I'm not a military man myself, but, I do know the US Military has rules against incoporating ANY religion in to their uniforms, vehicles and equipment. Something like this would be strictly against that policy. Whom ever allowed this to go ahead (or allow its contiune usage) should be fired immediately. If this company uses, Bible verses as product codes, then the US Military will simply have to do business with someone else.

After all, how smart is it, to have Christian Bible verses, put on weapons and gun sights, in a largely Muslim controlled country? There WILL be a congressional investigation in to this. So, we can blame this stupid company, for wasting more taxpayer dollars on something that should have been corrected a long time ago.

As a Christian, I was sadden by the plight of Haitians, for I myself, could do nothing, but pray. With this earthquake, again, the only thing I can really do, is pray. For now, I simply hope the world can do something about Haiti, as time is critical.

Mr. Robertson made comments of Sept 11, 2001, with then, Jerry Farwell. They together, said mean, and evil things. I guess, given this episode, that Mr. Robertson is not remorseful for the evil he unleashed years ago. He just compounded his crimes towards God. I absolutely oppose Mr. Robertson. He is not a Christian. He cares very little for others beyond his ego.

Well said Mr. olbermann!

While the music and the format is commerical quality, the information and message is not. Its not political nor commerce in its message, but rather, an intolerance of religious views. Lets say we changed this video around to show Islam as the negative religion, and Christianity as the good. Of course EVERYONE, would complain about it. But since its an atheist's point of view, on Christianity, the author, and some of the audience believe, its 'correct' to say. It is in this manner, I feel the nature of the message is an attack on another religion.

There a tag for intolerance?

status conscious Americans?

Actually, some of us Americans, do test the cars out pretty well before deciding on it. We read up, we see videos, listen to others that have them, and see it for ourselves.

Now, being 6' 10" tall, this particular car would fail the 'Me Fit' test. So, regardless of what ever else this car could or couldnt do; If I can't fit in it, I cant drive it. If I can't drive it, its usless hunk of crap.

If that's not an arguement to wear one's seat belt, nothing else is. That 'Crunch' you ear, would have been his body falling on his neck and killing him.

Unfortunately, with wrecks, people are disoriented, stun, and in shock. They get out, walk around, and generally can not do anything useful. They walk in to traffic, mill about, can not be coherent on a phone with the 9/11 operator.

If your a motorists and you see this happen, get the person to sit down, out of harms way. check for any physical injuries (something metal sticking in them). Call the police or paramedics.

Cars can be fixed and replaced easily, people....its a harder process.

So, Bush didn't have a terrorism attack during his eight years, and Obama did? Which USA is this guy living in? Its not the one from planet Earth.

Let see, if I were to hold you, in a country that is proud of....right to a speedy trial, access to a lawyer, no cruel or unusual punishment given before, during, or after sentencing, right to cross examine, to see ALL information directed towards you, and question witnesses fairly....and then did the following to you:

A) Kept you in a prison without seeing anyone, including a lawyer.
B) Never put you on a trial for charges that landed you in prison in the first place.
C) Waterboarded, treating you as sub-human, electric shock, and other 'approved enhanced interrorgation treatements' that are not considered torture, unless the person doing it, thinks it torture. And then make sure, since your black, that person is a Grand Wizard of the KKK.
D) You are not allowed to see any of the evidence, regardless of how flimsy it is, because its 'national security secrets', 'classified', and 'top secret'. Nor are you allowed to test the authenticity of such evidence.
E) You can only defend yourself within a very limited, and structed enviroment. Your judges (since there are 1-3 of them), are hand picked by the people who captured you originally, and have been torturing you...for months, with impunity.
F) You never get to see the witnesses who say you actually did something wrong, much less, hear their words.
G) You are designated something new, because, P.O.W. would mean you were human.
H) The whole concept, this nation, to which you living in a hellish existance, prides itself on the humane treatment of other human beings. But you have yet, to see once example of human dignity.

Yeah, I can't imagine what would drive someone that saw our country as the evil, satan, after going through that crap for years. And yes, that would give the person, ALOT, of motivation to get some pay back on such nation. Its absurd that those in the conservative end of the spectrum (read: extremist thought), do not understand, that they have just made America MORE of a target, then less.

In recent news, our President is taking responsiblity for things that happen on his watch. When did Mr. Bush, or his minions, take real responsiblity for things they did?

How short is the typical GOP's memory? the 2003 energy crisis was held by the largest energy companies. At the White House, in closed doors, off the record. They did allow republican congressmen in to the dealings, but not democratic.

To bad Mr. Cafferty doesn't bring that nugget of history up. Would keep the republicans from crying foul.

Knowing history, If the Democrats DID air the debate between the bills, I think we would have the following:

A) The lobbyists would be jocking for position. Using money to 'motivate' a senator to 'vote' how they want. You and I both know, they'd do it in a heart beat. They would also tell their republican senator minions (that's right, minions) of the details.

B) Those who are in the GOP, but not a senator, would just be in a mindless rage. They would walk on the mall, in the freezing cold. Hundreds would die of the cold, because their mind's can only think on so many things at once. And of course, the GOP would blame those deaths on the Democrates some how. You and I both know, they'd do it.

C) We'd get to see what its like to have educated people argue over something, based on the merits, not passionate stupidity, as we saw in town hall meetings across the nation this summer.

1/4 are events were I actually felt sorry for the poor bastard(s). Some of those accidents was not due to stupidity.

1/2 are events done by stupid, or at the very least, no-common sense individuals. Its just nice to know, I'm smarter then the average bear.

1/4 Stuff I had to watch a second or third time. Like the lady who is flung from the swing, but something catchs on her hair and yanks her back at the last possible moment.

Apparently this group lumps 'those who believe space aliens were A) God B) Invented the human race or C) Behind every conspiracy for the last 8K years' as athiests.

Btw, if you look at the list of countries on the 'athiest' list who's 'peace rating' is 1.1-1.9, ask yourself, 'Just which of these nations have an actual military that isn't laughed at by others?"

This wasn't total failure. Half of the building did collapse. Just not where they wanted it...

Hope they have insurance...

I guess I was not entirely clear. A scientific "Law" and "Theory" is different, from how a legal "Law" or "Theory" is understood. And both these terms (from a scientific and legal perspective) are differently understood when compared to the layman's term of "Law" and "Theory". A layman's defination of "Law" is a rule that gives structure and a penalty (like the blue laws, or the 10 commendments). A layman's defination of "Theory" is much like a guess, and usually thought of as based on no real facts. Now, in this case, there's a religious "Law" and "Theory", and its defination is different from the scientific, legal and layman's terms.

If your going to define God (which is often thought of in religious terms) in a scientific manner, then you open the door, to letting someone define The Theory of Evolution, in religious terms. So, let religious people have God, and allow them to define the subject in their way. That would be taking the high road of the arguement.

Shatterdose,

If your going to bash me on the use of the word "Anyway" or "Anyway's" in a quote. Make sure the actual word is *IN* the quote. Otherwise, it allows me to fairly bash you back for being an idiot.

"Having belief in something does not prove nor disprove any facts"

Oh, that's a SCIENTIFIC fact that your talking about? You are mixing up what is understood as scientific and what is religious. A religious FACT, is the Holy Bible comes directly from God. A scientific fact would not past a correct level, since to say "The Holy Bible came from God." One must first prove the existance of God. Last I check, the nature of Science does not allow the ability to understand God.

"I accept that the Theory of Evolution is correct given all available knowledge and evidence to support such a claim."

This STILL states your thoughts on the subject as a belief, not one based on scientific understanding. You 'accept' means you take 'on faith', that what ever follows is correct, without checking if it *IS* correct.

Just remeber.....Obey Gravity, its the Law!

(4:31)

Actually The United States of America, was founded on religous freedom from the King of England. We didn't like the King's version of Christianity. Actually, we found the USA on a number of things, besides just religion. Like taxes, and representation...

Go read the history books if you don't believe me. Also, the concept of "Seperation of Church and State' come from Jefferson, not the US Constitution. So while the document doesn't contain the concept directly, its often thought of indirectly, since Jefferson had alot to do with American politics at the time.

Both Creationists and Evolutionists seem to fail to understand what the Theory of Evolution is and isnt. You can't blame the Creationists to much, as they often lack the education of what science is and isnt. But an evolutionists should know better. Consider the following question:

"Do you believe in the Theory of Evolution?"

The moment you say "yes", you are holding a belief, not scientific understanding nor fact. Likewise, you just played in to Creationist's game, since at that point, the Theory of Evolution is not science, but a belief and religion.

The correct answer is "That is not the correct question to ask". The person will ask what is:

"Based on the information collected so far, is the Theory of Evolution correct?"

"Yes". That keeps you from thinking of the theory as a 'guess' or 'theory' in layman's terms.

Likewise, why debate Creationism to the Theory of Evolution? The two talk about totally different concepts. One talks about how Earth and everything on it, came in to being, while the other talks about what happen to life, since it got started. If a Creationists wants to debate science fairly, use the Theory of Abiogeneis.

If I recall correctly, 9/11 took place under Bush & Cheney's watch. Also, happened while the majority in the House and Senate were in Republican hands (to which Bush and Cheney belonged to). And after that moment to when they both got kicked out of office Jan 20, 2009, Cheney comes back on the airwaves. Not to make anything constructive, but to simply have face time. Mr. Cheney's nemisis is ego, Mr. Bush's was intelligence. After they got booted out, Mr Bush finally learned to shut up and go in to retirement without another word. Mr. Cheney can not do this, as his ego is to large.

The quickest way to silence Mr. Cheney is simply ignore him. That is generally how you kill an egotistics tactics: ignore they even exist. Because, as often happens, they get more belligerent, much louder, and less wise. Eventually, they will do or say something, that will completely undermine their entire position, and lose all support they once had. Works every time with egotisticals.

Where does the techinques comes from? Hollywood. That's right, check any bad ninja movie from the 80's, and one or both of those 'techniques' will be in the film.

The first one looks like it would be from Karate, except, anyone who teachs it, would advise you evading the bat when the guy swings and THEN, attacking while the guy is off-balanced from the attack. Moving in close, before the bat starts to swing is handled in aikido (and other martial arts).