loki

very nice, but i already found a grammatical error...

i saw this a few hours ago, but was just waiting for someone to put it up. hehe but but but, subie's plants are all land fill free already, gosh they're so far behind!!!!! /sarcasm

that argument can be the same for terrorists, because they're not citizens, or they're deemed enemies of the state...so torture away...who cares if some/all die. and an example of ageism... hahahah, but seriously... hm, trying not to be too outlandish... farmer seeds his land. someone, by the farmers request, removes all the planted soil from the land and says it's ok because nothing was growing yet, now he doesn't have any food growing and can't continue feeding his family. and that should be legal?

ok, then why do we think we have to be humane? if you lose your right to life, we have to be "nice" about it. it becomes uneconomical. but again... aren't our rights/freedoms god given.... how is it fine that a legal person/group of people can take that away, they thus are put above "god"...? ". . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . ." (Declaration of Independence)

I chatted with someone, for a few years, that was on the pill, she wasn't respected early in her life and had a tragic experience... she couldn't respect herself enough later to see she was making bad b/f choices because her actions had no long term consequences. I also have a married friend that's on the pill for medical purposes, they still use a condom just to stay on the safe side till they plan to have a child.

I'm against the death penalty. somehow it's not ok when one person kills one or a lot of people, but it's somehow ok for a judge/jury to sentence someone to death... a person dies prematurely (not of their own hands) either way. don't studies show that smoking and drinking more and sip here and there can be harmful to the (yet) unborn. nothing personal, but liberals are the ones trying to take away smokes, booze (other than "bible thumpers", but it's the same idea) because it's bad for you. but don't see anything wrong with people taking the lives of others. true liberals want to force their "morality" on others. the pro-life movement just wants people to respect human life, from the natural beginning to the natural end. do you see it some other way?

example, ted nugent. he was citing that a university has a class go to his property cause he actually keeps deer and other wildlife in check enough for some rare species to propagate on his property, i don't remember what species it was. rubbers usually work....but they're not always used in haste, as far as i've heard. that's why there's a company making rubbers that you crack the packaging and just roll down, taking less than ..oh, 5 seconds...? ...inflicted abortion, do people not realize that the beginning of one's life is the embryo? ok so it doesn't have a "heart, brain, anything", but if you kill the embryo, the person never grows that heart, brain, ...life. that's why christians are against abortion, or should be. not pushing this on anyone, just ....knowledge.

i'd have to put myself in there too, even though i'm not familiar enough to know exactly what he was for. it's more libertarian than "right" if i'm correct. anyone see Ted Nugent on glenn beck recently? i watched most of it, not all of it.

nice. people with fear, and not knowledgeable enough about things like you just typed.

maybe...sadly, mazda's engine shut off tech should be used in the warmer climates at least. not that mailmen don't bundle up in winter.

i think Xplay reviewed it... but as a game reviewing show they said it became mundane way too quickly. same with "boat sim" at least with flight sim you have alot more freedom with the game.

the best lower education places have to be private schools... I hate to say it, but #1 is not economical and doesn't act as a deterrent, for any reason in a free society. under a despot it work much better because the felon and prolly the family is much more at risk of retribution. #2, isolationist or non-interventionist? if we became an isolationist, say goodbye to new cell phones, tvs, and the like for quite a while. not that we couldn't do it, but competition is good right... and we wouldn't have enough people/talent at the moment to fulfill our current demand of "things". are you isolationist when it comes to immigration too? #3 you can go back farther and look at Ford's ideas to use soybean oil... that wasn't federally subsidized, if it was you'd prolly be complaining about that because it's one company's I.P....? osama..no, "S.A." is their holy land...and we have military there. it's not just how he felt, it's the religion. same could be said about the christians back during the crusades. if it's nationally funded, how would the $ be split up /average capita, /person, state size,..? sounds like some states would get unfairly treated with any idea one came up with, ...because socialism is naturally unfair. i'd rather pay x5 my state income tax for economical "green energy" than pay federal tax and know it's not coming back to my state.

i did figure so. just had to point it out to everyone else i guess. hehe

it'd be nice to have something that clean, low mileage and prolly easy to work on while still being slightly "modern" aka, slap a new engine in it with a good 4speed have a sleeper. the missing ventiports made me think it was a 6 Cyl, didn't they use those for 8's till about 88?

nice synonym and misspelling yourself.

olds.... an idea came to me... obviously B.O. has pushed the inflate your tires thing...if he's so progressive, why not subsidize Goodyear's Tweel to get it in the market before 2010, like planned? push it forward by even 1/2 a year somehow. the only # i'm recalling is something like 20 million barrels wasted from underinflated tires /year.... sorry, it's Michelin and some estimates are around 100million lost from underinflation or HERE 3.3 million gallons / day, so that's alot more. if even 1/2 of that could be not lost that's alot. so, would you be for this or not?

and perhaps by your logic, "green" technologies, or others, wouldn't happen without gov't intervention/aid. i can concede that there are times when gov't programs make sense... Manhattan project, Nasa, railroad,telegraph, to get off the ground... but by the same token, solar energy, space travel is nothing new, why do we need to "make it happen now", same with nuke power, fuel cells, wind. by now it's all proven technology, the private sector can easily do this if they are just allowed to do it, and shown the need is there. i've never heard of a federal university, so why do they fund things at the state level? why can't states compete each other and private universities too? sometimes federal investments can be hidden as well. just as an example, look at all the "ruckus" that came from bush's "editing" of a climate change report from the past several years. the people in power can just as easily destroy as create, it matters not how official the people are. all i meant with my original comment is i believe I can use my money much more efficiently than the gov't can, i think you can do it as well. The more bureaucracy is created, the more is needed... thus creating more waste. 68... either the time or my lax nature doesn't care to search for your grammatical butchering.

not in black, but i'm pretty sure i saw one...

it's still socialism. if it's such a great idea, why not ask every citizen in their respective state to donate to the state "energy startup fund" so the people that push it can put their money where their mouth is. states, because states know how to do things so much better than federal for their own people. :Local control

so you don't like the subsidies to the "rich", ie companies like (corn) ethanol, maybe some others too, but you want to give subsidies,-tax breaks, lump sums, something-, to "other companies" that would ...jump start us into nuclear, wind,solar energy era.... I don't understand how one company is helped is not fine to you, but you want these other companies helped and that would be good...? trade restrictions... something like the sugar qouta? that restriction has one company's fingerprints all over it....and thus corn syrup took over the vast sweetener business adding more and more washed away fertilizer into the water... and can't help the dead zone that has formed at the end of the Mississippi. trade restrictions don't help us. yes some jobs may move "off shore", but that also should allow the goods to be made more cheaply with minimal decrease in quality... or actually increase. it's sad the USA has no TV manufacturers here, but i'm betting pollution and material costs made them move, and an upstart company could not compete now. to 68...nothing personal at all, but can you even quickly proof read your responses before posting?. hehe some other people should too, in quite a few threads.

you forget that BO has said nothing is off the table concerning IRAN... that doesn't sounds like someone that will keep us out of future wars. Olds...oh giving to the rich.. you mean like subsidies for oil companies, ethanol companies, tobacco farmers.... so their products are "competitive" with other things? cause it's funny we give them taxbreaks/money outright and then tax their products prolly less than they are given, at least in the ethanol industry. aka $.50ish federally / gallon made and then taxed $.20ish/ gallon being sold ...so the tax payer pays 2x for ethanol if your car can use it, unfairly if your car can't.

the wiki on the "Grumman LLV" says it uses the iron duke and sits on an s-10 platform... why doesn't GM come up with an updated model with say... a 1.8L - 2.2L maybe with BAS model to replace these? I heard that the gov't has a test facility for new models on NPR. this would give GM some sure business and reduce gov't gas waste. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_LLV

yes, protesting is fine, but if that's where it ends it's useless. i think you'd agree....? take from the poor... well "we" give them so much more than "we" "take" typically. torture and Guantanamo ...just more examples why we need to mind our own business and stop arming and occupying the "rest of the world". that would reduce how much we're hated / spend over seas pretty quickly.

i had an idea about this a while ago, but i've lost it. if i remember i'll come back and post it.

yes.... this thread was started as a funny one though.