taks

i live in CO springs, we get neither rain nor snow, at least, not much of either. oddly, we actually had probably 20 days of snow before the first of the year (2 or 3 since), which adds up to maybe 3 feet total. of course, our snow is typically between 30 and 40:1 snow to liquid ratio, which means it's still been dry. it is a desert here. the southern mountains have been predicted to get pounded, which is what is happening. the northern mountains, particularly those along I-70, are expected to have an average year, but that has not been the case. unfortunately, the southern mountains average 4 hours from my house, and the northern mountains average about 2 hours. guess where i ski. grrr. taks

i think i need to drive down to wolf creek to ski for a few days. 67" of fluffy stuff in just over 3 days. unbelievable. taks

yeah, but differently, i think. maybe it's because i'm really not getting as drunk as i did years ago and i'm just feeling worse off of less alcohol. i don't get those super pounding headaches anymore, i just feel awful for a whole day. when i was 18, i could be done with it in a few hours with some advil and a gallon of water. not anymore. i could use some coffee right now. taks

still hungover. even after eating twice, drinking water all day, and taking a mixture of advil and nyquil (not at the same time). oof. taks

jays are simply mean birds. i envy you, GD. sounds like a nice afternoon. of course, even if i were otherwise able to sit out by the creek and have a drink, i'm too hungover to consider it. pool night was pretty rough. taks

how about the history of karate-do? taks

22% if i'm not mistaken, plus some sizeable private donations. taks

dunno, i was just pointing out that the bio stuff can last a while, spores and bacteria in particular. taks

on the bright side, i played DA all day today. beat it, too! taks

uh, are you quoting the news reporters, or folks like bill o'reilly? either way, that still doesn't make them what everyone in here wants them to be. i'd recommend you spend less time reading the huffington post, btw. taks

shuffleboard. there was a park across from my last office in florida that had a couple shuffleboard courts (dunno what they are called) in it. the oldsters would come out en masse a few times a week to play. apparently there's some secret sauce to getting old that makes shuffleboard the greatest game in the world. i skied today, sorry for your luck, bokishi. taks

of course there is. that doesn't make it "right wing" or any other wing unless you're trying to compare to something hard on the left (even centrists are "right" of "left"). ^meshugger: anthrax spores live decades, if not centuries, according to wiki. the chemical stuff degrades, however, so any sarin gas won't be around after only a few months. taks

how so? i mean, coming from you, the guy that doesn't even read his own links... taks

what a bad analogy. really, really bad. besides that, you completely missed the point. not one of those is patently obvious as a lie, unless you already believe they were lying. sorry, but you saying so don't make it true. besides the fact that you have no idea what they were thinking, there is no way of knowing whether their intel at the time was correct or not. it may have been. it's also a big desert. as i've already pointed out, they probably were adding to the problem by rationalizing marginal evidence as proof because they wanted it to be true. they were willing to view opinion as fact, overlook contrary evidence (or ignore it) as unreliable. just as you have done yourself - you so badly want them to be liars because it fits your ideological belief of what they are: corrupt, greedy, right-wing nutjobs. what a convenient example for my point, and you didn't even realize it. i should thank you. taks

if we want to get into specifics, since i never really put forth my own, i think the problem is waaaay more complex than anything discussed in here. i'm quite certain our leadership fooled themselves into believing what was offered as proof, i.e., the third condition i listed for why people make such bad arguments (rationalizing). i think the CIA/intelligence agency work was less than stellar to begin with, but eroded over time. rather, they probably had up to date information in the beginning, but the time to market (so to speak), coupled with their declining numbers, caught up to them so at the very end, when we did invade, they did not have up to date information. so saying "the CIA had no clue" isn't entirely accurate. keep in mind, they were working with other intelligence agencies that all agreed with them, too. we were also intentionally relying on the weapons inspectors, which was foolish. every time they showed up somewhere, it was as if they were expected - there were no surprise inspections, and thus, it was very easy for saddam to obfuscate their efforts. relying on anything they claim is really silly - yeah, the 1% of the desert they actually got to look at didn't have any indications of weapons programs. so far, what i've seen, is that people need a scapegoat, and the CIA fits the bill along with bush lying. we'll never really know what was known, when, and by whom, since that information is, and always will be, classified. after 50 years or so, history will be rewritten to the point that no truth will ever be recoverable. oh, and for the record, if the last actual evidence we had was that WMDs were there, which was documented after the first gulf war, then in absence of clear indication of said WMDs' destruction, it is a logical thing to assume they still existed. in fact, it is the only reasonable assumption. epic logic fail, lare: argumentum ad ignorantium. particularly epic since you chose to snark about how bad the logic was. classic. taks

you said you'd prefer to believe that they'd lie, actually, which is what i replied to. dunno. ask yourself. no, i was simply reading what you said, that you'd prefer to believe that they would lie. why? my assumption, which i noted as such, was that they are of an opposite (of sorts) ideology to yours, and as such, it is much easier for you to believe they are simply lying than to entertain other possibilities than your bifurcation. because that's what you said, and i see no other reason for you to prefer to believe someone is lying other than the fact that you disagree with them ideologically. that's pretty much what this whole thread is about, actually - sarah palin is stupid working for that PR firm calling itself a news program. this also seems to be part and parcel with the liberal position in general, for whatever reason. we (everyone not left-leaning) are all morally bankrupt, greedy, "right wing" (the hoi polloi don't seem to understand what that means, btw) nut jobs according to the hypocrites. perhaps if you had recognized the clear bifurcation, or had you originally phrased it differently... as to the rest... why do people regularly put forth such bad arguments as seen in here? sometimes because they simply don't know, sometimes because they do know, and assume their audience doesn't, other times because they are really trying to rationalize their own belief systems (the latter of which is really what i said you were doing). that's what is interesting to me, actually. why would people fool themselves into believing anything without looking for all of the evidence, rather than just that which supports their existing belief? that's akin to running a drug trial and throwing out all the tests in which the drug didn't work. amazing, 100% success! taks

which sort of rules out his bifurcation by default. yes and no. part of my point was what they did know vs. what went on before we acted. taks

that would be descends. not true. you are a google scholar, nothing more, and simple link fighting is nonsensical to the point of stupidity. it is also, not surprisingly, nothing more than anecdotal evidence that you post regularly, and i explain why. you can never really reach the point of your claims of "widespread" anything. you post polls as "proof" of something, erect strawmen as evidence, and regularly ignore facts that you disagree with (an honest search for the truth leads one to examine all evidence, not just that which supports his views). heck, once you even argued with me regarding several points in which i was correct, inconvtrovertibly so, just because you can't stand for me to be right. you even argued a point that i agreed with you on, and claimed that somehow made me wrong! your excuse? you couldn't find evidence to counter a different claim i had made (which i honestly corrected btw, since that IS what i do) and openly admitted it! you admitted to lying! wow. yeah, we sure know how YOU work. taks

i don't know, you'll have to answer that for yourself. however, you made it pretty clear that you believe the US leadership would lie, and that you would prefer that such a belief is true. you also have made it pretty clear (over time) that you do not agree with their ideology. two plus two. where did i say that? i am basing my statements purely on what you have said. indeed. i don't know, maybe that there were indeed WMDs in iraq and they got either hidden, or removed, without the CIA knowing? maybe after being decimated by the cliinton presidency, the CIA simply did not have the human presence in iraq necessary to hear about what he was doing and when? it doesn't require any incompetence for this to be true, nor lies, just an effort by saddam beyond their ability to obtain information. it does not take much effort to come up with such other options, either, unless one is ideologically inclined to ignore them (or dishonest, which i doubt you are). the point is that you picked two options, both of which suit your belief system, and chose not to even entertain that there could be other options. you picked a particular bifurcation that allowed you to rationalize your belief system and label those you are opposed to as liars. not dishonest, no, but disingenuous. taks

bias is bias - you'd rather believe the US leadership would lie because you are ideologically opposed to them. there's a major problem with your explanation, too: you've set up a bifurcation, i.e., you've given yourself only two options. both of these options express contempt for the US and demonstrate your bias in the matter. these are not the only two choices, there are many others. you do not see other choices because you do not want to. and, lare, you've posted so many factual errors over the last few pages it isn't even worth discussing. do some investigation - as you said, stuff that can be easily found with a simple google search. if you're honest, not just to us but yourself, you'll look at all evidence, not just that which supports your pre-conceived viewpoint. taks

that statement says it all... you'd rather believe, wouldn't you? hmmm, d'ya think maybe that sort of sets a pre-conceived notion in your head that such a thing was true? i'll give you a hint at what that means... no, wait, the direct approach: bias. taks

as reported by left wing news sources. stones and glass houses. btw, i would like to ask all of you castigating fox news about their "fair and balanced reporting" claim one question: do you know the difference between a reporter and an analyst? really, it's not a tough question. curious, too, if any of you ever actually watch fox news? of course not, you're all hypocrites. taks edit: originally i had "commentator" (instead of "analyst") which is potentially ambiguous since reporters are sometimes referred to as commentators.

in hindsight... little did you know. though i was skiing today and missed the game, i'm guessing epic defensive FAIL on AZ's part, correct? well, until the epic defensive WIN in OT. taks

oh sure... disaster movies tend to do rather well, though typically they need a hero that saves the day to excel. taks

yeah, but even that isn't the "burn in hell" connotation that appears in christianity... it seems a bit more benign that than. though i don't claim to be well schooled on that. taks