A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by nononono
Uh huh. Yep, every person of darker-than-Casper skin is probably going to get in trouble. Nevermind that one of the imams stated that he'd already previously travelled 60,000 miles on US Airways without incident. http://www.startribune.com/462/story/864312.html Go figure. Maybe on those other trips he didn't act like a scary freak.

And Adder, there was not a single instance of "strange behavior." It was a series of behaviors, which, whether intended as threatening, a test run, merely to fuck with people's heads or just a poor sense of how to behave, that led to their ejection. Katherine Kersten summed it up well, though I acknowledge that none of what she writes has been proved in a court of law, if that's going to be someone's ridiculous standard. http://www.startribune.com/191/story/859326.html

I love it when you get all hot and bothered and quote the star tribune.

I'm just saying that I think ole' Newt would consider a darker shade of pale a "signal", and suddenly you start connecting the dots....

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
Isn't it rather settled law that you can have sobreity checkpoints, as long as you either stop everyone or choose randomly or something? Is this covered by the same reasoning? Or is that because of some public safety considerations that don't apply here (dont think so)?

But, not being a republican with little sympathy with the ACLU, I too am bothered by it, although I have no hope that the courts would step in.

I don't know anything about the sobriety check point issue. This occurred when I was in Law School and I was told by some fellow law students at the time that normally you can't just search every car on the street for illegal aliens, but the ninth circuit made some weird ruling about this check point being a quasi border check point.

So you don't have any rights not to be searched when entering the country, but you do once you are inside the country. However, the court ruled that crossing this check point was like entering the country (even though it is a hundred and fifty miles inside California) Of course that was hearsay that I never checked on.

In any case, I have always hated that check point and thought it shouldn't be there. When you are approaching the check point there are these yellow diamond signs with fleeing families portrayed on them to warn you to slow down because Mexican families might be crossing the road and you don't want to hit them. Of course if the check point was not there, there would be no reason for people to pull over, get out of their cars and cross the interstate (necessitating little children to dodge cars traveling at 75 miles per hour) to get over to the beach where the could sneak by the check point. Since the people are driving north and the beach is on the West side, they have to cross both directions of the interstate to get to the beach.

What purpose does it serve to put these families at risk? Every time I saw those signs I would just think to myself, what idiot came up with this idea? Didn't anyone think that when they were putting put up the signs that maybe it might be better just to take down the check point?

http://www.travelblogs.com/geoff/pro...ico_border.jpg

[Diane_Keaton]

From the mouth of that whiny little snotrag (whose band has always always sucked), on walking out of his meeting with American lawmakers without cash for his charities:

"I don't know who to blame. Democrats are blaming Republicans. Republicans are blaming Democrats. But the million people who were expecting (mosquito) bed nets don't know who to blame. They just know that a promise made by the United States to keep their families safe is in danger of being broken next year."

This guy's got a fucking nerve. I like Sally Struthers better. She asks nicer.

[nononono]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I love it when you get all hot and bothered and quote the star tribune.

I'm just saying that I think ole' Newt would consider a darker shade of pale a "signal", and suddenly you start connecting the dots....

Right. You know, it's quite weaselly of you to imply something then try to skate away from it because you didn't technically say it. :-P

And the Star Tribune is relevant only because, um, well, that's where it happened, you know? Seemed a reasonable place to start.

And you haven't even seen me warm and slightly stirred yet. I am keeping a lid on it.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
STP.

Piss off. You can't drop an STP after your primary has been MIA for this long.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Piss off. You can't drop an STP after your primary has been MIA for this long.

this mirrors the split in the party.....as Rove said to McCain, can't we all just get along?>

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
this mirrors the split in the party.....as Rove said to McCain, can't we all just get along?>

Why are you posting? Are we going to have to go on a break?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Why are you posting? Are we going to have to go on a break?

I am mod, I have to meet my quota.

No.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by nononono
Right. You know, it's quite weaselly of you to imply something then try to skate away from it because you didn't technically say it. :-P

And the Star Tribune is relevant only because, um, well, that's where it happened, you know? Seemed a reasonable place to start.

And you haven't even seen me warm and slightly stirred yet. I am keeping a lid on it.

When people accuse you of getting emotional in a post it is usually because you effectively pointed out the flaws in their argument and that is the only lame response they can come up with. The other classic lame responses of someone confronted with the inherent stupidity of their post, is - "I was just kidding", "I was just seeing if I could get a rise out of you" or to point out grammatical, spelling or mathematical errors in your post.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

[Hank Chinaski]

If we get that great Canadian style health care, here's what yor kids and grandkids can look forward to!

• Borders of life
  Detroit hospitals offer services Canadian patients can't get
  
  
  Mike Lisinski had three options last Monday when he had a heart attack:
  
  Travel two hours by ambulance to London, Ontario.
  
  Take a 20-minute ride through the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel to Henry Ford Hospital.
  
  Die.
  
  The 53-year-old Windsor resident was in the parking lot of Hotel-Dieu Grace Hospital of Windsor after visiting his mother when he had a heart attack. Physicians there were able to give him medicine to alleviate pain caused by the clot in his heart, but he needed surgery to implant a stent in his heart and they didn't have a surgeon to perform the operation.
  
  Two hours later, he was on an operating table at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit.
  
  “All you're thinking in the back of your head is, "This must be pretty serious if they're shipping me somewhere else,' ” Lisinski said.
  
  Lisinski isn't alone, and hospitals close to the border make no bones about offering emergency and routine treatment for Canadian patients for care that isn't available — or immediately available — in their country.
  
  Researchers and health care leaders on both sides of the border say problems include the Canadian government's rationing of health care technology, which leads to long waits and drives for services. The average wait for a CT scan is 72 days, 78 days for an MRI and one year to see an orthopedic surgeon, said Dr. Albert Schumacher, immediate past president of the Canadian Medical Association and a private-practice physician in Windsor.
  
  There is also a shortage of doctors caused by a government program in the mid-1990s to cut medical school admissions by 15 percent, Schumacher said. Doctors in Canada receive less pay than their U.S. counterparts yet work the same long hours, Schumacher said.
  
  And the number of hospital beds for the 410,000 residents of Essex County shrunk when the government combined four hospitals into two during the 1990s.
  
  “If you go in for say, gall-bladder surgery, chances are you'll be waiting in emergency when you're not being operated on,” Schumacher said.
  
  Schumacher said about 18 months ago, the government tried to address the problems but it still has a long way to go. There still is a six-month wait for joint replacement, a four-week wait for cataract surgery and five-week wait for cancer surgery.
  
  “That's just way too long when you can get those things in two to three days in Detroit or anywhere else in the states,” Schumacher said.

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/apps/pb...612150301/1061

Given that we're 10 times as big as Canada (by pop.) we will be much worse at this.

My feeling is we should try to provide minimal care to the uncovered, but w/o touching the care that the majority of us do enjoy.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Bush Administration censors former official for having the wrong views.

If S_A_M's right that it's not torture, I think the people in the White House who did this should be deprived of sleep for a few months.

Hey, we'll never agree exactly where the line is between torture and non-torture on moral grounds, so I'm just going with the definition enshrined in currrent international law.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Under what definition does three months of sleep deprivation not constitute torture?

Would denying food and water be torture?

Depends on the severity of the sleep deprivation.

Sounds like he got some every night, although he was miserable and scared. (If not, he'd have been dead within a week or two). It was enough for him to keep functioning. I'm not saying it wasn't poor treatment -- intentionally so -- but it seems to have been calibrated to not constitute "torture."

A restricted diet (bread and water for example) sufficient to sustain life and administered for a length of time insufficient to cause physical harm (aside from weight loss) is not torture.

S_A_M

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Joint Chiefs Tell Bush He's a Fucking Crazy

So, the Joint Chief's think it's a good idea to have a defined mission before committing American lives. Funny that.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Joint Chiefs Tell Bush He's a Fucking Crazy

So, the Joint Chief's think it's a good idea to have a defined mission before committing American lives. Funny that.

How stupid is GGG?

from the article:

• Which way Bush is leaning remains unclear.

Ty. how come I'm a troll, but he's not? Is it because I can read and comprehend when I care to, and he is doing his best?