much there. I keep trying to tell the narrow minded demon fellow but he won't listen.
I believe you have your definitions reversed. Logic says that a fertilized ovum is not a human being; No, logic certainly does establish that it is a human being. Let me put it this way. The child may be in a rudimentary stage of development but it is essential to all human existence. it can become one under the right circumstances, but it isn't one at that stage. You have zero logic for determining that the child becomes a human being only at the time of "viability." It is just a matter of convenience.
I think communism sucks, and have never argued for a communist state. IIt appears that you have been doing so. I do, however, believe that governments are instituted of men to, among other things, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare; I know that's a really radical idea, but I'm stuck with it. Ah yes the platitudes of "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare." They have no real meaning.
One must deal with reality, you know. And in reality those platitudes often in conflict.
I love that you consider the US Constitution "platitudes." Charming. What is "charming" is that there are people that think these words have real meaning. If they wouldn't have went any further.
So the lawyer who was arguing a few weeks ago that an eight-months-pregnant woman should not be deported because her unborn child was already an American citizen under the Laci Peterson Law was correct? Idon't think so. I do think the Constitution does says born or naturalized in the US. I think we know when a child is born, except for those that promote partial birth abortion. That does not change the fact that every instant of existence from conception onward is an essential party of the human condition. The courts disagreed with you. Maybe you shouldn't assume what my answer will be. It just makes you look foolish.
So how does Mrs. Heinz Kerry spend John Heinz's money?
  > Just one example:
  > According to the G2 Bulletin, an online intelligence newsletter of
  > WorldNetDaily, in the years between 1995-2001 she gave more than $4
  > million to an organization called the Tides Foundation. And what does
  > the Tides Foundation do with John Heinz's money?
  > They support numerous antiwar groups, including Ramsey Clark's
  > International Action Center. Clark has offered to defend Saddam Hussein
  > when he's tried.
  > They support the Democratic Justice Fund, a joint venture of the
  > Tides Foundation and billionaire hate-monger George Soros. The
  > Democratic Justice Fund seeks to ease restrictions on Muslim immigration
  > from "terrorist" states.
  > They support the Council for American-Islamic Relations, whose
  > leaders are known to have close ties to the terrorist group, Hamas.
  > They support the National Lawyers Guild, organized as a communist
  > front during the Cold War era. One of their attorneys, Lynne Stewart,
  > has been arrested for helping a client, Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman,
  > communicate with terror cells in Egypt. He is the convicted mastermind
  > of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
  > They support the "Barrio Warriors," a radical Hispanic group whose
  > primary goal is to return all of Arizona, California, New Mexico, and
  > Texas to Mexico.
  > These are but a few of the radical groups that benefit, through the
  > anonymity provided by the Tides Foundation, from the generosity of our
  > would-be first lady, the wealthy widow of Republican senator John Heinz,
  > and now the wife of the Democratic senator who aspires to be the 44th
  > President of the United States.
  > Aiding and supporting our enemies is not good for America,
  > regardless of your political views.
  > If voters will open their eyes, educate themselves and see the real
  > Teresa Heinz Kerry, they will not appreciate her position as ultra rich
  > fairy godmother of the radical left. They will not want to imagine her
  > laying her head on a pillow each night inches away from the President of
  > the United States.
I believe you have your definitions reversed. Logic says that a fertilized ovum is not a human being; it can become one under the right circumstances, but it isn't one at that stage.
Ok, at what stage then does it become a human? Don't you find it just a bit icky saying today zygote, ok to abor. Tomorrow baby, not ok to abort?
it's called "birth"
I do not believe that there is a specific moment at which a fetus becomes a human being. Legally, for the purposes of (for example) US citizenship, it's at birth, defined as when the complete child leaves the mother. The Laci Peterson Law defines it as when the fetus is viable which is not specifically defined further, to the best of my knowledge. Some religions say life begins at the moment of conception, some say at birth, some sort of shrug their theological shoulders and say "somewhere in between."
Some things require what's called fuzzy logic. For example, if you pluck a hair from your head, it does not make you bald. If you pluck one every minute, at some point people will start to describe you as "bald," and that point is somewhere between the start of the plucking and the point at which all the hairs have been plucked, but it's not going to be at the instant that a specific number of hairs or a specific percentage of them have been removed.