taks

given that the UN is not elected, nor have i heard of any plans to make it so, it probably will never (nor should it) trump individual nations' own sovereignty. taks

given that the CIA has become an organization outside the normal channels of checks and balances, it is not a surprise to see that it acts on its own interests. not at all, actually. this is the fundamental problem i have with such outfits. they're beyond the law, figuratively and literally. unfortunately, i don't have a better idea for the spy world. taks

i've used onboard sound on occasion, though it never measures up to even a low-level sound card. i tried it with my son's latest mobo, but it sucked (volume was a whisper). he ended up getting my otherwise retired SB Live! value card. my wife is using onboard sound, AC 97 i think. it works fine for her use. personally, i like decent sound and i have the 5.1 logitech speakers coupled with an audigy gamer sound card. taks

you're just trying to make it hard on the intellectually challenged, aren't you? imagine the problems in florida... (ba dump dump) taks

i see skiers wearing it all the time. in fact, i even questioned one guy at the top of peak 8 (breckenridge) one day since he was wearing ONLY an underarmour top, which amounted to not much more than thermal underwear. i at least had a shell on top of my thermals. he claimed they were warm enough that he didn't need a coat (it was spring and sunny, but the top of peak 8 is still 15-20 F in the spring). taks

yeah, but i follow neither ideology (of the two that we seem to be discussing) so actually, i'm right. taks

no, but the level of enrichment they're going for can only be used for one thing, sand. i.e. only bombs need really pure stuff. taks

i wouldn't really call the right-wing a "movement" in the US, either. it has always been and always will be, part of our society. if anything, the left-wing is a "movement" simply because it has grown out of small beginnings to probably be equal in size to what we're calling the right-wing. being extremes, they'll both be only a small part of our political landscape for a looong time, however. taks

well, in spite of gorgon's inabillity to actually formulate a cogent argument to the contrary, it IS actually proven fact that saddam _had_ the weapons. they were documented by the weapons inspectors and they were not destroyed. now, you tell me where they went, oh wise sage sand and also explain why large, undocumented trucks full of something were crossing the borders in areas they had no reason to be in... they had to go somehwere, so either they were buried, in which case they're still in iraq (and gorgon's already moronic comment is even more moronic), or they went out of the country to another country, one that is friendly to iraq most likely, and my statement is correct. you two are like shooting dead fish in a barrel. taks

oh, that and the fact that it's your dogma it _must_ be better. newsflash sand, ideology is ideology and there is no right or wrong. only opinion. taks

oh, that's right... your dogma is new therefore it must be better. taks

sorry, but maybe they're simply committing more crimes... taks

actually, no you idiot. they have pictures of _something_ being transported out. quite frankly, iraq is such a large desert that it wouldn't take much effort to hide anything. saddam had weapons, we know that. he failed to properly destroy all of them, at least he failed to report they were all destroyed. they went somewhere. taks

just pointing out an inconsistency, one that you really don't understand. still not able to make a connection between successive posts, are you? taks

whether their reasoning is right or wrong isn't the point. what i stated isn't wrong. argue what i said, sand, not what you think i said. sheesh... immaterial. where did i take a side anyway? also, you seem to think that a subjective argument has an objective conclusion. silly boy. those with such ideologies find your ideology equally silly. for you to call them wrong and you right is just as hypocritical as them calling you wrong. duh. yet somehow, your view isn't based on dogma... oh wait, it's not based on dogma because it is your view. what was i thinking. you're trying to argue a subjective concept from the point of "being right." you aren't just irrational, you're moronic sometimes, sand. taks

i don't even like the case anymore. the buttons on the side are in terrible locations. the phone is hard to hold, and it fits into your pocket funny. fortunately, i got it free after rebate. i may just suffer and buy a new one, something like my old samsung. oh, the "selling point" they gave me was "this phone has great reception." outright lie that was. much worse than my samsung. maybe they meant "this phone has great reception if you ignore every other phone on the market"? taks

new pooter is a good idea. what's the "emachine" anyway? with the exception of office, or low-end, solutions, i generally frown on pre-packaged deals. you get 'em cheaper i guess, but you get what you pay for. if you have the knowledge to build your own, do so. after that, all you have to do is figure out where to stash all the pooter parts that you accumulate over the years. taks

which would sort of be a waste to do... the last AMD chipset i had was the 761 and i do recall that it worked well, but it failed quickly. taks

actually, it's a slippery slope argument though the way you posed it isn't really correct. the argument is actually if you provide a reason, there will be more than there already are. assuming the abortion method of creating stem cells, you will find some opportunists getting pregnant and aborting to make money. capitalism at its finest. the slippery slope kicks in when they make the assumption it will be a dramatic increase, which is unlikely. the same goes for when abortion was not necessarily legal. they still happened, though not very often. the argument was that there would be some huge jump, with abortions happening on tailgates, etc. everyone will use abortion as birth control, etc. (probably exaggerated). in any event, the number increased, but not by nearly as much as the early proponents would have had you believe. taks

actually, their reasoning is that it will encourage "harvesting," and increase abortions. do you even understand the arguments you debate? silly boy. taks Wrong. Iowa researchers have developed a way to harvest stem cells without using abortions, using a technique they can clone stem cells. it's not "wrong" at all. that is their reason. sheesh sand, you don't even know how to counter an argument. what is it with the board these days? whether or not you can harvest the cells otherwise is immaterial. being able to do it other ways might eventually change their views, however, assuming it does not result in death or defect. taks

simple abusers, those that knock their kids around, probably yes. at least, there's a recorded history of violence, often. i always thought that a pedophiles tried hard to be "model" citizens, the kind that simply blend in, so they don't get noticed. depends with them... they usually "blend in," too, since they realize standing out is the way to draw attention to their habits. taks

no, i did. you said if it was a black drug user, and i merely pointed out that a drug user probably would have a criminal history, black or white. most pedophiles aren't very heavy drug users, either, nor are serial killers. agreed they should go away. however, you were attempting to pose a racial bias statement that doesn't hold up very well, which is what prompted my reply. taks

actually you can't use the words "proven fact" as there is strong evidence he had something (they don't know what), and shipped it out during the dead period before the war, probably to syria. taks

what sand doesn't seem to understand is that the CIA has always done this. of course, he just needs a reason to dislike bush even more. pathetic. sometimes, btw, they simply hand suspects over to some middle eastern government for the torture, which is much worse. taks