I opted not to quote everybody above but, I'm trying to imagine a 747 full of passengers, then suddenly it's dangling from a parachute... forget about speed and weight and tail strength, what happens to all the passengers?

oops. Thanks, fixed.>> ^chicchorea:

Geo, my friend, do you mean psychedelic or is this something else in which I need to be clued. See, no dangling.
Don't worry, I am no strangler to typos.
Please, how many do you have to take to mike over? And, how do you take them? Does one have to Gere up for a trip? You know, lay in supplies. :[
I'm going away now.

Geo, my friend, do you mean psychedelic or is this something else in which I need to be clued. See, no dangling.

Don't worry, I am no strangler to typos.

Please, how many do you have to take to mike over? And, how do you take them? Does one have to Gere up for a trip? You know, lay in supplies. :[

I'm going away now.

I think you're taking it a lil' too far. Like I don't watch major networks and I didn't hear about this whole drawing muhammed thing like ever before. Bar the original BBC/CNN debacle a couple of years back which did happen during a slow news day. I think most of this is manufactured totally and gives some free publicity to some small sector of nutters.

Like this past year some group announced some plans to hold a rally carrying caskets of dead muslims around the city in the UK where almost all UK troops killed in Afghanistan are carried through.

What followed was NATIONWIDE coverage and outrage from all sectors of the public from MPs to the SUN to the fucking mail about how fucking horrible and insensitive it was and what not.

The rally never happened, it was just announced and PRed into the mainstream media and made the group who wanted to hold it national news they had the head guy up on telly chatting shit. Their representantive actually said that they did this for Pr and the media bought and spewed it back to the masses.

Its just like those pictures of muslims in the UK with signs that read SHARIA is GOOD for UK, all zoomed in with cops around made to look like there are hundreds of people pull back and theres like 12 of them...

Its just yellow journalism of another sort.

>> ^gwiz665:

I'd like to see that, god yes. Major networks want to spark the controversy even more, it's good news, gives good ratings. I'd like to see muslims unite against muslim hatred, on the inter-web for instance. There's not censorship here other than what we make ourselves (and china and so on), but there's far less censorship than on any network.
Every muslim who says "oh that's only the fundamentalists, most of us aren't like that, so I'm just going to stay muslim and mind my own business" is in essence undermining the effort to destroy the fundamentalists and their stupid beliefs. Why don't they make "neo-islam" a thing akin to protestants breaking off from the crazier outliers of their religion, so we know more clearly who to hat and who not to? That would be a good start.
I'm speaking out against islam, christianity, mormonism etc. because I cannot just stand by while we devolve into the dark ages again. Why can't more people just voice their disdain, dislike, disgust or whatever they have for the fundamentalists, who more than anything else sullies their religion, their persons, their families?? Why aren't they OUTRAGED!?>> ^Farhad2000:
Oh come on show me one major media network that has ever been willing to put on the air a moderate muslim voice like Hamza Yusuf.
>> ^gwiz665:
I blame them all. If they want to be a religion of peace, they have to speak out against the violence. As long as they just go along with it, they are not much better themselves. I spit in their direction.
>> ^MrFisk:
Freedom of speech is the primary thread that the Bill of Rights, and thus, the U.S. Constitution dangles from. However, it is not absolute - e.g., I cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
Now, I hold free speech especially dear to my reasoning. I believe that John Milton's Areopagitica is essential - i.e., "Let [Truth] and Falsehood grapple." (That is the key to explain my Glenn Beck submissions.)
And don't get me wrong, I'm all for drawing Muhammad, but I downvote this because this guy is a moron and don't think that you should blame an entire religion for something a handful of douche bags espouse. The real shame is that these handful of douche bags has been given such a loud voice by the media it quivers others into submission.

I'd like to see that, god yes. Major networks want to spark the controversy even more, it's good news, gives good ratings. I'd like to see muslims unite against muslim hatred, on the inter-web for instance. There's not censorship here other than what we make ourselves (and china and so on), but there's far less censorship than on any network.

Every muslim who says "oh that's only the fundamentalists, most of us aren't like that, so I'm just going to stay muslim and mind my own business" is in essence undermining the effort to destroy the fundamentalists and their stupid beliefs. Why don't they make "neo-islam" a thing akin to protestants breaking off from the crazier outliers of their religion, so we know more clearly who to hat and who not to? That would be a good start.

I'm speaking out against islam, christianity, mormonism etc. because I cannot just stand by while we devolve into the dark ages again. Why can't more people just voice their disdain, dislike, disgust or whatever they have for the fundamentalists, who more than anything else sullies their religion, their persons, their families?? Why aren't they OUTRAGED!?>> ^Farhad2000:

Oh come on show me one major media network that has ever been willing to put on the air a moderate muslim voice like Hamza Yusuf.
>> ^gwiz665:
I blame them all. If they want to be a religion of peace, they have to speak out against the violence. As long as they just go along with it, they are not much better themselves. I spit in their direction.
>> ^MrFisk:
Freedom of speech is the primary thread that the Bill of Rights, and thus, the U.S. Constitution dangles from. However, it is not absolute - e.g., I cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
Now, I hold free speech especially dear to my reasoning. I believe that John Milton's Areopagitica is essential - i.e., "Let [Truth] and Falsehood grapple." (That is the key to explain my Glenn Beck submissions.)
And don't get me wrong, I'm all for drawing Muhammad, but I downvote this because this guy is a moron and don't think that you should blame an entire religion for something a handful of douche bags espouse. The real shame is that these handful of douche bags has been given such a loud voice by the media it quivers others into submission.

Oh come on show me one major media network that has ever been willing to put on the air a moderate muslim voice like Hamza Yusuf.

>> ^gwiz665:

I blame them all. If they want to be a religion of peace, they have to speak out against the violence. As long as they just go along with it, they are not much better themselves. I spit in their direction.
>> ^MrFisk:
Freedom of speech is the primary thread that the Bill of Rights, and thus, the U.S. Constitution dangles from. However, it is not absolute - e.g., I cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
Now, I hold free speech especially dear to my reasoning. I believe that John Milton's Areopagitica is essential - i.e., "Let [Truth] and Falsehood grapple." (That is the key to explain my Glenn Beck submissions.)
And don't get me wrong, I'm all for drawing Muhammad, but I downvote this because this guy is a moron and don't think that you should blame an entire religion for something a handful of douche bags espouse. The real shame is that these handful of douche bags has been given such a loud voice by the media it quivers others into submission.

>> ^MrFisk:

Freedom of speech is the primary thread that the Bill of Rights, and thus, the U.S. Constitution dangles from. However, it is not absolute - e.g., I cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
Now, I hold free speech especially dear to my reasoning. I believe that John Milton's Areopagitica is essential - i.e., "Let [Truth] and Falsehood grapple." (That is the key to explain my Glenn Beck submissions.)
And don't get me wrong, I'm all for drawing Muhammad, but I downvote this because this guy is a moron and don't think that you should blame an entire religion for something a handful of douche bags espouse. The real shame is that these handful of douche bags has been given such a loud voice by the media it quivers others into submission.

If moderate Muslims exist (the ones critical of Muslim irrationality), then they are doing as good a job of hiding as moderate Christians did in the 14th Century. And for similar reasons. Because of this, yes, it is fair to blame the entire religion, which can be described as a religion of conquest like no other before it.

I blame them all. If they want to be a religion of peace, they have to speak out against the violence. As long as they just go along with it, they are not much better themselves. I spit in their direction.

>> ^MrFisk:

Freedom of speech is the primary thread that the Bill of Rights, and thus, the U.S. Constitution dangles from. However, it is not absolute - e.g., I cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
Now, I hold free speech especially dear to my reasoning. I believe that John Milton's Areopagitica is essential - i.e., "Let [Truth] and Falsehood grapple." (That is the key to explain my Glenn Beck submissions.)
And don't get me wrong, I'm all for drawing Muhammad, but I downvote this because this guy is a moron and don't think that you should blame an entire religion for something a handful of douche bags espouse. The real shame is that these handful of douche bags has been given such a loud voice by the media it quivers others into submission.

Freedom of speech is the primary thread that the Bill of Rights, and thus, the U.S. Constitution dangles from. However, it is not absolute - e.g., I cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
Now, I hold free speech especially dear to my reasoning. I believe that John Milton's Areopagitica is essential - i.e., "Let [Truth] and Falsehood grapple." (That is the key to explaining my Glenn Beck submissions.)
And don't get me wrong, I'm all for drawing Muhammad, but I downvote this because this guy is a moron and I don't think that you should blame an entire religion for something a handful of douche bags espouse. The real shame is that these handful of douche bags has been given such a loud voice by the media that it quivers others into submission.

[edit]: If Freedom of Speech is the thumb, and laws expressly prohibiting religion, press, assembly, and petition are the other four fingers on the hand which makes the Bill of Rights--why was religion guaranteed first and foremost?

Looking at getting a 2001 pt cruiser ltd. Guess its got a sunroof, did not say that in the ad. 168000 km " fully loaded " heated leather seats etc.

I figure take the back seat out, move the seats all the way forward and I would be able to sleep in it if need be, I myself dont need the back seats because 1 I dont get any action and two if I did get any action being able to sprawl out would be far more advantageous in that moment. Loss of weight would make the mileage better, more storage room. I could go on and on, seems to way way out weight the benefits of having the seat. I dont tote people around.

comes with new studded winter tires which around here is a good thing. all wheel drive. for 4500. Sure I could knock it down to 4400 if I bring cash and dangle it in front of them. I think the vehicle is pretty unique looking and I seem to have become fond of them.

Tomorrow I shall look at it, today I just read and read.

I wonder if she can dangle 205 pounds ?

Conservation of energy: why put your other leg all the way on the other side of the bike when it does perfectly well dangling with the other?

Yah This program is so shit its not funny .

A real opertunity to do somethign educatoinal fun and good , but they fuck it up every time.

sort of thing sarah palin would think was good


LOL SO RETARDED this would lead you to believe that testicles have bone in them ,

also i fail to see how stronger pelvic bone affects the rigidity and strength of testicles that dangle outside of the bone structure.

I don't get global warming.

In order to 'get' this discussion you need to seperate out two completely different components. ONE: The science of climate change. TWO: The politics of 'man-made' global warming (AKA anthropogenic global warming or AGW).

ONE: THE SCIENCE
The science of climate change is undecided. Scientists create models to predict climates change. However, to date all such models are unsuccessful. There is no current valid mathematical model that serves as a platform for predicting climate change. Some models are rigorous, others are 'loose'. Some weight XYZ variables, and others focus on ABC. But anyone who claims to be able to predict temperatures, hurricanes, or the other components of global climate is full of crap. There is no 'consensus'. Real scientists would not dare to say 'the science is settled' because they are still collecting data.

As of this time the science can only tell us that there are 'variables' that effect the climate. However, science has not yet determined if the variables are causal or predictive. EG - they know atmospheric C02 is involved in the equation but they do not know whether C02 causes climate change or whether its alterations are caused by the climate changes. Science is still up in the air on the topic - no pun intended.

TWO: THE POLITICS
The AGW movement is not 'science'; it is pure agenda politics. There are lots of groups that desire to reduce human activity, for whatever reason. Some want to reduce ALL human activity. Some want to reduce a specific area. Others focus on overpopulation. Others are anti-capitalist. Whatever. The one thing in common is a generalized desire to reduce human activity on some scale or other.

The political label this movement co-opted is "AGW". They took AGW C02 (one variable out of dozens) and artificially weighted it. They dangled tons of grant money in front of sympathetic scientists, universities, labs, and clinics. They shut out dissent. They falsified data. They hid methodology. They pretended anecdotes were 'experts'. They threw way primary data. They clammed thier pieholes shut when their conclusions were wildly exaggerated. In the kindest interpretation, AGW has been proven to be no more than a very rudimentary hypothesis. In laymans terms, AGW C02 as a cause of 'climate change' is bunk.

The scientific claims are easily refuted because they are just about 100% wrong every time they say anything. Global warming causes hurricanes to be bigger and more powerful... ...eeeexcept that hurricanes became less frequent and weaker. Global warming is causing rising temperatures... ...eeeexcept that temperatures have been falling for 10 years and there's 7 feet of snow in DC. Human C02 will melt glaciars... ...eeeexcept the glaciers are actually getting thicker. You pick the topic. The 'science' predictions of the Warmers have been dead wrong every time.

Realizing that they have lost credibility when examined with real scientific rigor (or even with plain common sense) the Warmers simply moved their target. "Global Warming" not working? Well - just call it climate change. Since the climate always changes, ANY weather (good, bad, whatever) is "proof that man-made C02 emissions are destroying the planet". How rhetorically convenient.

But since the real objective is POLITICAL and not environmental, it doesn't really matter. If they can get enough gullible people to just pretend the Emperor has clothes long enough then they could still achieve the political goal - science be damned. They don't care that they've made the scientific community a laughing stock as long as they could get the IPCC to use East Anglia's bogus conclusions to try and sucker people at Carbonhagen.

So keep the divide in this issue clearly in mind. There is the 'science' side which is still undecided. Then there is the 'politics' side which is more like a religion that has the reduction of human activity as its Nicene Creed. That's all you need to know to look at any news story on this issue and arrive at a clear conclusion as to what its 'angle' is.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Said it before - and I'll say it again...
Free speech is never a bad thing. I will never for the life of me understand how people can be so offended by the right of people (which includes companies & groups) to appeal to government. McCain/Fiengold was bad, stupid law and it was overturned with more than just cause because it was unconstitutional. They made a law abridging free speech. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Another thing I don't understand - why do people get so mad at lobbyists for approaching politicians, and yet they never get mad at the politicians for being 'influenced'? Why did we make an unconstitutional law to punish free speech, and yet we have NO law to punish politicians who vote for bad policy?
If it is 'bad' for companies & interest groups to dangle money, then surely it is far worse for the politicians to actually be - you know - INFLUENCED. Money is like water. It is going to find a way into the system. You can't stop it. McCain/Fiengold was not only unconstitutional, it was stupid. You might as well run around trying to stop a monsoon by catching it in your cupped hand. The only proper solution is harsh penalties, monitoring, and regulation of GOVERNMENT officials. I think a law that throws elected officials in jail for accepting money, jobs, gifts, or favors woudl be far more effective than a law banning corporate lobbying efforts. Attack the source - not the symptom.


Ok this guy is working for the man.

Also about politicians accepting money etc. etc. It is generally argued that a john is to be blamed for prostitution. Often the john will be held criminally accountable and the prostitute will be set free maybe with a warning. The argument I think is basically that if we eliminate johns(as they're trying to do with many court-ordered programs to help them deal with their prostitute seeking behaviour) then there won't be any prostitutes.

Personally I think they both should be punished but some would pardon the prostitute because the need to get paid(to feed your kids, clothe yourself, buy a stick of deodorant) is stronger than the need to get laid. I realize my argument here is not incredibly well developed but it doesn't need to be because...

If companies are people as you so clearly claim why are they never held criminally accountable for their actions, i.e. dumping toxic waste into a community causing unknown amounts of cancer and deformed babies.

A company is just fucking not a goddamn person. Companies don't fucking eat. Companies don't fucking require shelter. Companies are not held accountable to ANYONE or ANYTHING other than their profit sheet. Literally.

Business is war and a good company will turn itself a profit like a good general will win a war. Even if that means murdering the elderly, raping the women, and brainwashing the children.