John Adams

Nothing creepy going on in the Republican Party, right? What if some politician on the right had a child born at 20 weeks that died after two hours outside the womb. Upon the child's death, the politician took the baby home and cuddled it , kissed it, and made his other three children do the same, and even took pictures with the deceased...pictures he could later hang in his office. Please- I'll say it's a toss-up between the parties when it comes to creepy, OK?

I will always love that moveon.org commercial with the kids working off the debt. Of course the Republicowards couldn't deal with the truth of that ad. now THIS is a political commercial

Yeah, because people react to all drugs the same. Why is it so important for you to be everyone's nanny? You are a sad person to believe the worst about everyone.

Yeah. The 70s were so masculine. It's just a fashion cycle. Big deal. In 10 years, people will be wearing their collars up and shoot each other for izod shirts.

Raising the level of discourse.

Strange voting on that. Rehnquist and Thomas were in the dissent, with O'Connor. I haven't read the opinion yet, but states rights were killed off by Republicans and Democrats: their resurrection is highly unlikely.

But here's the difference, genius. You chided your boyfriend for putting an "e" immediately after the "o" in Goedel. In fact, what he did is completely proper, especially if you're too stupid to know how to make an umlaut.

Ever hear of an umlaut? Silly Kurty. Part of me thought you would have more familiarity with German. The other part of me had so much confidence in you because you're a proud MENSA member. Let me help you out with your pedestal. It seems to have fallen.

Seriously. Why are you talking to me about your monkey business? I don't give a fk what he's saying to you, or how it makes you feel, or whether he reminds you of all your high school wedgies. I really don't. He's an axehole and many people here know it. Your obsession with him is unnatural. So how do you propose to stop people from intermarrying? And this is the third and last time I'll ask, why?

So, how much of this would you lay at the feet of interracial marriage? That's what we're talking about, right? Progress as it relates to attitudes about interracial marriage? While I'd happily dispute many of your points, and point out that a lot of good things in opposition to your diatribe, we can have that discussion elsewhere. Stay on target red leader: interracial marriage. That it has become more accepted is progress.

Why are you so obsessed with the monkey Kurt? I didn't bring him up. I'm pointing out that your reliance on history to support your arguments about the intermingling of the races is scary, and asked for your reason, since relying on history is lazy. My point being, Mr. Mensa member with emphasis on the "member," that purely relying on the fact that people supported segregation in the 1960s is hardly a basis for believing in it now.

How do you clean the saliva stains off your mirror? So you're prepared to what, justify your stance against the graying of the races because 40 years ago, a majority of people might have agreed with you. Hey Mr. Dictionary, look up PROGRESS. Don't rely on history as a crutch for your argument. Try out reason. Historically, societies killed and cast out the mentally infirmed. Historically, children could be sold into slavery. Come on Herr Godel, let's see some justification for the reason you want to keep whitey separate from blackey. Rather than take it up in this thread, start a new topic.

Then do it. But claiming to be a member of Mensa, you haven't done it. You're like the people who laud their college diplomas as if they mean more than that they went to school and passed tests. You want to impress? Win the argument. Your credentials- if Mensa membership can even be considered such- won't do it for you. Naw- who'd have thought otherwise? Why else would you mention that you're a Mensa membership? Oh wait- here's you reason: Why? Because it proves you belong to a club of people with egos so fragile that they seek validation by applying for membership? You are some kind of shallow.

Oh goodness me. An actual Mensa member? What that proves to me: you are so vain that you sought out an orginzation, took an admission test, and paid a fee, all in order to brag that you belong to Mensa in the middle of an argument, as if that lends you some credibility. Bravo. Next you'll say you have a license plate that says you have a 186 IQ.

Private high schools don't give Regents diplomas. At least that's my recollection- my HS diploma just has my high school name on it. I never took a single Regents exam, although I know the public school kids had to take them.

That's a fact. Rich: you are so insightful and wise. I love hearing this sort of breakdown from an expert.

This little thing you do is funny: you apologize. You say you want to be civil. Then you call me gay. When I respond, you say you want to be civil again, to give the illusion that you somehow ever took the high road. Only queens act so bitchy. That being said, Go Bills. And I'd buy you a beer too, no matter if you're in or out of the closet.

Was your post authorized by your Union, or have you decided to go out on a limb and think for yourself today?

Our firm just made a rule that women can't wear open-toed shoes. That's worth a 10 cent an hour raise. Not to mention, they removed one of the three microwaves. That should be good for 50 cents an hour.

Not according to SilverNRed you don't. Of course, I think Stewart's funny too. He has a good time at everyone's expense, but focuses on the Right. He's drilled Kerry at times. The writers on that show are genius (or stupid if you're a Republican).

Translated some sort of lawyer-speak into English: you wanted to get paid for a rule change. Is that standard Union practice? I assume it is.

Thanks for not talking about smoking.* What does "compensated for the change in policy" mean? What compensation did you want? *much

Stalking he says. So the Liberals are taking over? How come the Liberals think the Republicans are taking over? Could it be that there's little difference? As to the actual topic of this thread, it sounds big-brotherish, but there's more to this than meets the eye. These are employees who have had a substance abuse problem-- so bad that it affected their work. In my office, if you have a substance abuse problem that affects your work, you're fired. No excuses. For police officers, the apparent deal under the new rules is that if you are a substance abuser, you get to keep your job, BUT only if you agree to certain rather Draconian restrictions. It's terrible, but it's a step up from being fired. Without a doubt, there have to be better ways of doing this.

(s!@#$s) I am a bad person. I request 50 lashes.

I Row Knee.