The Back Room

fat_boy wrote: I have never stated it doesnt change. It does, obviously. I think man can change the climate too. Look at what happened in London say in the 50s that was resolved by clean air acts I apologise for taking away something you never intended. Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin

OK Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription

Alot made about earth day, time to celebrate some of other Gods creations.

Yes, if the banks stopped lending on mortages. Since Brown seems to have convinced them to keep at least this credit line open the disaster seems to have been averted. Actually, it seems it was done quite early on. Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription

I prefer the Phil Harris version: There is a tree grows near our house, it's been there quite some time. That tree is a slipp'ry elm tree and it's awful hard to climb. But when my wife gets after me, in that tree I always roost. Why, I can go right up it just like a healthy squirrel, I don't never need no boost. But the other day a woodman came to chop my refuge down Kept mumblin' somethin' about splittin' it into kindlin' wood, and peddlin' it 'round the town. So I says to him, "Look here my friend, hold on, desist, whoa stop! Put down that forest razor, chop not a single chop". Woodman, woodman, spare that tree, Touch not a single bough. For years it has protected me And I'll protect it now. Go chop an oak, get a birch or pine But save old slipp'ry there, that's mine. It's the only tree that my wife can't climb. Mr. Woodman, spare it for me. I said, "Woody, do you see that hole way up in that old treetop? Well, I got five dollars in salt money up there, and it's yours, if you refuse to chop. Now, no-one can climb that tree but me, 'cause, really friend, it's too slippery. Fact of the matter is, I can't get up there very well myself, unless my wife is after me. So I'm goin' to go indoors and call my wife a very naughty word, Then you just stand by and watch me give my imitation of a bird. Now, you won't know just where I'll be, that is while my wife's around. But there's one thing, Mr. Woodman, if I ain't here on the ground:" Woody, you done spare that tree Touch not a single bough, And I'll drop all five down to thee The one I promised, thou. Oh, but you must make that axe behave 'Cause old slipp'ry there just must be saved. That's the border line 'tween me and the grave! Mr. Woodman, spare it, spare that tree, for me. (From memory). Bob Emmett

Marxism *is* a secularized heresy of Christianity, after all.

I read an interesting counterfactual that basically said that not much would have been different if JFK had not been shot. Not saying it's true, but it's an interesting view I would not discount. Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )

Oakman wrote: I find myself in strange agreement with Obama as this shakes out. I do not think that the CIA ops should be prosecuted for doing what they were told they were legally empowered to do. But I do think we should take a look at what those legal opinions were (though, last time I looked, you can't proesecute a lawyer for rendering an opinion) and absolutely, definitely, we need to take a look at those in a position of leadership who either gave the orders or aquieced in the giving of them. This would, of course, include Bush, Cheney and some of their cabinet, but also the Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate and of their respective intelligence committees. Delighted to hear it. John Carson

Rob Graham wrote: I don't disagree at all with most of what you say. I think equal protection under the law should cover this. The simple problem though, is that by insisting on using the term marriage, gays exacerbate religiously based opposition. They should instead fight for comprehensive civil unions that do grant all of the appropriate legal rights. Why let a name stand in the way? Focus on the legal, avoid the cultural, religious and overly emotional. Except that the cultural and religious opposition is behind the legal opposition and you can't combat the latter without combatting the former. Rob Graham wrote: Frankly, I think the term marriage should be stricken from all laws, and replaced by civil union. Let the churches have exclusive territory over marriage, and the state exclusive territory over civil union, that being the only status that confers legal rights such as survivorship, tax status, joint property ownership, etc. I agree with that, but I don't think the conservatives will go for it. They want state backing for their religious institution. John Carson

Rob Graham wrote: Are you saying she doesn't sleep with her husband? If you read through the articles, there are two claims. The strongest is that the FDIC people responsible for the awarding of contracts have a strict separation from the FDIC board that was pushing for the legislation granting funds. The other is that Feinstein's husband has no executive involvement in the operations of the firm and had no knowledge of the bid for the FDIC contract. I don't like Feinstein and don't like any situation in which a legislator or a legislator's family is involved in financial dealings that are connected in any way with legislation. I wouldn't shed any tears if evidence emerged that could nail her with a serious criminal offence. However, to claim that the contract awarded to the company of Feinstein's husband was an FDIC bribe to Feinstein for legislative support is something that goes well beyond what the evidence can (currently) sustain. John Carson

Synaptrik wrote: But I'm not holding my breath. :zzz: Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin

:-D

Ilíon wrote: And -- as per your usual habit -- you're not paying attention to what you'd like to pretend you're critiquing. Everything John said was correct and this discussion is not about what other countries do, it is about what the United States of America does. While I do make a differentiation between treaties having the force of law and law itself, it is because I know pretty much what I am talking about. I do not claim that because North Korea flouts treaties, we should start imitating them. You on the other hand imitate an eight year old making an excuse for his bad behavior by saying someone else did it first. Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin

Simcox talks the talk, but hasn't he been drummed out of the Minuteman project? Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin

Oakman wrote: The idea that a political party would be upset by it is equally funny. The ANCYL isn't a real party. Maybe they have self esteem issues. Peri-peri[^] is a chilli spice, often used on grilled chicken. Sorry, I didn't know the use of the word was as local as it is.

Wow. How about that bible? -- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit