taks

but since in the past there was no law, that would mean boards that were equal had women that were qualified to be there. the new law forces companies to hire people, women, regardless of their qualifications. this will not create wealth, but it will create resent. taks

yes. taks

i never understood why people seem to think losing money to get a tax break is a good thing. do the math, a tax break means you get to deduct your losses to pay less tax. but you still suffer losses. it's not like you come out ahead, you just lose less. such statements are moronic. at best, a full tax credit only means you break even. if this guy is really getting rich germans to invest in his movie so they'll hopefully break even at best, he really does have a gift. taks

do you have some sort of aversion to over the counter medicines such as the king-daddy cold and flu relief known as dayquil? sure, whacked out on about 4 different drugs for what seems like an eternity (drink about a pot of coffee and you'll really fly), but hey, no pain, no pain! oh, then you top if off with a double dose of nyquil for beddy time and oila! morning in no time... taks

they have been for almost 20 years. some stations still air them uncut, but not many. the duck hunting episode is the most notoriously cut. daffy gets shot a half dozen or more times in different ways: bugs: "shoot him now, shoot him now!" daffy: "no! shoot him now, shoot him now!" bugs: "ok, shoot me now, shoot me now!" daffy: "AHH! NO! shoot me now, shoot me now!" elmer: "ok... bam!" or bugs: "shoot him now, or shoot him later?" daffy: "oh no, i see what you're doing... shoot me later!" elmer: "ok." they march off... elmer: "bam!" bugs: "well, at least they use blanks." daffy comes marching back... daffy, spitting out a handful of buckshot with holes in his bill: "blanks he says... here, have a handful of blanks!" ahhh, the days. taks

oh the irony... taks

further evidence of their tolerance (of a sort). but, they also know that wiping out their enemies would bring down the wrath of the world, and the US would not be able to help... taks

you ought to parlay all this slobbering into some favors, fionavar! ya'll are just sucking up, and the green dragon can tell. taks

i still watch looney tunes from time to time. of course, they were MUCH more popular in the early 70s back when nobody cared if children saw coyotes bouncing off of the ground after dropping 1000 ft. from a cliff... or bugs blowing daffy's beak off with a shotgun. they're all edited now, and i'd bet anybody younger than about 20 has never seen an unedited version... anyway, yes, inform the men! taks

israel would and the evidence is the fact that they continually bow to US pressure to step back... taks

yeah, but they've always denied them in the past. apparently the popularity on adult swim (and USA i think) in reruns as well as the comeback of family guy have struck a chord?! oh, btw, AAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *faints* WOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOO! please oh please oh please oh please!!!!!! taks

air power as well. nope, but it would then need to worry about retaliation that would put all 68 million people in iran out of their misery. should iran attempt something, the rest of the world might actually agree the world's police force (uh, us, the US) should take action in kind, but a bit harder. remember, even if iran DOES manage to get nukes, they won't have enough to damage very many of us in the rest of the world. i.e. it would be literal suicide. taks

a bit of a stretch given that all the other leaders that share power with the president are also elected. uh, no, it is not. it is a theocratic republic. taks

illegal, yet somehow they happened to have UN approval for use of force? boggles the mind how easily folks such as yourself forget about the first vote... and all the treaty violations by saddam. uh, hate to tell you but the problems in the middle east existed looooong before the US even existed. they trying to right what they see as a biblical wrong. they don't want it for defense, lucius, they want it for attacking israel... no amount of world defense will change that. they want to wipe out israel, and always have (though never openly said so till recently). taks

you can get special heaters that do a few different things. in particular, some of those presumably wasteful six or eight-jet showers actually reuse and filter the water during a shower (kinda like a dishwasher does). they also have in the wall heaters that heat water as it enters the pipes. much more efficient i would assume, and you don't have to waste nearly as much water during the shower, or just to heat the water up. however, such niceties are expensive. like upper 5% income bracket expensive. taks

it is also false to attribute such actions to anything i've said. we (including me) do not wish to harm innocent people. however, terrorists are known for putting civilians around their weapons factories simply to make aggressors look bad in the event of a bombing. they also hide out in mosques assuming we won't attack. that those civilians allow such actions make them a party to the crimes of their terrorist brethren. that they condone such actions is rephrehensible as well. they then, are just as guilty. the term "appeasement" is attributed to those that refuse to see the forest through the trees in such cases. you sir, refuse to see what it is that is wrong about iran and its stated goals. you would condone their willingness to wipe out all of israel, yet i say blow up a munitions factory and i'm a murderer. this isn't just a double standard. it is hypocrisy at its highest level. for the record, since iran is a member of the UN, were they to need defending from surrounding aggressors, the US (and presumably the rest of the UN) are bound by treaty to defend them. saying they need nukes for defense is ridiculous. OTOH, should they continue to violate UN sanctions by seeking nuclear capabilities, the reverse is also true. taks

i had another word... and yes, this (my post here) is pretty condescending. taks

you seem very flip about blaming the US in spite of everything iran has done, is doing, and has blatantly stated it intends to continue doing. does your flip disregard for the US extend anywhere other than... well, the US? uh, imagined, dreamed? let's recap: iran has stated that israel should be destroyed. iran has missles with which it can propel suitable materials for doing just that. iran is developing suitable materials for just that. did i miss something? are you on crack? and those that have your beliefs are labeled appeasers. so what's your point? you have got to be kidding me? taks

depends on how many the noble iranians put there in an attempt to make us look bad. uh, don't their current actions already start them down this path? dunno, but isn't this yet another double standard? i mean, isn't iran supposed to be NOT refining uranium in the first place? what about their leaders? double standard number four. or wait till they nuke israel, or iraq... given that they've already voiced their intent. duh. sure, why not. the iranians are probably hiding in a mosque. i always wonder about hypocrisy myself. taks

i think you should remove the moral portion of the responses. in particular, governments and corporations cannot act morally. rather, they are amoral by definition. morals are personal beliefs that vary widely from culture to culture and, more importantly, person to person. however, both governments and corporations are required to represent everyone equally, which means they must tolerate varying moral belief systems. ethics are accepted standards that cross all moral belief systems. in a sense, ethics are the replacement for morals within corporations and governments. they are a sort of ruleset by which everyone agrees to conduct whatever business it is they conduct. that said, i cannot vote for "morally and ethically" anything as morals and ethics are not always in agreement. for example, there is nothing morally incorrect with dating one's superior - if two people love each other, they should be allowed to act on it. ethically, however, this is a big no-no in just about any business (or government). there are just as many cases of the opposite that can be discussed but i'll save them for the imagination. were i to witness an ethical violation, i would most definitely report it. i have actually been witness to several over the years, though usually in grey area topics... taks

yet nazism is based on socialist economics, not fascist, which is what is considered right-wing... i suppose left-wing economics and right-wing politics? the thing that is odd, or at least not widely discussed, is that all extreme positions (er, left or right) are collectivist and essentially boil down to the same concept with different window dressing. sort of like having a circle, and no matter which way you go, left or right (cw or ccw), you meet in the middle on the other side! taks

that doesn't validate the position... lots of things are approved of in other countries that are fundamentally wrong (particularly where women's rights are concerned). keep in mind, there is nothing wrong with naziism per se, but the implementation thereof is what is bad. speak it, believe it, pray for it, whatever, but use it (or any other socio-politico-economic system) to oppress anybody's fundamental rights and then there is a problem. taks

given that it is law, extra sentencing is justified from a legal standpoint. however, having the law in the first place smacks of tyranny. the whole point of freedom is that you, and everyone else, have the right to express any opinion as long as it does not actively promote otherwise criminal activity, no matter how despicable it may be. taks

first of all, they've always had the ability to listen in to all calls. here's where your argument fails, however, is that doing it and USING it are two different things. the government has a lot of power that we are unable to control, and complaining that they can listen to normal citizens going about their normal lives is ridiculous. when they use that information we have a case. as soon as you connect your phone line to a foriegn entity with known ties to terrorists you void your rights for due process. my "brilliant" argument is just as brilliant as yours in terms of case law, commissar. taks

false analogy. my statements were clearly a) a result of probable cause and b) foreign intelligence. you're talking about something that occurs a) without reason and b) completely within our borders. case law supports both sides, actually, so it's not a win-win for either position. either way, if you're on the phone with a known terrorist from a foreign land it certainly qualifies as foreign intelligence. another false analogy. i'm talking about outside our borders, you're referring to inside, without probable cause. apples and oranges, commissar. taks