The Back Room

Attempting to compare the two.

I feel bad for being left out so I shall call you a liar, a fool and some other childish name just to get in on the action.

Taxing beer should be one of the 7 deadly sins :omg:

Oakman wrote: FTFY If it ain't broke ... :) Bob Emmett

Turing 10 - Ilion 0 "Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^] ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!

kmg365 wrote: What is vb forum? Is is where bad backroomers go when they die. Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Thats too bad. I was really looking forward to the spectacle. Oh, well, I suppose that every one will have to agree now that nothing illegal was done after all. They all got their political milage out of it, now its no longer importnt. Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Ilíon wrote: You're such a "troll." I knew you'd see the utter ludicrousness of your claims and revert to schoolyard insults. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Condoms cause AIDS and coughing saves you from a heart attack! Boy you are a medical genius! Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Stan Shannon wrote: Which part of "great depression" don't you understand? IT was the Great Depression in 1930 and it was the Great Depression in 1939. You are becoming increasingly incoherent. "the line is that FDR made the depression 'great'". Yet it was the Great Depression in 1930, three years before Roosevelt took office. Stan Shannon wrote: And what precisely was the world like in 1945? Fully employed as a result of massive government spending. John Carson

Chris Austin wrote: I wouldn't use the term 'missed' Well, it got my heart beating. Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Oakman wrote: Probably. I keep my bullsh*t detector set to very high. You'd need to, wouldn't you, just to get through the day? ... I mean, if you left on the low setting, it'd go off everytime you opened your mouth.

Tim Craig wrote: A human wrong? Is that about you? Silly kiddie! This is about even the "liberals" in Canada beginning to see that the "Human Rights Commissions" are about anything but.

kmg365 wrote: You may recognize some of the shoes of the participants of said meeting in stalls. Or, worse, you may not!

Ilíon wrote: You sad and multi-level misinformed fool. :laugh: Bob Emmett

John Carson wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/politics/20fbi.html?\_r=1\[^\] I guess I am not making myself clear. It is not that Homeland Security is keeping an eye on groups that it thinks may have violent tendencies. Obviously there are right-wing groups, just as there are left-wing groups that attempt to use terror as a weapon. I understand why they think it would be a good idea to watch them and infiltrate them. What outrages me is that unlike the article you cite above, unlike the 2001 report Oily cited, no specific groups are named as potential threats. Instead everyone (not even every group, but everyone) who is opposed to abortion, who supports a strict construction of the Second Amendment, who is opposed to stem-cell research, who wants lower taxes or who served in the armed forces is labeled as a member of a suspect group who should be watched by the police as potential terrorists. I also find it infuriating that a few weeks ago, Janet Napolitano, in testimony before Congress, declined to label Al Qaeda as a terrorist organization, stating that labels like that did no good. However, she has no problem labeling the individuals I already listed as potential terrorists. Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Stan Shannon wrote: It is not some kind of affirmation of libertrianism. You must be hearing voices again, Stan. No such claim was ever made. I simply maintain that as an amendment, it has just as much validity as the rest of the Constitution. Stan Shannon wrote: Yet you support it when it agrees with your views You must be mistaking me for yourself - you are the one who was all atwitter over who the supreme court nominees were going to be. Apparently, Justices that agree with your views are extremely important to you whereas I really don't care that much. Stan Shannon wrote: So I ask you, which branch is most dangerous to our true liberties - the guy who 'violated the constitution' (which obviously never happend) to protect the nation and then left office, or the guys who violate the constitution to promote their social agenda and never leave office short of death? All of the above. Any violation of the Constitution by any of the three branches is an egregious violation of trust and of oath. It appears that once again, you are arguing that there are degrees of absolutes. Why don't you stick with "little bit pregnant." Work on the tough ones later. Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Chris Austin wrote: building his own business... How about "If I don't do it, sooner or later its going to me cost money, perhaps my reputation, and I can ill afford to lose neither."