jimshiz

Salon on McCain: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/03/12/mccain/ Does anybody know if Salon did a similar article on Obama & Rev. Wright?

had to vote "NO" because there was no choice for: Do you believe in Global Warming that is NOT caused or significantly effected by human behavior.

yes, yes, & yes

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/20/lost.data.ap/index.html • Computer technician accidentally wiped out huge data file and the backup disk • File related to state fund which pays dividends to Alaskans from oil revenue • 70 people worked weekends, overtime for six weeks to re-enter the lost data • Error cost the state $220,000

The Washing Post has an article about Fitzgerald almost being on the "fired" list: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1902036_pf.html Then here is an article about the Rostenkowski prosecutor and the Whitewater prosecutor actually being "fired": http://www.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/te...288160&z=23 How are these two situations different? How are they the same?

USA Today => Iraqis see hope drain away http://usatoday.printthis.clickability.com...;partnerID=1660 UK Times Online => Iraqis: life is getting better http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle1530762.ece

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/washingt...agewanted=print "Any lie under oath is serious,” Mr. Fitzgerald said. “The truth is what drives the justice system."

Ann Coulter calls Edwards a "faggot"; Bill Maher calls for the assassination of Vice President Cheney as a way for reducing deaths. Simple Google News searches: "ann coulter" & edwards => over 300 results "bill maher" & cheney => 27 results http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/huston/070305 So, just like it is a worse offense for Mark Furman to use the "n-word" than it is for hacking off your ex-wife's head; it seems that it is also a worse offense for calling someone a name than it is for calling for the assassination of a sitting vice president.

I didn't know "Working Families" was an actual party. I thought you were implying that either the Democrat party you voted for was the "working families party" or, like in my case :-), the Republican party is the "working families party".

I consider myself "religious right". Which opinions of mine would classify me as "crazy" and which ones would not?

What is the "working families line"? I work. I have a family. Just wanna know if the party I support is of the "working families line".

Here's your chance, if you have a political agenda, then post here.

I actually was not talking about the innocent deaths due to terrorists and followers of Saddam Hussein. The only ones to blame for those deaths are the terrorists and followers of Saddam Hussein. I was talking about innocent deaths due to collateral damage in war or a war action being less than those killed under the previous regime. People are saying there are more deaths now BECAUSE of GWB. And I just disagree with that.

I guess my question was too specific for the point. If the verdict had gone the other way, people would have been dumping on GWB right now. And I guess since he was in control before & after the capture, maybe some of it would have been deserved. However, the general point I was trying to make was that if Kerry or anybody from his side were in control, I guess before the capture or even before the war, then there is no way they would have even thought of regime change in Iraq. It would have been status quo. UN resolutions ignored. Saddam in power. More innocent people dying under his rule than the number of innocent people dying today, unfortunately. I don't think Kerry is "bad" just because he is a DEM. I don't buy in to the "lesser of two evils" thing. But, there's a lot of people at the time of the 2004 election who did see GWB as the "lesser of two evils" or in other words - "Kerry bad". I'll do a better job on the wording of my next poll - sorry !!!

If the verdict would have went the other way, you know questions would have been asked putting GWB in a bad light. answer the question, reply, stay on topic. off topic? start another thread

sound-bites?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=78...192753501&hl=en

I am a "conservative republican" that I hope would be considered an exception in most of the things you talked about. I do see the problem with people doing nothing but B word, B word, B word... It happens all over; not just Buffalo. I certainly did not inherit any material thing to get where I am; my father worked for Loblaws and was in the Union. I passed out Democrat flyers door-to-door... I lived on the East Side of Buffalo; went to Niagara University; worked at Bell Aerospace... I am a software geek... I do find it hard to get past the "taxes" thing when I consider that my property taxes in WNY would be more than my annual mortgage payments in Indiana. And I understand the need for social spending; but all too often see it wasted on those that don't need it, don't want it, don't work for it, don't have any incentive to get off it, etc. As the population in Buffalo dwindles, the taxes per capita keep going up instead of the cost of services no longer necessary in Buffalo being reduced or eliminated. It would be great if WNY were the "valley" of something other than what it appears to becoming...

won't it? didn't Roe vs. Wade lead to an increase in abortion?

Cheating !!! The only way to win !!!

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2182020...TC-RSSFeeds0312

prove it isn't - nya, nya !!!

I don't know the details of the abortion law in South Dakota. But, here is my general stance on the scenarios you offered: - rape => not for abortion; it's still a life - incest => not for abortion; it's still a life; however there may be medical reasons that would put the mother at risk, in which case it would be OK - threat to the life of the mother => abortion is OK in this case because of "double-effect"; your main goal is to save the life of the mother, not terminate the life of the fetus I know it is not exactly the same, but if you use this logic in cases of other "crimes" or "moral questions", the result might not be as acceptable by some. Here's a quick, not exactly related or analogous example: Illegal aliens from Mexico will cross over into the deserts of Arizona. Without water, many of them will die. Do we put watering holes out there to help them commit a crime? Or do we make it known that they will not find water to deter them from committing the crime? The result in this example may be a whole lot more unwanted dependents on the welfare system of the government.

Yes, I am intolerant of many, many things. Murderers, rapists, terrorists, criminals; or probably more accurate I am intolerant of crime. I know it happens, but it does not mean that we have to look the other way because we can't get it down to zero.

So, you're for murder? I did not know murder was a religious based thing.