Gaf The Horse With Tears

Can you point out the "how"? I don't see it in that article or any other I have read... not even in excerpts of his new book. I know it's Hawkings.. one of the smartest men that ha ever lived... but I don't buy his "Because I said so" arguement. He never actually gives an explination as to what destabalized the super particle.

How could you have not heard about the deaths on the first rig? I think it's a conspiracy too. Obama is going to get that off-shore drilling ban yet.

To truly talk about it we would have to give some credit where credit is due. That would mean giving a compliment to Bush. We are pulled out 100,000+ troops exactly on the schedual that Bush negotiated with al-Maliki. We were able to do that because the Surge, that Obama and Biden both said was going to fail in fact they said it would make things worse), did not in fact fail.

Interesting thoguht problem. I'm not sure I agree with either of you. I do beleive that what they did falls the catagory mass murder but not Terror. The reason I say this is because thier intent was to kill everyone they could, not scare everyone they could by killing a few. "Terror" was not the intent.. murder was. Also, I don't think Goth should be in this debate at all... They were not Goths. That connection was disproven during the investigation.

"Many Muslims fear that the mosque will become a shrine for Islamists, which would remind Americans of what Muslims did on 9/11," Gamal Abd Al-Gawad, director of Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo

Has any one botherd to research the man building it?

How far should a shrine to the Japanese pilots who bombed Pearl Habor be from the Arazona? If you don't think it's the same thing... please, read about the man who is building this afront.

I just watched a video of Obama clarifing his remarks on this. He was speaking to thier Right to build it, not how wise the decision was to build it. I was evident from his mannerism as he was speaking that he doesne not personally support it being there. With that in mind I was to make it clear I do not fault him for his public position.

Ok, how about a woman that marries a dolphin?

It may be private land now, but it was public land owned by the City of New York and was given to the group by the Mayor of New York. He never bothered to ask the tax payers if they agreed with the gift. Again.. all you have to do is read anything written by the inman who is building this. It's a Center for Hate and Intolerance. The man building it beleives and preaches that the 9/11 attackers are heros. Look at the name they are giving it. Cordova was the Islamic capital of Islamic Spain at the height of the Islamic invasion of Europe. They only use that name in places of great Conquest. They are winning and we are letting them.

No, but one need only do a little research on the inmam behind the mosque, the name chosen for it and the name of the muslim group raising the funds for it to realize that it's a shrine to the 19 monsters that took the trade centers down.

Perhaps you should read the articles you posted as your evidence. All were written in Bush's last year in office... all talked about deregulation that MIGHT happen in the last days of Bush's term. That doesn't support your statements as you tried to say they did.

Because someone needed to spit in someone's eye. They could have easily gotten a Civil Union and been done but that didn't make a specticale or spit in anyone's eye. So, they had to get married on the steps of the Court House in front of every major media camera they could with the mayor as of offciator all the while knowing Prop 8 was going to pass and they could act all butt hurt. Actually, thats how I really feel about this. It's all about the spectical and making as many straight people uncomfortable about it as possible. If this was really about Love and commitment to your partner... all the spectical and what word is used to describe the relationship would not matter. They would accept the Civil union for the legal side of things and then go off and have a marrige ceremony, a hand fasting, or bonding among family and friends. True Change only comes with time. All that forcing thnings to change has ever done is break things. Hearts, minds and bodys...

What exactly do straight people have the Right to do that Gays do not when it comes to Civil Union vs Marrige? A Civil Union, as recognized by California and 9 other states, comes with all the same Rights and Privlidges as marrige. As for the ceremony... there is no law that keeps anyone from being married in the way of thier choosing. There are also no laws that force anyone to have any specific ceremony to be recognized. I know people that have gotten the full blown Church wedding and others that did an old fashion hand fasting (jumping over the broom included)... all thier marriges are equal in the eyes of the Law.

California fully recognizes Civil Unions legally.. and has for years for Civil unions enacted in other states or countries. Prop 8 just barred them from traditional marrige and established Civil unions for gays within California... This ruling only struck down the marrige part.

I am glad that you are finally admitting to only seeing what you want to see rather than actual documented history.

*sigh* I was pretty sure you knew my views on marrige. Let me explain for those that don;t know and for those who seem to forget when it doesn't help thier cause to remember. I want ALL marrige to become Civil Unions.. including mine. The goverment has only been involved in marrige for about 150-175 years. They only got involved in marrige to settle property disputes when marriges dissolve. Marrige has also not always been a religous event. The "Church" has only gotten involved in marrige in the last 400 or so years and only performed the ceremony in the last 250-300. yet, marrige has existed in almost every culture that has ever been. It has always been (except in those rare cultures) a oath taken between one man and one woman. So, for legal purposes, all marriges should be civil unions to take care of the legal side of things. If the couple wants to get married in a Church so as to get the Church's Blessing.. or would rather take thier Vows in a spring field with naked hippies... fine and dandy. This whole fight is about a group of people who want certian legal rights and another group of people that want the meaning of a word to stay what it has always been. There is a middle ground that can make everyone happy if everyone involved stops trying to stab the other side in the eye at every chance. That middle ground is Civil Unions for everyone.

And not one of them exacted (if at all) before the meltdown started. I'm sorry but this mess is on Congress and the Democrats within it that run the sub-commities that make the financial rules.

Not a Bush policy, the deregulation happenned under Clinton and Bush argued FOR regulation.

But you also can't name one of his domestic economic policys that caused this mess. The recession and the housing collapse were caused by Fannie May and Freddie Mac (and thier Democrat backers in Congress).

You knwo whats funny about this whole mess... no one seems to be accuratly reporting what Prop 8 was... Yes, it banned "gay marrige" but it created Civil Unions with all the benefits of marrige... To me, this debate has gone from wanting Equal Rights to wanting to spit in peoples faces.

The banks work within the rules/laws given to them by Congress. Specifically the House Financial Services Committee and the Financial Services Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity that dictate the rules under which they do loans. I might note that both chairpersons (Barney Frank and Maxine Waters) are both Democrats and are both under investigation for major Ethics violations. At this point in the Housing mess.. I really miss Bush. He asked Congress 17 times since 2003 to do something about Subpar loans... even went to far as to predict the meltdown... and the Congress kept right on pushing the banks to give out more Subpar loans...

You Scored as Existentialism. Your life is guided by the concept of Existentialism: You choose the meaning and purpose of your life. "Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does." "It is up to you to give [life] a meaning." --Jean-Paul Sartre "It is man's natural sickness to believe that he possesses the Truth." --Blaise Pascal Existentialism 75% Divine Command 70% Kantianism 70% Hedonism 65% Justice (Fairness) 60% Utilitarianism 60% Apathy 25% Strong Egoism 25% Nihilism 25%

What makes you think they are Republicans?

Thats all fine and good phee. The disconnect in this conversation is we are not talking about you. There are a great many people that think that gun control and banning ownership of guns are the same thing. Hence the gun bans in D.C., Chicago, Seattle, California and other places.