>> ^dcmisha:
Not sure I want to take advice from a man doing blow.


Why not? Does it make his statements any less true?

Yes he had a heavy habit, so what? People get addicted to substances, thats life.

By the way, what exactly are you implying? Any person who's ever taken any drug should now have their opinions rendered irrelevant?

yeah this is a possible step in the right direction, but requires a touchscreen IMHO. With a mouse its step backwards I reckon from a usability POV

It's spelled "Crème fraîche" folks

*Quantumushroom

Quantummushroom,

by bringing health care nationalization into this discussing as reponse to my Franklin quote you have effectively labeled me as pro groverment intervention. This wholly incorrect and seems to indicate your lack of understanding of different points of view on the world (not everyone is either conservative or liberal). I am in fact a classical liberal in the mould of your founding fathers(libertarian in today's terms) meaning I am for small and responsible goverment that let's its citizens get on with their own matters as far as possible and does not involve itself with our lives. But the fact is this is not really part of the main discussion.

You can word it any which way you want, but the fact remains: You CANNOT lock people up indefinitely without trial and torture some and then try to worm your way out of responsibilities by claiming they're "illegal combatants" and by redefining torture. It is obscene and it is wrong, plain and simple.

Plays back fine here in the ol' UK of GB & NI

>> ^quantumushroom:
Terrorists will do nothing differently because of this egregious mistake.
The message being sent to the enemy is: "We are weak."


"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

>> ^spoco2:
Brilliant... I mean really, all well and good if you're Christian, Muslim, whatever... but keep it OUT of a swearing in of a president... MAN, PLEASE... can we get rid of this singular belief crap from these ceremonies?
Upvote this all the way to the top? Please?


I gotta say this felt so out of place during the ceremony. I don't understand, the US, being supposedly secular by design, has these VERY religious bits during the swearing in of its president (seperation of church and state anyone?)

>> ^westy:
thers going to be catle everywhere with all these people taking a fence


A FENCE????

Jeeeeeeeeezuz...even by his own high standards Westy outdoes himself in the creative spelling department

hehe...city folk....

bluecliff I would say has his head up his own arse, rather than in the clouds, with pretentious and essentially meaningless relativistic drivel of that magnitude.

Upvote for one of the most amazing bands on the planet

>> ^rgroom1:
I really don't know whether or not this site is credible, but
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i43272
Headline: Obama Thanks Ron Paul


spoof
–noun
1. a mocking imitation of someone or something, usually light and good-humored; lampoon or parody: The show was a spoof of college life.
2. a hoax; prank.

–verb (used with object)
3. to mock (something or someone) lightly and good-humoredly; kid.
4. to fool by a hoax; play a trick on, esp. one intended to deceive.

–verb (used without object)
5. to scoff at something lightly and good-humoredly; kid: The campus paper was always spoofing about the regulations.

Now you know...
*bangs head against wall*

>> ^MINK:
has this election damaged the reputation of "Rovian" tactics more than anything else? i fucking hope so. just look at the difference in Condi and McCain when the pressure is off. It's exactly like fresh air.


thats what I was getting at as well, the Republicans just totally missed the boat with what the majority of the electorate would respond to. Divide and rule was effective when you could bludgeon the electorate into submission with "Support us or the terrorists win" type bullshit. But now that people have realised that there are more important problems out there, that no longer works. Thank the gods.

Saw John Bolton on BBC's coverage of the election last night speaking about Palin and if Mccain did much wrong in his campaign. He was being typical John Bolton (read asshole), but what struck me most was his (and plenty of conservatives) complete misunderstading of why Mccain lost. He was saying things like "Mccain didnt attack enough", "He wasn't negative enough" and "Paling was a great choice, she energised the base". These are EXACTLY the reasons why he lost (excluding of course Bush and the economy). By choosing Palin and going all negative and hardline, he COMPLETELY LOST the centre. Sure he maybe secured the base but a. the conservative base isnt big enough to win elections anymore and b. who the hell is the base going to vote for apart from the republicans anyway? If there was any republican who could've won this post-Bush election, it was Mccain, but he pissed it away by going for Karl Rove type tactics and destroying years of being a fairly independent senator with across the board appeal. I hope he has LOOOONG regrets about this.