Crap Throwing Monkey

Unsurprising. Women are capable of multiple orgasms, after all...

They're manipulated very simply. Define a "normal" climate. It could very well be that sea levels over the past three thousand years were abnormally stable...or that glaciation over the past 150 years was abnormally high (given that the Little Ice Age ended about 180 years ago, I can make a very strong case for there being an abnormal number of glaciers in Glacier National Park in 1850). It's very easy to say "the earth is warming". But that's not even remotely the same as saying "the earth is warming abnormally". While all the examples you quote promote the former, not one supports the latter. And THAT'S manipulating statistics. Junk science.

1) For about 20 years...since they stopped saying the ice age would be a problem. 2) Yes. 1998, and the mid-80s.

Ball bearings, man. It's all about ball bearings...

I didn't want to get that complex. I'm simply not in the mood to explain in detail that the Arabs don't control the price of oil, they control the price of risk.

Only if it's untreated...

Except for two things... 1) Ed likes it, because it satisfies his craven need for attention, 2) Simon wouldn't ban me. He'd just attack me again for being bipolar.

Take a guess...

I like Cape Cod. But ditching New Jersey pretty lets us get rid of the EPA, and save us $7B a year...

But he's right. Mostly. As for the UN siezing some land...I nominate New Jersey.

Nope. Gone again. I hadn't seen that he'd done anything this time - he was talking about his newfound love, and expressing the desire to have BF_in_Indiana paroled, is all I saw. Apparently, it was his mere existence set simeone into a tizzy.

Because they can't just drop prices. They could increase production level, by which they could drop prices...but everyone's production is maxed out for the most part. And the US has, in the past, gone to producers and asked "Please increase production so prices don't go too high." And they have (the Saudis were usually pretty good about such things). But this time, they can't.

Whoops! He's gone again...

You also think your gay-ass car is "metro-funky". So really...what the hell do you know about it?

At the moment, because of the thin margin between production and consumption. Makes the market more volitaile. Which means that any major producer has a lot of control over oil prices (take any 4% of the production off the world market and prices will go through the roof). We just focus on Middle Eastern oil production for the same reason we fought to keep them out of our ports...

I saw that a few days ago. Nothing I haven't already said. It's technically feasable (i.e. the planes can fly that far)...but as a practical matter it would be a difficult undertaking with high risk and low return (realistically, if the Israelis committed their entire air force to the task, they might be able to hit about a dozen targets at once at that range - which is less a "strike" than it is "harrassment"). Except the Washington Times makes it sound far more sensationalized. Which is unsurprising, since the Times is garbage...

An important point of clarification: the story isn't "Don't feed the homeless." It's "Don't feed the homeless in the city parks." It's more about keeping the parks clean than it is picking on the homeless... Which still isn't very nice...but given Vegas' status as a tourist destination, hardly surprising or even unreasonable.

"Someday we'll find it, the Rainbow Connection...The lovers, the dreamers and me..."

Perfect for mowing that sweet gum...

Not to mention the argument, "If the president doesn't know he's being broadcast, can we blame him for saying things on a broadcast?" This isn't Janet Jackson at the Superbowl; Bush and Blair quite reasonably thought the conversation was private and the mic was off. As for this particular case...the FCC can shove their rules up their ass. It's a !@#$ing documentary on !@#$ing soldiers, and the coarse language, believe it or not, goes a long way towards conveying the absolute sh------- nature of warfare. They didn't cut the nudity out of Schindler's List when they aired it in prime-time...because it was an important part of the story, not salacious. Ditto the profanity in a documentary about war. But on the other hand, as I think about it, sanitizing it shows what the soldiers are fighting for better than anything else I can think of: they're fighting for the rights of uptight neo-Puritanical Americans to make Victorian England look like a Roman orgy. That in itself is an important point to get across...so by all means, cut the profanity. In fact, cut out any images of guns, knives, blood, dirt, dust, grime...just have all the soldiers sitting in a big circle in a flower garden singing camp songs, because I think it's important in this documentary to portary the completely unrealistic view of the world the neo-Puritans have...

When did the president cuss on TV?

Actually, judging by my sister's office, it's just the opposite: public defenders are more likely to try to strike a plea bargain because they're so overburdened, and it's far less time-consuming to plea out than go to court. The real issue that comes in there is: prosecutors don't have to take the plea. Often they'd like to...prosecutors have a hellacious case burden, too. But they can force the public defender to court, if they so choose, and the PD doesn't have much of an option (a well-paid private attorney, on the other hand, can threaten to bury the prosecution in paperwork and use that as a bargaining chip in a plea bargain, which is where the real benefit of a private attorney comes in.) Plus...never overlook the inherent stupidity of defendants. My sister had a guy in a drug/assault case who insisted on going to court because he swore he could beat the identification...no matter how often my sister pointed out to him that he had a damn swastika tattooed on his forehead. In a capital case, that guy would have fried regardless of whether he had his own lawyer or a public defender.

Just tell me this: are you "Free Tookie!", or "Fry Tookie!"?

I, for one, would like to thank Captain Ouimette for that scintillatingly incorrect and half-assed analysis of terrorism in the past quarter-century. What a load of !@#$ing bull sh--. Ouimette should stick to what he does best - issuing press releases saying "We don't know why the trainee crashed the plane" - and not opine on sh-- he clearly knows nothing about.

I highly, highly doubt that he was voted in to keep the federal government from funding stem cell research. The simple fact that a wide majority (something like 75%, last I heard) of Americans disagree with him on stem cell research leads me to believe that just maybe there were one or two other issues that might have driven the election... But thanks for the advice. Damn, I wish I'd realized earlier that I could vote for someone else. I'll keep it in mind next time...