Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 158 (8123 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-16-2014 1:26 PM
91 online now:
Bliyaal, DrJones*, Jon, JonF, Malcolm, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ringo, Tanypteryx, Taq (10 members, 81 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: taiji2
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat, Spiritual Anarchist
Post Volume:
Total: 736,076 Year: 21,917/28,606 Month: 1,004/1,410 Week: 206/524 Day: 31/87 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
192021Next
Author Topic:   Chat/Comment thread
Larni
Member
Posts: 3745
From: UK
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 256 of 306 (647513)
01-10-2012 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Trixie
01-10-2012 5:46 AM


Re: You know it's your birthday when.....
Happy bithday!

My worst birthday was when I was in my second year at uni and the girl I was trying to court finally told me there was no way.

I was a bit drunk and went home crying. As I walked home I looked at my watch and it was gone 12 and the next day: my birthday.

Bollocks!


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Trixie, posted 01-10-2012 5:46 AM Trixie has not yet responded

    
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 15 days)
Posts: 2812
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 257 of 306 (647516)
01-10-2012 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Trixie
01-10-2012 5:46 AM


Re: You know it's your birthday when.....
Trixie writes:

....one cat poops in your son's bed, another throws up all over the carpets, your hubby is poorly with a tummy bug and you have a massive fight with son trying to get him to school on time (I failed). I've now sat down with a coffee and sung Happy Birthday to myself.

What's your worst birthday and why?

Things can only get better, as the song says, and I sincerely hope they do.

I can't remember a particularly bad one, but I can remember once getting up, going to work, and spending most of the day until late afternoon without even realising that it was my 40th birthday. Maybe there was something subconscious going on, but I don't think so, because if you've ever met the kind of person who's almost completely uninterested in birthdays, that's what I'm like.

Someone mentioned the date, and I said "Oh, I've just realised it's my 40th birthday". She couldn't believe that someone could go most of a day not knowing something like that, but it was true.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Trixie, posted 01-10-2012 5:46 AM Trixie has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 141 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 258 of 306 (647518)
01-10-2012 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Trixie
01-10-2012 5:46 AM


Re: You know it's your birthday when.....
Trixie writes:

What's your worst birthday and why?


Each birthday is worse than the last.
Each is another painful step towards death and oblivion.
Marking the passing of each year with faux joviality and inane gifts just leaves me cold.
We are born screaming and crying and no doubt we will die the same way.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!


If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Trixie, posted 01-10-2012 5:46 AM Trixie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Trixie, posted 01-10-2012 2:59 PM Panda has acknowledged this reply

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 134 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 259 of 306 (647635)
01-10-2012 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Panda
01-10-2012 6:35 AM


Re: You know it's your birthday when.....
Thank you for that, Happy Larry rofl
This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Panda, posted 01-10-2012 6:35 AM Panda has acknowledged this reply

  
dronester
Member
Posts: 1121
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 260 of 306 (647640)
01-10-2012 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by ProtoTypical
01-08-2012 9:09 PM


Number 1! (though it smells kinda like number two)
DF writes:

My point is, why are the most powerful nations the most powerful nations? It is because they have succeded. Should we persue a model that leads to less success?

One of the reasons america is a powerful nation is because it has succeeded in achieving the highest documented incarceration rate in the world. USA, number ONE, USA, USA, U S A !!! shock and awe baby!
http://en.wikipedia.org/...ncarceration_in_the_United_States

Yes, america SHOULD PERSUE THIS MODEL which can ONLY bring it even greater success. One way is for ol' liberal Obama to have signED the Indefinite Detention of Citizens Into Law Act. I am sooo happy ol' liberal Obama didn't even TRY to refuse to sign the bill.

quote:
President Barack Obama rang in the New Year by signing the NDAA law with its provision allowing him to indefinitely detain citizens.

quote:
most experts agree that such indefinite detention of citizens violates the Constitution.

It will become . . .

quote:
"one of the greatest rollbacks of civil liberties in the history of our country"

http://www.zcommunications.org/...of-2011-by-jonathan-turley

Number ONE, USA, USA!!! god bless america! shock and awe baby! SHOCK and AWE!!! (Wasn't that Bush-Cheney administration just awful!)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by ProtoTypical, posted 01-08-2012 9:09 PM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by crashfrog, posted 01-10-2012 3:49 PM dronester has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 261 of 306 (647641)
01-10-2012 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by dronester
01-10-2012 3:42 PM


Re: Number 1! (though it smells kinda like number two)
The NDAA doesn't contain a "provision allowing him to indefinitely detain citizens." It simply contains no provision that prevents him from doing so.

The text of the section of the NDAA you refer to says "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."

It's the AUMF that allows the President, potentially, to detain indefinitely US citizens accused of terrorist ties; that act was passed in 2001 and signed by George Bush.

You need to do better research, Dronester, as always. Obama isn't going to give you a pony or close the Iraqi embassy, no matter how hard you stamp your feet and pout.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by dronester, posted 01-10-2012 3:42 PM dronester has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by dronester, posted 01-10-2012 4:02 PM crashfrog has responded

  
dronester
Member
Posts: 1121
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 262 of 306 (647643)
01-10-2012 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by crashfrog
01-10-2012 3:49 PM


Re: Number 1! (though it smells kinda like number two)
Crash writes:

The NDAA doesn't contain a "provision allowing him to indefinitely detain citizens." It simply contains no provision that prevents him from doing so.

Though President Obamas insistence that he can unilaterally label a citizen as a terrorist and order his killing simply does not mean there is any actual provision that keeps Obama from actually from doing so.

(cough, cough, Anwar al-Aulaqi)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by crashfrog, posted 01-10-2012 3:49 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by crashfrog, posted 01-10-2012 4:25 PM dronester has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 263 of 306 (647650)
01-10-2012 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by dronester
01-10-2012 4:02 PM


Anwar al-Aulaqi

Anwar al-Awlaqi was a casualty of a military strike on a battlefield. It's a stretch to refer to it as the "ordered killing" of anybody. The Constitution gives the President wide authority to determine military objectives; the Posse Comitatus Act prevents the US military from being used for law enforcement purposes within the US, but air strikes are hardly something considered the purview of domestic law enforcement.

The US military has never operated under an assumption that Americans can't be the target of military action, otherwise fighting Civil War would have been impossible (since all citizens of the so-called "Confederate States of America" were, at all times, American citizens.) Anwar al-Awlaqi wasn't "labeled" as anything but a military target.

I don't understand why it comes as a surprise that, when you take up arms against the US Army on the battlefield, they don't stop and check your passport.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by dronester, posted 01-10-2012 4:02 PM dronester has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-10-2012 4:41 PM crashfrog has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12742
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 264 of 306 (647660)
01-10-2012 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by crashfrog
01-10-2012 4:25 PM


Anwar al-Awlaqi was a casualty of a military strike on a battlefield.

To be more precise, he was a casualty of a military strike on Anwar al-Awlaqi.

It's a stretch to refer to it as the "ordered killing" of anybody.

U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric.

Barack Obama orders killing of US cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by crashfrog, posted 01-10-2012 4:25 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by crashfrog, posted 01-10-2012 4:57 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 265 of 306 (647670)
01-10-2012 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Dr Adequate
01-10-2012 4:41 PM


To be more precise, he was a casualty of a military strike on Anwar al-Awlaqi.

That's always been something militaries do.

I'm not understanding the objection. The President is the Commander in Chief of the military. He's Constitutionally empowered to determine military objectives. The sole limitations on military objectives are the US Constitution, our treaties with other nations, and the terms by which Congress authorizes military force.

Holding a US passport (and there's no evidence that he actually did) doesn't immunize you against the military. It's not a magic anti-bullet shield. If Anwar al-Awlaqi had been arrested and taken into US custody, it certainly would have been illegal to execute him without a trial. But he wasn't. He was a casualty of a military strike.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-10-2012 4:41 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-10-2012 11:27 PM crashfrog has responded

  
ooh-child
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: 04-10-2009


Message 266 of 306 (647676)
01-10-2012 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Trixie
01-10-2012 5:46 AM


Re: You know it's your birthday when.....
It was my sweet sixteen and I had a huge crush on a senior that was destined for failure. My stupid sister planned her wedding for the next day, so no one in my family remembered it was my birthday. Boy, did my mom feel like crap when she realized what happened! I ended up sleeping on the couch since my stinky grandparents had commandeered my bedroom, and this geek made a small fortune selling peeks at my underwear.

Happy Birthday, Trixie!

Edited by ooh-child, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Trixie, posted 01-10-2012 5:46 AM Trixie has not yet responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1384
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 267 of 306 (647706)
01-10-2012 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by jar
01-08-2012 10:13 PM


Re: Who's best?
No, I am saying that Natural Selection has nothing to do with good or best, or any quality.

I am making the assumption that survival is better than not surviving.

But anyway. I dont think Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by jar, posted 01-08-2012 10:13 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by jar, posted 01-10-2012 9:31 PM ProtoTypical has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 24664
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 268 of 306 (647707)
01-10-2012 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by ProtoTypical
01-10-2012 9:20 PM


Re: Who's best?
Too funny. Kill or be killed.

That attitude is the real problem.

The question is why shouldn't Iran have nuclear weapons?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by ProtoTypical, posted 01-10-2012 9:20 PM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by ProtoTypical, posted 01-10-2012 9:47 PM jar has responded
 Message 271 by Coyote, posted 01-10-2012 9:50 PM jar has responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1384
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 269 of 306 (647708)
01-10-2012 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by Perdition
01-09-2012 2:09 PM


Re: Iran best watch its step
I agree. War of any kind is bad. Therefore advocating one without cause would seem to be a bad thing.

I am not advocating war. I am saying Iran should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons or be allowed to impede traffic in the Strait of Hormuz. If there is a way to do that without killing some people I am all for it. If there is no way to do that without the killing I am still for it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Perdition, posted 01-09-2012 2:09 PM Perdition has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Perdition, posted 01-11-2012 12:21 PM ProtoTypical has responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1384
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 270 of 306 (647710)
01-10-2012 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by jar
01-10-2012 9:31 PM


Re: Who's best?
No. It is kill if you have to and it is not an attitude so much as it is a reality.

Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons because they will likely use them or give them to someone who will. It will not make the world or Iran a safer place.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by jar, posted 01-10-2012 9:31 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by jar, posted 01-11-2012 8:22 AM ProtoTypical has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
192021Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014