:: NEWS
09/19/2017
09/18/2017
09/17/2017
regular_news
Judge orders removal of evolution stickers from textbooks - A federal judge ordered that suburban Cobb County, near Atlanta, must remove stickers from biology textbooks that call evolution "a theory, not a fact." He said they amount to an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.

Leave a Comment


Patriot Wrote the following on 01/13/2005 6:11 PM :
Chalk one up for the religion of atheism. Just goes to show how wide and deep the materialistic bias has grown in our country.


codewolf Wrote the following on 01/13/2005 6:19 PM :
materialistic bias? explain


PoPo Wrote the following on 01/13/2005 7:10 PM :
All in all. The judge is not the author of whats religious and whats not. He is to interpret the constatution, not religion. If the judges deciding the 2000 election is wrong then this most definately in wrong.



Jimmy Wrote the following on 01/13/2005 7:17 PM :
PoPo!! what's shakin'??


Surfer Wrote the following on 01/13/2005 7:22 PM :
But you see, public school systems receive federal money. That means anything that could be interpreted as promoting religion in said school system falls into this category. The case was brought before the judge. If it fell outside of his power, he would, or at least, should have dismissed it. Since it was brought to him, it was his duty to make a ruling. Since the point was brought up in the first place, to rule in favor of the sticker, and all it's *implications* would have set a precident, one that later incidents could build on for a case. It also would have ignored previous precidents in the law regarding just such a matter. Personally, even if he agreed with the sticker, I'm sure he's not likely to put his career in jeapordy with a controversial ruling of "for the sticker". His choice, whatever he based it on, was less controversial.

Dangerous ground for those tired of hearing it, promoting equal representation, and of course, those promoting religion.


Golly Wrote the following on 01/13/2005 7:32 PM :
Yea, PoPo, what's up? We missed you today. 7 below zero right now gentlemen. Burrrrr.



DHH Wrote the following on 01/13/2005 7:39 PM :
Religion of Atheism? Just how does that work?


Surfer Wrote the following on 01/13/2005 10:26 PM :
You've got to get to know Patriot. Believe me, it works for him. I guess that's all that matters for his perspective.


Alice Wrote the following on 01/13/2005 11:24 PM :
Glad to know someone finally had some sense to oppose the nuts in Cobb County!!!



Surfer Wrote the following on 01/13/2005 11:33 PM :
I'm tellin' ya, Georgia is scarey.

Right across the border in North Carolina is a town I used to live in. Of the jokes that circulates occassionaly deal with what a virgin says the first time she has sex (the answer involves her father). No kidding. They're messed up there. Ever heard of the movie Deliverance? There's a reason it was filmed in that general area...


Alice Wrote the following on 01/13/2005 11:37 PM :
A while back I watched an episode of Penn & Teller Bullshit! about creationism. They featured the cobb county story. Some of the people they interview we're truly scary. Teachers, parents, children and school board members .. all totally backswards. The had counter-interviews with scientist and college professors who were nearly pleading that these people wise up. Yet still, they voted for these stickers. Lame.


Juniper Wrote the following on 01/14/2005 04:04 AM :
Good, otherwise the whole world would be covered in stickers, the way they keep going at it. On books, "reading this book might affect your views on reality" on cars "using cars might cause accidents" on stairs "using stairs migth cause you to trip" on food "eating this might make you loose that trim figure" hey could come up with 1000s of samples, on forks "do not poke in self or other"

Soon we get to read more warning and caution labels than books

Hey look a serious post from me!



Sky Wrote the following on 01/14/2005 06:41 AM :
As a resident of Cobb County, I can tell you that the vast majority of the residents here are saying "way to go US District Court!" Only a handful of parents shoved this absurdity down our throats. No one should be surprised at the court's ruling.

Surfer, GA is no more "scarey" than NC. I've lived in both. Cobb County is in metro Atlanta. It has a population of about 790,000 and only about 20% of those people are natives; everyone else is from someplace else. That's Atlanta. The movie "Deliverance" was filmed here because of the Chatooga River. We do call those who are incredibly backward "Deliverance People," though. I love NC, BTW. It only takes me about an hour and a halp to get to the NC mountains, so I go several times per year.


Sky Wrote the following on 01/14/2005 08:50 AM :
In other stupidity news from GA, on 11/2 there was a constitutional amendment on our ballot concerning gay marriage. What the votes say was a couple of sentenced asking whether the constitution should be amended to define marriage as a union between a one man and one woman. Seems a reasonable thing to ask; that is to say define a community standard and let people vote their conscience. But there is a problem. The voters were only shown a small portion of the actual amendment, which is much more restrictive. It will prohibit gay civil unions and curtail certain other rights for gay couples. Had the voters been shown the entire amendment, it is possible that it would not have passed at all. Today the court hears arguments on a challenge to the legality of the amendment, but not on it's civil rights merits, but because the people of the state of Georgia were duped.

I have stated here that the whole gay marriage issue was manufactured by the Republican Party to mobilize right-wing Chrsistians and to deflect focus from more critical issues. Some thought I was just doing the sour grapes thing. Well, a statement issued last night by the new Republican speaker of the GA House of Representatives, proves that I was right. He said that, if the court throws out the amendment, they have no intention of taking further action on it; there will be no challenges to an appellate court and they will not put another initiative on the ballot for the next general election. The issue is no longer important to them.


Jimmy Wrote the following on 01/14/2005 08:55 AM :
Maybe, just maybe, the right is 'courting' the gays?



Golly Wrote the following on 01/14/2005 09:51 AM :
Hot off the press. Maybe things are not black and white in GW's world!!

"During a round-table interview with reporters from 14 newspapers, the president, who not long ago declined to identify any mistakes he'd made during his first term, expressed misgivings for two of his most famous expressions: "Bring 'em on," in reference to Iraqis attacking U.S. troops, and his vow to get Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) "dead or alive."


Nony Wrote the following on 01/14/2005 09:56 AM :
The republicans right wing folks are not all evil and as smart, but some of them are! This push a side issue to the foreground to waylay the peoples focus is and has been used by politicians since the beginning of time.


Patriot Wrote the following on 01/14/2005 10:01 AM :
Well, at least at the present moment we have a president who makes decisions, and stands by them. He walks the walk. Instead of just talking the talk. I'll admit, he's not a very good politician. But at least he's recognized that sitting back and waiting for bad things to happen to our country, is clearly an unresponsible approach considering the current state of affairs in the world today - post 9/11.

Religion of atheism: is the worldview that the supernatural doesn't exist - that no matter what evidence may exist that it does, it simply can't. Therefore any answer to any question about life or the universe we live in that has this element in it, must be false. This is called bias.

A more liberal attitude, would be to approach reality with an open mind, and simply state the data and facts that are observed, instead of trying to force them into "evolution" or "creationism". The theory of evolution doesn't sufficiently explain the origins of the universe. This judge is working towards shaping the classroom curriculum to ensure the truth, facts and unvarnished reality has one more curtain of materialistic bias in front of it.



Nony Wrote the following on 01/14/2005 10:30 AM :
Just seems that lately all the "evil" ones have come out on top. I have no problem with republicans running the country, history shows they have capable people. Just that the current "crop" seems a bit too narrowminded and extreem. I might be living abroad for the moment, but when I return to the states, I don't feel as relaxed and free as I used to be. Bit hard to describe really.


Sky Wrote the following on 01/14/2005 10:38 AM :
I have no intention of arguing with anyone here. I'm neither liberal (I'm as centrist independant) nor anti-republican. However, since I'm not in lock-step with the currrent fad of uber-right-wing, praise Jesus, politics, I am automatically labelled a liberal (as if there's something inherently evil about being liberal in the first place.) I find it quite interesting that the right wing has been vilifying liberalism my entire life. Now that they are themselves being vilified, they accuse those who do so of being unamerican. I've voted for several Rebublicans in my time -- centrist Reublicans who are level-headed, thoughtful, and fiscally conservative. But I am oppsed to the neofascists who have taken control of the Republican party and who are deliberately misleading the people. If the Democrats were doing this, I would oppose their agenda. I have done so in the past, when I thought they were swinging too far to the left. As you say, Jimmy, it isn't a black and white world, but we have a president who would disagree with you.


Surfer Wrote the following on 01/14/2005 10:54 AM :
Golly, you have a link to that?

Patriot, you and I agree on one thing about Bush. He makes a stance and sticks with it. Far better than some other presidents.

Hmmm...couldn't atheism be called "extreme conservative"? Just a thought.



Golly Wrote the following on 01/14/2005 10:57 AM :
Here you go Surfer

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=703&e=1&u=/ap/20050114/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_regrets


Sky Wrote the following on 01/14/2005 11:29 AM :
I suppose I have to ask: since when did intransigence become a postitive trait? When a president discovers he is wrong in his policy, he must abandon the policy. To do otherwise is to adbicate his responsibility to the nation. Bush will not admit he screwed up big time, because he has never been straight with us about why he did the things he has done. Surfer, what you say about Bush is really more of a correct way to describe the late Ronald Reagan. What Reagan wanted to accomplish was clear from the start. He never lied to us about his intentions. Whether one supported his policies or not, one has to admit that he stuck to his guns and didn't try to hide his agenda. More importantly, Reagan would admit when something wasn't working and take corrective action. That's what a president is supposed to do.


Patriot Wrote the following on 01/14/2005 11:34 AM :
Surfer - On one level of confusion I guess someone could call atheism "extreme conservative(ism)". If you're into that sort of thing....you know, the confusion and blending of words. It happens in our culture all the time. Gay used to mean happy. Gentleman used to mean landowner. I'm sure the liberal propaganda machine that you belong to will find much pleasure in using the same word to describe different concepts. That way you can stay behind your veil of anonymity and say something to lead people to believe you mean definition "A" and then when they call you on it, you can retreat back to your position of confusion and argue that you meant definition "B". Very clever indeed.



Jimmy Wrote the following on 01/14/2005 11:42 AM :
Patriot, I know you drive (LA and all) Your car???


Surfer Wrote the following on 01/14/2005 12:37 AM :
Sky, my point is that unlike most past presidents, Bush, for all of his problems, will take a position and stick with it. Of course, this may just be stubbornness... but then, Bush also doesn't believe in listening to other people, particularly the people he dictates over. Just because a person is good doesn't mean they don't have bad points. The reverse is certainly true.

Patriot, I could say the same of you and the "conservative propaganda machine"... hmmm other side of the coin.


Patriot Wrote the following on 01/14/2005 2:20 PM :
Yeh you could. We could also continue our discussion about the boogeyman and other fairytales too. Neither would have a kernel of truth. But that never seemed to stop you.



Surfer Wrote the following on 01/14/2005 2:49 PM :
Oh that's right. Anything that you don't believe in is fiction... like other people's points of view, true democracy and a system of equal rights.


Patriot Wrote the following on 01/14/2005 2:51 PM :
Surfer - You're right. I hadn't thought of it that way before.

I listen to other people's points of view - just not yours. True democracy is what we're trying to spread in Iraq - but you're against it. Equal rights is what we brought to the women of Iraq, but you're also against that. Are you beginning to see why, your opinion is lost in your doublespeak?


Surfer Wrote the following on 01/14/2005 2:57 PM :
What the hell are you talking about. Quote me. Put up the link. Or are you just assuming something, posting about it, and when I don't contest it in preference to paying attentino to something else you say 'see?"

Iraq doesn't "need" democracy. It's not our place to force it on anyone else. It's just a damned political move to create a government that's US friendly dumbass, but you don't want to see it.

The rights of women in Iraq, however wrong they may be right now, are none of our business.

Oh that;s right, I forgot for a minute there. You think everyone should believe exactly what you believe.



Juniper Wrote the following on 01/14/2005 2:59 PM :
"True democracy is what we're trying to spread in Iraq" - Trying is the word here. It is not working! How can you speak of true democracy when half the population can not vote, and those that can don't know who it is they are voting for because of security reasons.

"Equal rights is what we brought to the women of Iraq" - how can you bring equal rights to another country when we don't have them here?

This is what the Bush Inc. wants you to believe!

Jimmy where the hell did you put those drinks!


Jimmy Wrote the following on 01/14/2005 2:59 PM :
Obviously Surfer needs a BM.


Surfer Wrote the following on 01/14/2005 3:13 PM :
Just took one... was nice and black. Thanks for reminding me. I forget about those things...



Patriot Wrote the following on 01/14/2005 3:58 PM :
I dropped a Surfer off in the pool just before lunch myself. While straining, I thought about your latest comment Surfer. That's what made me decide to name it after you.


Sky Wrote the following on 01/14/2005 4:26 PM :
Juniper, you sure have an excellent point. This debacle has nothing to do with democracy. The Shi'its, who it appears will be just about the only ones participating in the upcoming "election," and who, because of their 60% majority status, will when it. The problem for the US in this is that they have already drawn up their list of priorities for their new government. Their number one goal is to establish a government that is independant of the Americans. Whoops.... The number two goal is to have the occupying US military withdraw from Iraq and will establish a timetable for such a withdrawal. They have also said that they will follow the Saudis lead and will not allow permenent military bases on Iraqi soil. In other words, they want us the hell out of there as soon as possible. The US Military commanders have already responded that they will reject any withdrawal plan that is based on a timetable rather than on a set of measurable military objectives. The election hasn't even happened yet and we are already dictating terms to the government-to-be and are quite willing to violate their sovereignty for a second time if we don't get our way.


Juniper Wrote the following on 01/14/2005 4:31 PM :
Cool post Sky! You just condensed the truth of it all in one nice simple paragraph. Wish I had your way with words.



Surfer Wrote the following on 01/14/2005 4:35 PM :
How nice Patriot. I hope you give birth to a few more things before the day is out...maybe something slimey. (gotta admit, you left yourself open there. I'd be a fool not to take it)


Patriot Wrote the following on 01/14/2005 4:46 PM :
Sky, you know why the military commanders reject a plan based on a timetable don't you? As soon as you publish that timetable, all of our military moves become more predictable. It gives the enemy one more insight into our strategy and it endangers soldier's lives. Bad move Chief.

The new Iraqi government has to be independant of ours.

Violate their sovereignty? Why does the UN exist?

Personally, I think the whole organization is neutered now, but, tell me why would they pass resolutions if they weren't going to enforce them? Why spend millions of dollars of taxpayer money for our government officials to participate in the organization if they don't respect our interests?......it all has to do with the mighty dollar Mr. Sky!! Wake up and smell the money senor! The judge and jury (France, China, Russia, etc, etc) were already bought off by Saddam before we even went to court. An American Army was the last thing Saddam thought he'd see at his borders with all of the billions in oil used as bribes.

Violate Iraqs sovereignty? Nope. It's called "you can buy off some of the politicians some of the time but - Don't Fuck with the USA".

The sad part is, there was probably a time in your life you used to love this country.


Up yours! Wrote the following on 01/14/2005 4:49 PM :
"you can buy off some of the politicians some of the time but - Don't Fuck with the USA".

Cause the USA wants it all, and if you don't give it we will take it!



Patriot Wrote the following on 01/14/2005 4:50 PM :
Take what up yours?


Alice Wrote the following on 01/14/2005 5:01 PM :
I have to know .. why must one love ones country?

Isn't it better to love all people in all places, rather than limiting yourself to one place?

I have never been a patriotic person. I'm glad for the things I have in the US, but the US didn't make it all possible. It boils down to individuals. I know some might say that we enjoy freedoms here that others do not, but don't forget that most western countries are free democracies. We are no more free than a person in Norway, for example. In some ways, I believe we are less free.

I also find it odd to love something automatically. Should I love this country simply because I happened to be born here? I think true love of country comes from choice. Those who choose to live where they like seem to appreciate it more.

This is simply how I feel. Feel free to argue amongst yourselves.


Surfer Wrote the following on 01/14/2005 5:04 PM :
All too true.



Patriot Wrote the following on 01/14/2005 5:05 PM :
Alice - you're right. You make some good points. I hadn't thought of it that way before. Thank you for your permission to argue amongst ourselves. That was very gracious of you. When can we anticipate more of your well thought out wisdom?


Patriot Wrote the following on 01/14/2005 5:10 PM :
Way to fall for it Surfer. "All too true". Do you know what truth is?

Hey Up Yours!! If we're in Iraq for oil, how come I'm still paying $2.25/gal for gas? Come on....pull your head out, oh that's right - Up Yours!!


Surfer Wrote the following on 01/14/2005 5:13 PM :
Ah, so it rears it's head again...the lack of love and pride in one's own country is now unpatriotic. Kill them all! Burn! Burn! Never again will a person have respect for opinions that go against the flow of the hoi poloi.



Patriot Wrote the following on 01/14/2005 5:15 PM :
Mr. Oops, I can't wait to hear the answer she gives, but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. You see, Alice doesn't believe there is a purpose to anything, most especially her life (her words not mine). Life is meaningless. No purpose, just existence. Just eat, sleep, fuck, shit, talk, breathe. Life is a bunch of verbs, accomplished at different times, prescribed by the culture. So, now that she's found a part of the culture that hates the war and Mr. Bush, it's time to jump the bandwagon!! She doesn't object based on morality - because that's really only subjective anyway, but because objecting to the war gains her social points!! Especially here at CW.com.


Surfer Wrote the following on 01/14/2005 5:18 PM :
Patriot, quit bitching about the oil prices. Australians pay about $5 a gallon.

The only truth I'm interested in from you Patriot is the truth you can back up with citations and solid reference, not instinctual gut reactions...unless your gut reaction is to too much drinking...there's nothing instinctual about that.


Patriot Wrote the following on 01/14/2005 5:21 PM :
Surfer, You're right. I respect your opinion and look forward to more articulate expressions of your personal philosophy, so I can think about them, over a good BM.



Patriot Wrote the following on 01/14/2005 5:38 PM :
Oh and uh...surfer - quit bitching about Bush. Australians pay about $5 a gallon. And quit bitching about the war on terror. Australians pay about $5 a gallon. And quit our bitching about the seperation between church and state, because the Australians pay about $5 a gallon!!

Why is.....please tell me....the price of gas in Australia pertinent to this discussion?


Patriot Wrote the following on 01/14/2005 5:45 PM :
....and too much drinking?...not instinctual? So that's it - you're a boozer!! It all makes sense now. You weren't really being fair though were you? I mean at least let me know when you're hitting the sauce, so I can interpret your drivel accordingly!!


codewolf Wrote the following on 01/14/2005 6:52 PM :
The comments about the price of gas show a lack of understanding on how the oil market works. You see, dear neocon fucks, the war was about oil control, and there is no rule stating that the control equals price or even if the price per barrel drops that you as a consumer will ever see a bit of savings. You are sadly mistaken if you believe that the oil powers give two sheep fucks about what you pay for gas.



Surfer Wrote the following on 01/14/2005 7:58 PM :
I must correct myself. Gas in australia is $2 a liter, 5 liters a gallon and therefore $!0 a gallon.


Alice Wrote the following on 01/14/2005 8:46 PM :
I have been out. It was happy hour with the folks from the "brits" office. I had fun, I could have done this in any number of countries.

America only got involved in the war because they wanted an english speaking gateway to europe. If that wasn't the case, we would only have been fighting a pacific war. Lemme ask you this: Why didn't the americans bomb the Ford auto factories in Germany? The Germans new we wouldn't bomb those places, and then used them for shelter.

As for the reason for existance, it's all a matter of chance. We're here by happy accident. But, since we're here, we should enjoy ourselves. Travel, love, eat, dance and generally be merry. I don't need a reason for my existance, I'm just glad I'm here. I'm having a great time.


Jimmy Wrote the following on 01/14/2005 8:56 PM :
Just shoot the carpet pissing cat, would ya? Jeez!



Patriot Wrote the following on 01/14/2005 10:30 PM :
Darren, take the sarcasm out of that last statment of yours and you and I would agree......on one level for me actually. On my personal choice level. The level your wife and you so vehemently defend, to the point...., simply my opinion - of being anti-religious. It disheartens me, because I am not anti-atheist, nor should I think Christ would have any of us be, but who's to say - you don't believe, and I'm not Him.

I say I'm for the worldwide spread of Christianity, not lead and organized by my government, but by people who believe in Him to the point of following - with integrity, by obeying His wishes (more like keys to locks.. for those of us that know Him). Which means spreading the Good News with respect and gentleness. It means "being ready with an answer". That's right. The Bible says "be ready with an answer". This doesn't mean force the question on another man! This means a Christian should be ready to provide an answer, if someone questions us about Christ, or the hope I have in Him. I don't want you to be a Christian, if you don't feel like it, or if you don't have sufficient reason to believe. God doesn't work that way. This idea of conversion.....is a sham. Real Christians aren't converted, they choose to die to this world, for something better. Something better then this world has to offer. Something better then this broken, fallen world of death, war, suffering, inequity, hypocrisy and injustice. My government could never sell these ideas. The government was never created for this purpose. The Church was. Can you respect this distinction? The distinction between Church and state? And how by the Church respecting the state, the state also owes the Church respect and protection?....the way my (and perhaps ours...not sure of your present status of citizenship) constitution is written to protect this freedom? And the 'Church' isn't a building. It's the people who believe. Can you at the very least respect my worldview, and my personal free choice to practice it out in the open, at my job, on the bus, at the airport, at a soccer match?.... out of principle?

The same well this principle stems is the same Deep Waters that you most likely identify with as your 'personal choice instinct'. Your sense of fairness if you will.

Which leads me to the point and question of my comment - Is it fair to say you know the intentions of everyone of My (our?) country's leaders (past and present) as they made the most gut wrenching decision of their individual and collective lives?..... to sacrifice some human life to save many? How can you say their target was purely financial gain for our country?...or themselves?....or their children?.....or any other selfish, immature motivation you may be incinuating? You truly believe that My country has never "...(been) involved in ANY war for altruistic reasons?" Is this a fair statement to make of my country, simply because you (in my perhaps ill-informed opinion) want some social points for being "anti-war"?

Please explain yourself, so I won't make the error of judging your position as being hinged on vanity instead of reason.


Surfer Wrote the following on 01/14/2005 10:37 PM :
Mr. Neocon Fuck.... have you ever heard of a cartel? That should answer alot of questions right there.


Mr. NeoCon Fuck Wrote the following on 01/14/2005 10:40 PM :

That is so deep.

Thank you. That clears it all up. Question answered. No other explanation necessary.



Alice Wrote the following on 01/14/2005 11:05 PM :
Darren has gone to bed, Patriot. I'll have him get back with you in the morning.


Alice Wrote the following on 01/14/2005 11:19 PM :
There is one thing I'd like to address. There was mention of the fact that Darren and I hold certain political and social beliefs because it's popular, hip and somehow scores us points here on this site. That's just silly. Darren and I believe what we believe because we we feel it to be true, nothing more. We look at the world around us and sense how it affects, then respond as we think is appropriate. We were both raised "liberal". It's simply how we see things. I think it's rather insulting and disrespectful to say we just believe anyway the winds blows. That's the same as if I said that you only believe and say the things you do because the republicans are in power. I know that isn't true. You believe what you do because it makes sense in your life and falls in line with your personal followings (religion, family etc). Please give us the same respect we give you. I may not believe what you believe, but I know that what you feel comes from deep thought and meditation (if you will). You didn't pluck your ideas out of the sky, and neither did we.


codewolf Wrote the following on 01/15/2005 00:32 AM :
Your Average run of the mill NeoCon Fuck -

I never said there was a conspiracy afoot, I was simply stating that the war was based on control of the oil supplies. If you look at how the world economy has shifted from being a US dollar based market to an oil based market (it's been drifting that way ever since Nixon put us on a floating point dollar due to the lack of gold reserves to back the US dollar), you'll see that the nation has an interest in keeping a foothold in controlling the world economy, it's in our best interest. Since the US doesn't have a major share in OPEC , we needed to take over a country that has such a share; it's economic, not conspiracy theory.

I have absolutely no problem with the USA protecting its economic interests in the world economy, it's needed to stay globally competitive. I do have a problem with the lies that the government spews. You can feel free to attack me on my views on those lies, but I think you'll tend to agree about the economics of the matter.

About the failure of the airlines - although (as I believe - heh) we went to war to secure a share in the mid-east oil reserves, we failed miserably. The end goal was not met, the oil reserves are now not ours to hold, they are sitting tenuously on the thin wire of the puppet government we hope is elected in a few days. The airlines are still failing because of the lack of preparation for this war and the major lack of understanding how to control Iraq after we took it over. Had we succeeded, the oil prices for major corporations like the airlines may have been much lower, but since the supply is not really secure, we haven't seen a major decrease in prices.

However, companies like Haliburton and its ilk have reaped the glories of this war while we sit here with troops dying, Iraq in chaos, the economy of our own country on a sharp downward slide and a leader who tells us to ignore the facts.



codewolf Wrote the following on 01/15/2005 00:38 AM :
Also I'd like to comment on Alice's comment "somehow scores us points here on this site". No one scores points on this site. I think you all know where I stand, the only way you'll "score points" on this site is to speak your mind, and do so rationally and intelligently. Both Alice, and Patriot know that I value intelligent discourse. I don't give a higher voice to those that share my views. I let NeoCon post however he wants on the main page (but I do neg some of his daily cat of the day posts) and I encourage others to do so as well.


PoPo Wrote the following on 01/17/2005 12:41 AM :
There is so much more to the secrecy and shadyness in the world's governments, that I doubt at this point, talk or any kind of revolution both in arms or minds is even worth considering. The only thing that can be done about any of it is to prepare ones own household. I would even stray off topic and offer the idea that even if Kerry went to office we would have seen him stay in Iraq with all its sparks and jazz almost same as right now with Bush. It doesnt seem to be about the head anymore but about the strings attatched to the head. Get my drift.

Maybe Im alone in this feeling but I realy dont buy everything the Government(s) tell us any more, nor the media by large. But if Im wrong it wowuld be a nice sugary feeling, while I wear my rose collored glasses.


Nony Wrote the following on 01/17/2005 1:13 PM :
PoPo, what's your secret in keeping track of these "old" postings. You seem to have a knack for replying on things that are "ancient."



Nony Wrote the following on 01/17/2005 1:15 PM :
Sorry PoPo, just discovered your answer. Thanks! Going to try that one.


Nony Wrote the following on 01/17/2005 1:20 PM :
By the way, good way of looking at things. Guess you are not very wrong about the underhand dealings going on in governments/corporations world wide. Just to much at stake power and money wise.


PoPo Wrote the following on 01/17/2005 3:22 PM :
Its just too ignorant to blame things on the current administration or prez in office at the time. We have to remember that a president only has so much power and influence. I.E. the Prime minister in England. More of a talking head on a stick. The administration also has to answer to others. I think more influence is in the hands of congress and the house than in the white house per say. They write laws by far with more time on there hands and less restrictions.

I mean its like blaming the rise of condom sales in the Clinton years to Clintons lil romps in the office. LOL no just teasing.

When we all realise that it doesnt matter who is in office the same major conflicts and cultural or constatutional changes will happen, then we might stop bickering about Monkey boy, and the democtratic hippocrites.



Add a Comment !
Your Name:
[NOT LOGGED IN]
Comments :

Some BB code is now supported:

Underline Example:

The following comment:

This is an example of an [u]underlined[/u] comment.

Will produce:

This is an example of an underlined comment.

 

Italic Example:

The following comment:

This is an example of a [i]italic[/i] comment.

Will produce:

This is an example of a italic comment.

 

Bold Example:

The following comment:

This is an example of a [b]bold[/b] comment.

Will produce:

This is an example of a bold comment.

 

URL Hyperlink Example:

The following comment:

This is an example of [url=http://www.codewolf.com]a very cool site[/url]

Will produce:

This is an example of a very cool site

 

Also: Line breaks will be treated as a new paragraph