Bungee Jumper

No, you're not getting it. The plan is: tax the rich to help those in need. "Those in need" include not only the poor, but the rich corporations you're taxing to help the poor. So the plan is basically tax the rich and redistribute it to everyone.

Yeah, like I said. NIMBY. You want "the government" to help people, just so it doesn't inconvenience you. And, apparently, just so it's people you like.

And when that happens, you'll be first in line bitching about "corporate welfare".

Okay, maybe "retards" was a little harsh...but Jesus Christ...

Crayonz' birthday already? Seems like we were celebrating his birthday just yesterday...

Ah, the singular fault of all social programs. NIMBY.

From 20 nukes? We dropped two on Japan. The long-term local impact was insignificant. What makes you people think 20 worldwide is going to have a devastating global impact? Hell, there've been years when twice as many were tested...and we're still here. Use some common sense, you retards.

Big...like when they did it in 2004, and nothing happened. The utter silence from the Iranian government is interesting, though.

See? Y'all probably thought I was just making this sh-- up...

And in the meantime, Japan will get ahead of American automakers in creating more cocoa-efficient chocolate bars, and before you know it Hershey will go the way of Bethlehem Steel, and we'll all be eating Fujitsu bars... This, while Hershey sits on a hyper-efficient chocolate recipe that gets 100 candy bars to the cocoa bean that they won't use...

Oh, please tell me you're not here on your honeymoon.

Actually, if you read the article, it's due to a drought in the Ivory Coast because of...global warming. It's like the Kevin Bacon game. Everything can be connected to global warming in six steps or less.

Clearly, we need to find alternative sources of chocolate. But that'll never happen with the White House in the pocket of Big Candy...

Odd. Usually Joe doesn't even agree with himself.

No one wins the coin flip. They're both equally wrong. [/HA]

Why? Lost in all this is that, while the school was intolerant of an anti-gay message, they were openly advocating a gay tolerance message. Does anyone care to comment on the school's explicit double-standard of tolerance being highly selective? How is that not indoctrination?

Anyone ever notice that something else is always better than what you got? The NHL tried to fix their overtime rules by awarding a point for a tie at the end of regulation, regardless of the OT outcome, to "fix" the "problem" that teams were playing to not lose the point in OT. Now, people are complaining that too many hockey teams are above .500, and are advising a "solution" to the "problem" that's basically the old problem. Why would changing OT rules (or the playoff format, for that matter) in football be any different? Five years after they change them, you're all going to be screaming "The rules are unfair, change them to..."

That didn't help the confusion much. You mean, you envision a health care system in which the federal government pays for the individual health care of those who don't pay taxes using the taxes from those who do? Isn't that basically Medicade writ large?

No, enlighten me: what do you mean by "nationalized" health care? There's far too many different terms being thrown about in this discussion that probably mean the same thing.

You don't actually understand the difference between "public health" and "universal health care", do you?

Let's be brutally clear on one thing, though: NOTHING Al Gore has done is science. Nothing. At best, it's politicking based on science. At worst, it's propaganda based on science. Personally, I think Gore's BS qualifies as religion, being as it is defined as unfalsifiable and untestable. But it's certainly not science.

How, exactly, is exercising freedom of speech a disgusting abusing of a First Amendment right?

So now we've gone from I'm wrong and you're right, to I'm right...and even though you're still wrong because you're talking about a "misleading appearance" of what I'm talking about, you're still right because it's the same thing as what I'm talking about... ...which brings us right back to THINGS THAT ARE DIFFERENT ARE NOT THE SAME.

#7 isn't quite right. Under certain conditions (high trajectory, soft ground, impact or time fused rather than proximity fused) an artillery shell will bury itself underground before exploding, thus exploding straight up rather than out. Doesn't happen much these days, as most artillery is proximity fused. It was common in WWII and earlier, though (the New Guinea swamps, for example, or Ypres in WWI)