KiRiN

I also love long walks on the beach.

so what kind of proof is there for creationism? becuase i'm really interested in how the Shinto creation story is fact, or are we talking about hindu creationism, or zoroastrianism? theres so many creation stories its hard to know which ones true.

I think he should be fined. come on, not geting the stamp is stupid, how hard is it really to get a lawyer hunting stamp?

"But that does not mean we need to support them financially, nor should Israel or anyone else IMO" (Soul, post 7).

I agree, we have no obligation to trade with them and neither does anyone else. I also don't question our cessing of funding for their government, frankly i'd rather not fund any foreign governments. But I don't think we should cut all deplomatic ties as we should work with them towards moderation, the IRA was a terrorist organization as well, however when they were given an option to work within the political system they made a good transistion. Also as the article points out political isolation will cause Hamas to " secure needed support from the larger Islamic world, including its allies Syria and Iran..."(NYTimes, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/14/internat...ge)&oref=slogin ). We should avoid that at all costs, because as the article points out that could very well lead to open conflict between Israel and Palistine. One thing I do have a problem with is with the taxes that Israel collects on behalf of the Palistine government, that money belongs to Palistine and they should continue giving what belongs to Palistine to Palistine, the US and other Western countries have invaded others under similar non-payment pretexts and us now supporting such an act is hipocritical.

"UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- A U.N. investigation has concluded that the United States committed acts amounting to torture at Guantanamo Bay, including force-feeding detainees and subjecting them to prolonged solitary confinement, according to a draft report obtained Monday" (CNN, http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/13/un.guanta....ap/index.html).

"The report from five U.N. human rights experts also recommended the United States close Guantanamo Bay and revoke all special interrogation techniques authorized by the Department of Defense. It accused the United States of violating the detainees' rights to a fair trial, to freedom of religion and to health" (CNN).

"The five U.N. experts have mandates that cover torture, freedom of religion, health, independent judiciary and arbitrary detention. They started working together in June 2004 to monitor conditions at Guantanamo Bay.

They were appointed to their three-year terms by the 53-nation U.N. Human Rights Commission, the global body's top rights watchdog" (CNN).

so its torture, and we are violating their human rights. period.

" JERUSALEM, Feb. 13 — The United States and Israel are discussing ways to destabilize the Palestinian government so that newly elected Hamas officials will fail and elections will be called again, according to Israeli officials and Western diplomats" (NYTimes Online, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/14/internat...rtner=homepage).

"The strategy has many risks, especially given that Hamas will try to secure needed support from the larger Islamic world, including its allies Syria and Iran, as well as from private donors"(NYTimes Online).

so we are going to undermine a legitimately elected government just because we don't like them. well thats always worked well in the past....

"2 & 3 - I've informed kirin of this before. His post are very poor to read when he quotes someone"

(Lunk, post 66).

And I’ve informed you before, and unless I missed something quotation marks are used in every academic writing style. they are only hard to read if you don't activity read them and just passively skim them, being one reason I do it, also it gives better flow to sentence structure and doesn't break up a post into a bunch of boxes.

and i stuck to MLA style for that quote, or would you prefer Turabian/Chicago?

"2 & 3 - I've informed kirin of this before. His post are very poor to read when he quotes someone"1.

1 Lunk, gamerscoalition.com, [on-line] Febuary 13 2006, avaliable from http://www.gamrs.co/forums/in...pic=24309&st=50, accessed on Febuary 13 2006.

theres evidence, but its not testable so its a theory.

I'll tell you what I want changed, the admited double standard that this forum is run with towards some people.

*edit* oh and some unifomity in moderation here as well.

No, your link is refering to one document. mine, the Congressional Research Service, which was created by Congress "to have its own source of nonpartisan, objective analysis and research on all legislative issues." proves that they didn't.

http://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/whatscrs.html#hismiss

they did not have all the info leading up to the war either, thats what all the stuff me and Ish have been posting about.. because it all refurs to info before the war... as stated in the documents.

posted edited because you can't quote properly

and yes i can quote properly, try a MLA or Chicago/Turabian style citation book. they are called quote marks for a reason.

yeah soul, I like Gore. please edit your post to be not inflammatory because Gore is a public figure I, and others admire.

Once again we are talking about everything, not just one report. and as you can clearly see as i quoted the entire part from the CRS where it lists the stuff Congress did not have access to. so once again, no they did not have all the intel that Bush had.

Dictionary.com lists bias as

"1. A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment." and "2. An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice."

it also lists "prejudice" as a synonym and gives its definition as "A preconceived preference or idea."

you have already stated that you "scrutinized" Ish more than the rest of us showing that you do not have impartial judgment when it comes Ish because of your previous inclinations of him. you say that to you "it's not being biased", however the meanings of words do not change depending on how we see ourselves. so Lunk you are biased against Ish.

No, you are.

your source is only talking about "The intelligence... in a top-secret document that was made available to all members of Congress in October 2002"

the CRS report talks about much more than just one document, Congress did not have all the intelligence that Bush did.

well i have to say i am not sleeping very well at night. would someone please flip my mattress for me? i'm lazy.

Lunk if you have a problem with QUOTE MARKS deal with it, they are used to QUOTE with, and i will use them to QUOTE with.

how can you say you are unbiased when you admit in the same post that you do have different standards for different people on the fourms? that shows favortism by not as harshly judging someone as you do Ish.

Post edited because you can't use quotes properly.

Wrong again Soul. If you read the CRS report you see that they didn't. its clearly stated there.

yeah this did show a biased towards different people's posts.

when Soul's post of "just because a soap-box was figmented in someones imagination." is not edited and Ish's post of "someone is living in a dreamland" is, there is a clear bias. both these antagonizing posts use "someone" as a way not to name the person but it is clearly understood in the whole posts who they are directed at, also both use language such as "imagination" and "dreamland" to question the persons previous post on a basis of their connection to reality, infering that their previous posts are void because they are not in touch with reality. both posts have the exact same meaning and goal behind them, its like the difference between a white and brown egg, both are still have a yellow yoke and white part inside them.

also i understand why my post was edited and souls was not at first, in mine i called him Chuckles, which Lunk explained was edited due to name calling. fine, there is an understandable difference between what I said and what Soul did. however when Ish makes his post it got edited. now that isn't understandable for reasons discussed above.

As for reporting, I don't do it because I don't care if their posts get edited or not. my problem is when there is shown a clear differance of standards each person is held to.

Soul - "I guess the fact that the senate had the same intel means little eh?"

when its a lie it means very little.

from the CRS report on the subject:

" The President's position also affords him the authority - which, at certain times, has been aggressively asserted (1) - to restrict the flow of intelligence information to Congress and its two intelligence committees, which are charged with providing legislative oversight of the Intelligence Community. (2) As a result, the President, and a small number of presidentially-designated Cabinet-level officials, including the Vice President (3) - in contrast to Members of Congress (4) - have access to a far greater overall volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information..."

" The President is able to control dissemination of intelligence information to Congress because the Intelligence Community is part of the executive branch."

" The executive branch generally does not routinely share with Congress four general types of intelligence information:

* the identities of intelligence sources;

* the "methods" employed by the Intelligence Community in collecting and analyzing intelligence;

* "raw" intelligence, which can be unevaluated or "lightly" evaluated intelligence, (18) which in the case of human intelligence (19) sometimes is provided by a single source, but which also could consist of intelligence derived from multiple sources when signals (20) and imagery (21) collection methods are employed; and,

* certain written intelligence products tailored to the specific needs of the President and other high-level executive branch policymakers. Included in the last category is the President's Daily Brief (PDB), a written intelligence product which is briefed daily to the President, and which consists of six to eight relatively short articles or briefs covering a broad array of topics. (22) The PDB emphasizes current intelligence (23) and is viewed as highly sensitive, in part, because it can contain intelligence source and operational information. Its dissemination is thus limited to the President and a small number of presidentially-designated senior administration policymakers."

also in this White House document, the executive branch restricts the people within Congress who can be breifed, so that not all of Congress has access to the same informaiton.

http://www.geocities.com/my_own_ishmael/fo...ed_post_911.pdf

"the only members of congress whom you or your expressly designated officers may brief regarding classified or sensitive law enforcement information are the speaker of the house, the house minority leader, the seate majority and minority leaders, and the chairs and ranking members of the intelligence committees in the house and senate"

so no they did not have the same info, and yes the White House 'cherry picked' info to give Congress.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/11/politics...artner=homepage

"A growing number of Republicans say the program appears to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1978 law that created a court to oversee such surveillance, and are calling for revamping the FISA law."

'"I don't think that's sufficient [the Congressional briefing],' Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, said. "There is considerable concern about the administration's just citing the president's inherent authority or the authorization to go to war with Iraq as grounds for conducting this program. It's a stretch."

"Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, said the more she learned about the program, the more its "gray areas" concerned her."

"Mr. Specter said he would draft legislation to put the issue in the hands of the intelligence surveillance court by having its judges rule on the constitutionality of the program."

" Even Senator Orrin G. Hatch, the Utah Republican and Judiciary Committee member who has been a staunch supporter of the eavesdropping, said that although he did not think the law needed revising, Congress had to have more oversight."

"Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, said: '...the fact is we are a coequal branch of government and we have serious oversight responsibilities.'"

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/09/cia.leak/index.html

"The letter does not name who the superiors are. But the National Journal, which first reported on the Fitzgerald letter, named Vice President johnson Cheney and other White House officials as authorizing Libby to disclose the classified material."

Batman - "On a side note: I thought the democrats were the champions of the poor??!!??"

Batman in the article you posted it says:

"Republicans were intent on protecting the Marianas' exemption. Democrats, led by Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Rep. George Miller of California, wanted the Marianas to be covered by the U.S. minimum and crafted a compromise."

"In February 2001, Kennedy introduced a bill that would have raised the U.S. hourly minimum to $6.65 and would have covered the Marianas."

so your own article proves your statement wrong. as for Harry Reid he is fairly ambigous on how liberal or conservitive he is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Reid

looking at his wikipedia entry makes you wonder exactly where he stands.

"his vote against support of Roe v. Wade in 2004. However, Reid was a co-sponsor of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994, which set new rules and restrictions on abortion rights protesters. Although he voted on numerous occasions for the ban on partial-birth abortions, in 2003 he supported substitute language that would have banned all late-term abortions, while allowing exceptions for the life and health of the woman involved, a position supported by many in the pro-choice movement. But Reid has refused to answer whether he wants Roe v. Wade overturned."

"he voted against John Roberts... [but] Reid was the first Senator to express support of Bush's second nominee to the Court, Harriet Miers."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11259044/

"a series of letters between Fitzgerald and Libby lawyer John D. Cline were released by the court. Cline wrote to Fitzgerald, 'As we discussed during our telephone conversation, Mr. Libby testified in the grand jury that he had contact with reporters in which he disclosed the content of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) in the course of his interaction with reporters in June and July 2003. ... We also note that it is our understanding that Mr. Libby testified that he was authorized to disclose information about the NIE to the press by his superiors.'"

"On Thursday afternoon, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., issued a statement saying that any implication of Cheney as the one who authorized release of classified information would require Bush to honor his promise to “clean house� of anyone who had anything to do with the Plame leak."

so its looking like Cheney does have a hand in the leaking of classified information. *ring ring* hello? what? oh yes i'll give it to him. Mr. Cheney, Spiro Agnew is on line two.

lol - whatever soul

Soul - "But since mine are backed up above with facts I guess that means little."

once again try reading Ish's post that i reposted, but i guess thats too much to ask. your 'facts' are faulted and do not prove anything.

Soul - "Wow - I guess when you stated; "once again not everyone does, like your post before states the poor don't pay taxes the cuts do nothing but take funding away from programs that help them."

LOL - i still didn't say the poor benefit from the tax cuts like you keep saying i did. i've said several times they don't benefit from the tax cuts as it requires cuts in programs that help them to pay off the cost of the tax cuts. where in that do you get that they benefit from the tax cuts? unless you consider losing benefits a positive thing, but thats just foolish.

Soul - "It hasn't been proven to work? LOL - ok."

they have been proven not to work, care to explain why after reagan Bush Sr. had to raise taxes? yeah thats right, because reaganomics don't work.