DC Tom

I agree. I would have liked to ease my grandmother's pain and suffering towards the end, but the law wouldn't let me euthanize my mom...

She can have my glass beads and trinkets when she pries them from my cold, dead hands.

All I know for certain is that life definitely begins at birth or earlier, and definitely doesn't begin when the sperm fertilizes the ovum, and any action before implantation is contraception, not abortion. Other than that, I'm not willing to dictate my moral beliefs to others. Which is where TYTT usually pops in with a complaint about moral relativism that goes something like "Then you're not willing to convict murders, as the definition of murder is an individual moral choice." Which is a logical fallacy, shifting the discussion from the moral determination of "when life begins" to an argument about "when life should be taken away." (JSP also pops in and says that, but I chose TYTT because he's smart enough to see the logical fallacy of substituting an inequal term into the discussion and should know better, whereas JSP is an idiot who thinks a logical fallacy is "Mr. Spock getting oral sex.") Oh, get the ***** out of here. What is this, ***** Sesame Street? It's PPP. Hate him, ya *****.

I find that to be more odious than The_Dude's antics. He's at least letting us know he's a low-life. *****nuts is a low-life posting poetry to convince himself he's better than everyone else.

If you're going to discuss it, be specific. "Infant" is anywhere from a newborn to 1 year old. No one aborts "infants," and saying so is an attempt to redefine the language to suit your preconceptions...and if you're going to adopt liberal tactics in retconning words, you may as well just vote Ocasia-Cortez next election.

I'd search for a selection of his greatest hits for you and Paulus...but frankly, I don't care to read any of his crap right now. And while you're actually doing your homework, Paulus and his "you're being lazy by not reading me bedtime stories" attitude can go pound sand up his ass as far as I'm concerned.

Actually, I'd guess that roughly a third of the people who are pro-choice are so precisely because of that reasoning, and because they have the humility to admit that "when life begins" is not a question without a hard, factual answer.

You haven't been around much then, recently. He's been pretty tame the last few days. Now who's being lazy?

Blanket crap is pretty much the standard here. Blanket crap the specifics of which you can find yourself in about five minutes is well above the standard. It's pretty sad that my profane and obvious sarcasm and belittlement passes as discussion here. Still...as I wrote that, I did start to seriously wonder about liability issues. We're not responsible for his thoughts, or his posts, or his future actions...but how much will we be perceived to be responsible for his future actions if his posts come to light?

Honestly...despite the sarcastic nature of what I wrote above, the more I think about it the more I wonder if SDS is open to any future civil liability having The_Dude on the board.

Haven't read his posts, have you? I don't blame you - they're awful. But really, his posting history is available, and not subtle. I shudder to think of the PMs some people must receive.

Or click his avatar multiple times and pretend your punching him in the face. I'm torn on the subject. I'm not one to clutch at pearls and silence asshats because they're asshats - quite the contrary. I'm not a liberal who has to be protected from even the least unlikely form of hurt feelings, and do believe that people shouldn't be silenced - asshats in particular, since I believe their asshattery should be on display for all to see, so people know to avoid them. Buggery***** behavior such as his only thrives in the shadows, so by all means let him put it on display, so everyone understands what a shitbird he is. Plus...he's the quintessential ignored teenager acting out for attention. Banning him is giving him exactly what he wants - recognition for his bad behavior - and encourages him. And then there's the observation I've made before: all his angry shitposting becomes evidence in his criminal trial when he finally snaps, beats his wife, and shoots up a Sikh gurdwara in the mistaken belief that "they're towelheads, and Islam must be destroyed." But on the other hand, I certainly understand the desire to have him banned - I'm certainly sick of his *****. And I doubt SDS wants his virulent racism associated with the site, despite the future evidentiary value (or even because of it - though his vitriol doesn't rise to the level of actionable now, it will certainly look bad in retrospect after he snaps and kills several people. Bad enough to the point of civil liability, I'd think.) Hell, that last point alone - SDS could be civilly liable for not doing anything after The_Dude snaps - is more than enough to ban him, I'd think.

Wow. They took Emily Litella, they made her unfunny. They ruined her. How the ***** do you ruin Emily Litella? How ***** stupid do you have to be to ***** up "Sorry. Never mind?"

The book's title? "Dear Diary..."

No, it's not 70. Really...69.666? That's a gay joke with a built-in anti-Christ joke. And you ***** it up. You're an idiot.

That first one...Jesus Christ, that's a recipe for writing a biased piece: a call for a group of people who self-select to give him negative information, from which he can generalize. It's not even subtle.

69.66666... So no, it doesn't even.

So is Acosta going to have book signings, or is he just going to stand in bookstores and argue with people?

A trimester is a third of a pregnancy term, not a year.

My standard for "good" is generally accuracy. So, in no particular order: Twelve O'Clock High: 70 years old, and still one of the best portrayals of the psychological effects of warfare. The Caine Mutiny: one of Bogie's underrated performances, and an excellent study in unity of command. Lawrence of Arabia: honestly, rather ponderous, but one of the most beautifully filmed movies you will ever see. Tora Tora Tora: the use of different American and Japanese crews for their respective nationalities' scenes gives it an unusually balanced historical feel. A Bridge Too Far: Oscar winner Richard Attenborough directing Oscar winners and nominees Sean Connery, Ryan O'Neal, Gene Hackman, Michael Caine, Anthony Hopkins, James Caan, Maximilian Schell, Liv Ullman, Elliott Gould, Denholm Elilott, Robert Redford, and Lawrence freakin' Oliver. You won't even see that many Oscar winners at the Oscars. Das Boot: most realistic portrayal of submarine warfare in the German Navy in WWII you'll ever see. Master and Commander: same as above, for Napoleonic naval warfare. We Were Soldiers: accurate portrayal of the Ia Drang Valley, accurate enough that it gave Vietnam vets flashbacks, and Joseph Galloway walked out of the screening because it was too close to reliving his nightmares. Plus...Sam Elliott plays the Sargent Major role he was born to play. Zulu: telling of the Battle of Rorke's Drift, so true to history the Zulu uThulwana impi in the movie is portrayed by...the actual uThulwana impi. Honorable mentions, for having phenomenal set-pieces: Enemy at the Gates: a pedestrian movie, but the Russian reinforcements crossing the Volga into Stalingrad is a frighteningly accurate depiction of the *****-show that battle was. Saving Private Ryan: though I consider the movie marred by Spielberg's standard practice of giving up before the movie's over and ending it with deus ex Jurrasica T-Rex swooping in and killing the velociraptors (or P-51 killing Germans - same difference), the opening 40 minutes is one of the most draw-dropping, attention-seizing battle set-pieces you'll ever see. Honorable mention for worst ever: Pearl Harbor. ***** you, Michael Bay. ***** you hard, with each of the 700 sticks of dynamite you used to make seven of the most bull#### seconds of film I have ever seen.

Because they've been CHEATING for a ***** decade.

What ***** math are you using?

You don't even have to buy one. It just breaks into your house and steals your personal documents on its own.

Are you high? I've never said any such thing. Hell, you of all people should know I don't want idiots silenced, as I much prefer mocking them.

No, Bangladesh beached Greenpeace's old ship. Greenpeace didn't own it any more. Although they did maintain the right to determine it's disposal...but the ship was forbidden to sail outside of costal waters, which limited disposal to "a beach in Bangladesh." Which was done before Greenpeace even knew it happened. As much as I like to rag on the hypocrisy of environmentalists...this isn't one of those cases. Greenpeace wasn't hypocritical, just clueless and inattentive. THIS, on the other hand, is hypocrisy.