Guilty of every charge. 😂

Trump’s lackeys are out of power and the DOJ is no longer acting as his personal defense attorney. New prosecutors did their job, and got convictions.

A $5 million nothing burger. I’ll take one.

Let’s see…millions spent investigating Trump’s criminal administration and HUNDREDS of convictions, now 25 more convictions for Trump himself (and he immediately repeated the crime on the courthouse steps after his convictions, guaranteeing two more multi million dollar cases by Carrol alone), and hundreds more to come. You need to go to kindergarten math, because hundreds > 0… 25 > 0.
Hundreds of convictions to show, from Trump to pages and every level in between. This alone speaks volumes that the entire administration was corrupt beyond belief and had absolutely zero respect for rules, laws, or ethics.
Up to 10 serious criminal cases in the works for Trump….some filed. Hardly nothing.
I think you’ve proven again that your grasp on reality is tenuous at best, because you claim hundreds of serious felony criminal charges and dozens of convictions already for Trump personally is “nothing”.

Again, not addressing your made up $60 million number, but no matter how much has been spent it’s been a bargain, because it forced the administration to stop its illegal actions time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again.

$200 million (I can make up numbers too) spent investigating Biden and actually nothing found, no charges, no specific accusations, no witnesses, no evidence, nothing at all but blanket accusations that he’s somehow criminal, we just don’t know how yet.
>$200 million investigating Clinton (verified), same results, nothing.

Gonna be hilarious soon, the judge in NY is forcing Trump to take a class instructing him how he must handle the evidence in his NY fraud cases Aand that he’s not allowed to talk about it so, when he violates the court order and starts tweeting out the evidence, he cannot claim he didn’t know better. It’s a trap Trump cannot keep from walking into. He’s going to jail before he goes to prison because he’s incapable of following the basic rules everyone else must live by. 😂

Some books are not age appropriate and hence should be kept away from kids ….Like the Bible?
Some people never become adults because they had adult knowledge kept from them as “age inappropriate”, which stunted their development so they NEVER learned “adult” topics and never became adult enough to comprehend even slightly adult topics and themes….some never have knowledge kept from them based on chronological age and their minds grew to adulthood well before puberty. You are clearly in the former group.

99.999% of books on book banning lists are not inappropriate to anyone who actually reads them. Any child raised to not be ignorant, to accept differing viewpoints, to think for themselves, and to question the unknown has absolutely nothing to fear from any book or knowledge. Only ignorant, intolerant, unthinking, cowardly know nothing morons think banning books is a good idea. You want others to be as dumb and ignorant and intolerant as yourself. That returns us to the Dark Ages in a generation….when knowledge was not tolerated.

Books with specific instructions on how to make drugs, bombs, and other deadly devices that children might be able to follow, those should not be in schools. Books that deal with sex and sexuality, since parents like yourself wouldn’t teach it at all, absolutely belong in school so we don’t have a 50% pregnancy rate in high school and a 30% suicide rate.

It’s not up to you to decide what’s appropriate for others to learn anymore than it’s appropriate for me to ban bibles from churches and burn any that don’t comply. If you want children to grow up ignorant of life, send them to religious schools and set them up for failure or cult life.

No sir, you are the one who claims the democrats had, and spent more money in the last 2 elections, and now that the republicans are the champion of the middle class (rather than it's most fervent enemy)....apparently because Faux told you so. I propose YOU are living in opposite land.
The middle class, along with nearly everyone else (not the top 1%), was screwed long and hard by the Bush administration and republican congress. True enough the democrats didn't stop them, nor did they fully solve the disaster they were left with 6 years ago. It was not, however, democratic policies that decimated the middle class, nor was it democratic policy that kept it that way, it is the obstructionist republicans insisting on continuing their own disastrous policies, and democrats never insisting on an actual filibuster (by republicans) to halt political progress, but accepting the mere threat of filibuster and giving up far too easily.
Claiming that the republicans have or will work FOR the middle class is either disingenuous or coming from the completely uninformed. (EDIT: please note that the economy has ALWAYS done better under democratic leadership than it has under republican leadership....every cycle in the last 50+ years, and the economy has been the republicans main issue that entire time.) Remember, it's proven repeatedly that those who listen to/watch "fox news" are consistently LESS informed than those who watch/listen to NOTHING. I think that's what's happened here.

EDIT: Love the new, totally appropriate 'sad clown king' avatar!

Some disconnected thoughts:

I didn't mean to say what you weren't saying. Apologies. I do like what you said here, "for her to use her basic human right to not be discriminated against as a woman to leverage those men into a difficult position, sounds like a crappy thing to do." Yes, a crappy thing. I think we'd better get used to it; at least in the United States where people want to adhere to the letter of the law when it comes to asserting their rights.

Am I wrong in assuming you live outside of the States? If so that makes it easy for me to understand your stance on religious rights being unequal with other rights.

I am not insisting that discrimination be protected. Far from it. If you were being discriminated against you would want me in your corner. I detest discrimination. What I find interesting about all of the cases you mentioned, the only reason a gay couple has given for asking the state to enforce the anti-discrimination laws is over the issue of marriage and the issue of marriage alone. The photographer and bakers apparently served the gay community in other capacities from their storefronts without incident. No lawsuits, no nothing. I think we have to ask 'why?" What is it specifically about marriage that would cause a Christian (or a Muslim, or any number of religions for that matter), to say, "I can't participate in that?" I suspect that if the couple in question had been a man and two or three women getting married that the business owners response would have been the same - that is not our understanding of marriage, sorry we can't in good conscience go there." At the risk of repeating myself, their refusal isn't about the people they refused. It is specifically about the act of marriage.

As an aside, I find it ironic to the nth degree that the State of Oregon is trying to legally compel the bakery owners to participate in a ceremony that is illegal in the State of Oregon. Marriage among gays in Oregon is illegal. Sigh. This is why I wish religion, of any sort, would get out of the business of telling people what to do. I would like to see a withdrawal from the legislation of religious tenets that are not in line with the US Constitution. Then gays could marry freely in this country and this argument could be put away.

Many of the problems in this world could be resolved if the religionists didn't feel like they needed to make everyone outside of their religion believe and behave like they do. As I see it, in a free society, a religious belief should not be able compel those outside that belief to do anything.

You may be familiar with openly gay author/blogger Andrew Sullivan who has written about this subject. He says: I would never want to coerce any fundamentalist to provide services for my wedding – or anything else for that matter – if it made them in any way uncomfortable. The idea of suing these businesses to force them to provide services they are clearly uncomfortable providing is anathema to me. I think it should be repellent to the gay rights movement as well.

There is, of course, extensive writing on this issue by all sides and we may never be able to untangle it here but I have enjoyed getting your perspective.



“what is to stop the members of Westboro Baptist Church from showing up at a bakery run by gays and demand they cater an anti-gay event?” answer; Anti-discrimination laws.

I hope you're right. I hope we never have an opportunity to find out. But here is, in part, the text of Oregon's law:

Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.

"Religion" doesn't not have a special designation of 'unless' in there. I can see those Westboro Baptist a-holes notice that and will have some gay bakers baking a cake for them every day of the week.

All of this discussion is really a digression of my initial post which was to say: If our communities were stronger, if we'd risk more relationally, if we'd put down the electronics and get to know each other, it sure would be a lot easier to get along. We would have less use for the legal system to resolve our differences.

Let me ask you, have you ever seen a law change someone's heart? I haven't.

Putin is a very intelligent man, and his comments are carefully crafted to be the sane voice of reason when compared to the US rhetoric of violence and invasion.

But then that's my point, what we're hearing here is the voice of reason. It's coming from a very unreasonable source, but the words are valid.

There's no such thing as a relevant ad hom, but I agree completely with the rest of your post. What we're being sold by the US government and certain politicians in the UK is that there are two choices, go to war or do nothing.

I think the third choice is the best choice, how about we actually help people?

Such an awful game and not because it's a shameless and pointless use of an old beloved IP, but because it was as generic and boring as a shooter in this day and age gets. It looks real purdy (except the bloom), but I am SO goddamn sick of these games that continue to follow this awful plan of making it as boring and simple as possible. There's nothing to keep track of, nothing to think about. Just shoot and do whatever the onscreen prompts tell you to do. Fuck off

You quote The Blind Watchmaker and The Origin of Species but I highly doubt that you’ve read them yourself. If you haven’t then you’re not better than someone who is contesting the bible without having read it. You quote a LOT of scientists that you say are hostile to your position but again, have you actually read the works that you’re quoting from in their entirety? I doubt it.

Well, I have read them and I think it's fairly obvious that I understand the subject matter.

Here are just two things that I read recently that I think are worth repeating:

...degree of thermodynamic disorder is measured by an entity called "entropy." There is a mathematical correlation between entropy increase and an increase in disorder. The overall entropy of an isolated system can never decrease. However, the entropy of some parts of the system can spontaneously decrease at the expense of an even greater increase of other parts of the system. When heat flows spontaneously from a hot part of a system to a colder part of the system, the entropy of the hot area spontaneously decreases! The ICR (Institute for Creation Research)...

....illustrate a fact, but they are not the fact itself. One thing is certain: metaphors are completely useless when it comes to the thermodynamics of calculating the efficiency of a heat engine, or the entropy change of free expansion of a gas, or the power required to operate a compressor. This can only be done with mathematics, not metaphors. Creationists have created a "voodoo" thermodynamics....

I never made the argument that entropy can never decrease in a system. I made the argument that even if you want to use the energy of the sun to explain why life is becoming more complex, you haven't explained the information that makes that possible. More energy does not equal more order. I also don't know why you keep bringing up articles from the institution of creation research and expect me to defend them. I am more than willing to admit that there are some terrible theories by creationists out there, just as there are terrible theories by secular scientists.

For myself, I am only a materialist because there isn’t any demonstrable, non-anecdotal, reproducible evidence for the existence of anything non-material. I hope you can understand that. There is the appearance of design and there is DNA, and we don’t know how everything got started but that’s not good enough for me to believe that it was designed, I need something more concrete because that is the criteria for which I will justify something as believable. I’d be very interested in some sort of evidence like that but it hasn’t happened yet and conjecture just doesn’t work for me so I’ll reserve judgment but maintain doubt and that’s all there is to it.

I can understand your position as a materialist, having formally been one. I did not see any evidence for God or spirit either, and it really rocked my world to discover that there was more, and that material reality is only a veil to a larger reality. It is mind blowing to discover that everything that you know is in some way, wrong.

I think there is some very good evidence pointing towards a Creator, but that isn't going to get you there necessarily. It seems to me though, after talking with you a bit, that if there is a God, you would want to know about it. Maybe you're not terribly interested in pursuing the subject at the moment but you now strike me as someone who is open to the truth. If He does exist, would you want to hear from Him? If He let you know, would you follow Him?

On the scope of evidence, I think the two of the most powerful arguments are the information in DNA and the fine-tuning of physical laws. There is no naturalistic process which can produce a code, and that is what DNA is. It is a digital code which stores information and is vastly superior to anything we have ever designed. It is a genetic language which has its own alphabet, grammar, syntax, and meaning. It has redudancy and error correction, and it is an encoding and decoding mechanism to transmit information about an organism. Biologists actually use linguistic analysis to decode its functions. You also have to realize that the message is not the medium. In that, like all information, you can copy the information in DNA to storage device like a hard drive, and then recode it later with no loss in information. This is a pretty good article on the information in DNA:

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/read-prove-god-exists/language-dna-intelligent-design/

The fine tuning evidence is also very powerfully because it is virtually impossible for the laws to have come about by chance. It's important to understand what fine tuning actually means. I'll quote Dr Craig:

"That the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent life is a pretty solidly established fact and ought not to be a subject of controversy. By “fine-tuning” one does not mean “designed” but simply that the fundamental constants and quantities of nature fall into an exquisitely narrow range of values which render our universe life-permitting. Were these constants and quantities to be altered by even a hair’s breadth, the delicate balance would be upset and life could not exist."

So it's not a question whether the Universe itself is finely tuned for life, it is a question of how it got that way. In actuality, the odds of it happening are far worse than winning the powerball lottery over 100 times in a row. Random chance simply cannot account for it because there are dozens of values that must be precisely calibrated, and the odds for some of these values happening by chance is greater than the number of particles in the Universe! For instance, the space-energy density must be fine tuned to one part in 10 to the 120th power, an inconceivably huge number. That's just one value out of dozens. Many scientists understand this.

Here are some quotes from some agnostic scientists, which a couple of Christians thrown in:

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word."

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming".

Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose".

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."

George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory."

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."
Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance."

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it."

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine."

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity.

Just because the universe and life might have the appearance of design doesn’t mean it was designed. After all, we might all be brains in vats being experimented on by hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings and all of this is simply like the matrix. Maybe Déjà vu is evidence that it’s true but there simply isn’t any reason to believe it just like there isn’t any reason to believe in any gods.

But if that were true then the Universe is designed, and this is simply some kind of computer program. In any case, although we could imagine many scenerios I am talking about something very specific; That Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that He rose from the dead. Moreover, that you can know Him personally, today.

All of the concepts of god and gods have been moved back every time we discover naturalistic explanations where once those gods were accredited. What makes you think that it’s any different with these things? Just because we don’t know what’s behind the veil doesn’t mean that the idea of someone pulling the levers is a better explanation than a currently unknown natural, non-agency explanation. If we don’t know, then we don’t know and putting a god in the place of “we don’t know” isn't a good way of helping us learn more about our universe

The primary question is whether the Universe has an intelligent causation. You believe that Universes, especially precisely calibrated and well-ordered ones just happen by themselves. I happen to think that this is implausible to say the least. You're acting like it's not a valid question, and because we can describe some of the mechanisms we see that we can rule out an intelligent cause, which is simply untrue. You could describe every single mechanism there is in the Universe, but until you explain how it got here, you haven't explained anything. The real question is not how they work but why they work and that question can only be answered by answering why they exist in the first place.

It is also just a fallacy to say that because some peoples beliefs about God have been proven false, that means all beliefs about God are false. Scientists used to believe that there were only seven planets and that the Earth was flat. Does that mean that all ideas scientists have are false? No, and neither does it mean that all beliefs about God are false because people have had ridiculous beliefs about God.

The God I believe in is not ridiculous, and the belief in His existence has led to ideas that formed western civilization and propelled modern science itself. The idea that we can suss out Universal laws by investigating secondary causes is a Christian one, that came from the belief that God created an orderly Universe based on laws.

It is also not a brake to doing science to believe that God created the Universe. Some of the greatest scientists who have ever lived believed in God. People like Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Max Planck, Mendel and Einstein. It certainly didn't stop them from doing great science.

Also, as I have explained, it is not a God of the gaps argument when God is a better explanation for the evidence.

We know that the universe, space-time, matter had a finite beginning but we can’t say anything at all about that beginning with any certainty. We can’t even say that whatever was that caused the universe is spaceless, or timeless. We just don’t know. This is the god of the gaps argument that started this whole thing. You’re putting a god in as the explanation for what is effectively a gap in our knowledge without anything solid to go off of. It would not be a god of the gaps argument if we eventually could know with a high degree of certainty that there is a god there fiddling with the controls but we don’t. That is the crux of this whole debate. That is why “I don’t know” is a better answer than “A god did it” because it’s absolutely verifiably true where as a god is not.

The ultimate cause of the Universe must be timeless because it must be beginningless, according to logic. I'll explain. You cannot get something from nothing, I think we both agree on that. So if the Universe has a cause, it must be an eternal cause, since you cannot have an infinite regress of causes for the Universe. The buck has to stop somewhere. This points to an eternal first cause, which means that cause is timeless. If it is timeless it is also changeless because change is a property of time. If it is changeless it is also spaceless, because anything which exists in space must be temporal, since it is always finitely changing relation to the things around it. It's timelessness and spacelessness makes it immaterial, and this also makes it transcendent. I think it is obvious that whatever created the Universe must be unimaginably powerful. So we have something which already closely describes the God of the bible, and we can deduct these things by using logic alone.

We just don’t know if the universe is entirely regressable into some sort of endless loop which folds in on itself, or something else, or even if there is a god or not. Furthermore, I hope you look into what physicist mean by “out of nothing” because it doesn’t mean what I think you think it means. It took me a while to understand what it meant and to be honest, it is a bit of a deceptive word play but it’s only that way because there isn’t another way to describe it. I don't actually believe that the universe came from "nothing". I don't know how it all started, so therefore, I have no belief. I don't need an answer to the big questions. I can say "I don't know" just fine and leave it at that.

“A proponent of the Big Bang Theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the universe came from nothing and by nothing.” Anthony Kenny

British physicist P.C.W. Davies writes, “The coming-into-being of the universe as discussed in modern science…is not just a matter of imposing some sort of organization or structure upon a previous incoherent state, but literally the coming-into-being of all physical things from nothing.”

Physicist Victor Stenger says “the universe exploded out of nothingness the observable universe could have evolved from an infinitesimal region. its then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing.

In the realm of the universe, nothing really means nothing. Not only matter and energy would disappear, but also space and time. However, physicists theorize that from this state of nothingness, the universe began in a gigantic explosion about 16.5 billion years ago.

HBJ General Science 1983 Page 362

the universe burst into something from absolutely nothing - zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere. How is that possible? Ask Alan Guth. His theory of inflation helps explain everything.

discover April 2002

I think we can both agree that it is better to know than not to know. That's been one of your primary arguments against the existence of God, that we simply cannot rest of the laurels of God being the Creator because that will lead to ignorance. I have already demonstrated that there is no actual conflict with belief in God and doing good science, so your argument is invalid, but I think it's ironic that on the other side of it, you are arguing that ignorance is a good thing and leads to better science. That you're even intellectually satisified with not knowing. I hope you can see the contradiction here.

The reason why I personally don’t find the whole god argument all that interesting, and the reason why I don’t actually care about it, is because it makes a heck of a lot of claims regarding the nature of god and it’s properties which just can’t be verified. There is nothing that we can concretely discover about god and no predictions that we can make which could eventually be verified meaningfully. How can we possibly know if creator is timeless, or spaceless, unimaginably powerful, transcendent, unembodied, etc? Is it rational to believe that; do you have an equal ratio of evidence to belief? What predictions can we actually make about this god(s). All we have are books and stories written and passed down throughout history. Everything else is just unjustified belief to me.

As I explained above, we can make several predictions about God based on the evidence. Belief in God is rational and can be justified. However, I understand that until you have a personal experience, it is probably going to be unconvincing to you, since this is way you see the world. You demand evidence, and lucky for you, God provides evidence. If you asked Him to come into your life, He would demonstrate it to you. He provided evidence to me, and I know you He will provide to you, especially if you take a leap of faith ask Him for it.

>> ^IAmTheBlurr:

>> ^Deano:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
One thing I really hate is people who know nothing--but think they should correct others.
promote

She looks darn good though


True

>> ^Boise_Lib:

One thing I really hate is people who know nothing--but think they should correct others.
promote


She looks darn good though

One thing I really hate is people who know nothing--but think they should correct others.

*promote

In reply to this comment by GenjiKilpatrick:
>> ^bobknight33:

You can thank the Left for creating the society which encourages such personal expression of freedom.
Where as the right would have the buss driver armed and would be grateful if she shot and killed the piece of shit. She would be doing society a favor.

Which society do you wish to live in?


"Really, why can't you think critically & objectively before attempting to string words together?"

"Do you really think allowing GRADE SCHOOL BUS DRIVERS to MURDER CHILDREN is a good idea?"

"Why would you say something so stupid just to take potshots at straw-man liberals?"

..these are the questions you should ask yourself in the morning and thru out your day..



There is nothing to think about. That is not a kid on the bus. That is a thug that has no respect for others and is totally out of societal norms. Yes Shoot the prick. Ok don't kill him but at least beat the living piss out of him to make him think twice about doing it again.

Liberals are the root cause of society slipping into moral decay. According to Liberals People can and should be allowed to do what EVER they want in whatever fashion. That kind of thinking is wrong.

>> ^CreamKreator:

This guy should study a little more. Socialism is NOT communism.. There is a huge difference, just look the history of these neighboring countries: Finland and Soviet Union. Not the same at all.
And somehow the reasoning that he fought for his country sounds like that he didn't fought for the people of the country. Did he fought for the idea of fat cats getting even fatter and poor shall have nothing? I think these kind of people would line up every homeless people against the wall and shoot them if given a chance. Along with handicapped, mentally ill, anybody really who can't be a good capitalist and take care of them selves without any help from anybody. Where does that lead us? Education is the next victim. No more decent public schools, everything is privatized, that's capitalism!
Capitalism doesn't work. Communism didn't work. Even pure socialism won't work. Any political ideology won't work by itself. They need to be mixed up, democratic capitalist socialism would be somewhere closer to perfect society. Or you can take the one thing out of that equation that causes pain and suffering more than any idea in the history of man: Money.
Sorry about the rant.


True socialism (at least in the Marx/Engles sense) does not use money; nor does communism. In fact, communism was largely seen as a "second step" after socialism.

Scandinavian countries are not socialist, they largely rely on democratic socialist principles. In fact, there has never been a true socialist or communist society, given the fact that these forms of government exclude the use of money.

I agree with your main point though...

This guy should study a little more. Socialism is NOT communism.. There is a huge difference, just look the history of these neighboring countries: Finland and Soviet Union. Not the same at all.

And somehow the reasoning that he fought for his country sounds like that he didn't fought for the people of the country. Did he fought for the idea of fat cats getting even fatter and poor shall have nothing? I think these kind of people would line up every homeless people against the wall and shoot them if given a chance. Along with handicapped, mentally ill, anybody really who can't be a good capitalist and take care of them selves without any help from anybody. Where does that lead us? Education is the next victim. No more decent public schools, everything is privatized, that's capitalism!

Capitalism doesn't work. Communism didn't work. Even pure socialism won't work. Any political ideology won't work by itself. They need to be mixed up, democratic capitalist socialism would be somewhere closer to perfect society. Or you can take the one thing out of that equation that causes pain and suffering more than any idea in the history of man: Money.

Sorry about the rant.

Bush's method to prevent disaster.

Sit on his ass and pray about it.

-
Prayer: How to to do absofuckinglutely nothing, yet think you are doing something.

it reminds me a little of the flash meme where you see islamist riot pictures with simular audio, but other then that I got nothing.

I think the little touches like picking up the bleach and the conversion of grain rice to bleached rice through extreme force make it funny. Saddly it features a sheltered teen who is to lazy to shave and looks like a dork with a beard.