taks

yes, the 4-door sedan, however, due to a recent midget addtion to our household (john, 19 months old). it's barely large enough for me, btw. they organized it properly, however, so i fit comfortably (with the sole exception being the blasted seat controls ON THE SEAT!). oddly enough, the roomiest car i've ever owned was a stealth (3000 GT clone). of course, it acheived said room by putting the seat 4 inches above the floor and relegating the back seat to doll sized creatures. same with my car. the rear seats recline, however, so said midget/baby/amputee will ride in style! yay to that. i can't imagine driving without a stick anymore. taks

here's a good debunking of the whole atlantis thing. every mention of atlantis, and all evidence since, can be traced to plato... http://www.skeptic.com/atlantis/atlantis1.html taks

hehehe... "Flourentzos said it was possible that Atlantis was near Cyprus." it is also highly possible that atlantis was nothing more than literary license taken by plato. an amalgam of all the places he had been as a child. the "legend" of atlantis, only appeared after he wrote about it, btw... taks edit: plato, not homer... oops.

grrr... network problems. ok, here's what i tried to post a bit ago... i like those seats. very nice. of course, that car is waaay too small for my butt. either way, i bet that 250 HP scoots in such a little thing. i wish i had waited a year on my car. i love it, but they upped the ponies to 298 this year and the AWD version is only a couple k more than what i paid anyway... oh well, i can always trade it in hope you enjoy it... taks

why do you believe this? because he said he didn't think witchcraft was a religion? my major beef with his religious policy is his "faith based" initiatives... but they aren't favoring any one religion. of course, the most represented will be christian, but there's also more of them to boot... not unusual. not sure if you've ever noticed, but i pretty much think all religion is a joke. but that's just me. i'm also insensitive to people ranting about the pledge and other related issues. big freaking deal. nowhere in the constitution does it say people in the gov't can't be religious nor does it say they can't express their religion... as a matter of fact, it doesn't even say they can't use religion as a guide. the religion argument is so overused it's sickening. the minority secularists want to impose their view on everybody else, IMO. btw, nice job at another ad-hominem on your part in the previous post. you just can't get by without saying someone is less intelligent than you. you need that superiority, don't you? good for you. go boy! taks

no, actually, you directly insulted engineers in the thread that got yanked. rather than criticize my argument, in the same thread, you chose to make a failed attack on my grammar, of all things. irrelevant at best, completely laughable at worst. so, let me get this straight, ideas and actions that YOU determine are superior? you wonder why some of us call yahoos like you "elitists" and why is it that i'm "under the auspices of intellectual inadequacy"? because a) i understand how to make a logical argument, b) don't commit logical errors in my arugments such as you or c) just because i disagree with your obvious "intellectual superiority"? i've never attacked you with an ad-hominem. still rhetorical... like i said, it's impossible to tell via the web interface we have. the fact that you were willing to try out an "intelligence pissing contest" is a bit telling, actually. bragging on the web is like running in the special olympics... maybe... opinion, of course. he certainly has a "smug" look, but that's just how he looks. some, yes, others, no. opinion again. no different than the rest of the christian faith. get over it. they are a majority. he's just in a position where his view gets heard. opinion again. maybe he's not "enlightened" like you, but views such as yours have brought down more socieities than bush's. go figure... i never said that... for rhomal's benefit, clinton is a genius, btw... taks

oh, so it's OK to insult somebody when they disagree? ad hominems, btw, are usually the result of a weak argument. excuse me, but YOUR LINK had the obvious spin in it. YOU used it as evidence and i clearly stated why YOUR EVIDENCE was flawed. how many wiccans are there? half a million in the US? ok, sorry, i was wrong, 500,000/280,000,000 = 1/560 so MUCH less than 1% believe in your religion. i should have said "better than 99%". yet STILL you manage to fail to understand his inability to ACCEPT your beliefs. go to the dam*ed dictionary for god's sake. LOOK IT UP. acceptance is NOT equal to tolerance. how many times do i have to drill that into YOUR head? that's what you don't understand, and that's what i continue to point out. taks

a) prove that i'm a republican, or conservative for that matter. b) just pointing out an obvious parallel that folks such as you overlook when criticizing anything that's not liberal. i make no bones about the probability that both bush and clinton had "favors" done for them. it is not unusual for people of privelege to get treated differently, particularly 30 years ago (they're better at hiding it now...). i agree that it is not correct, but it is also not correct to make a point out of something that applied broadly to all of our big-wig politicians, not just bush. taks

so how exactly is it spinning on my part when i point out that his "opinion" is incorrect? the author clearly meant for readers to infer that bush was referring to tolerance, which the statement clearly was not meant to imply. taks

an insult indeed... oh, and by the way, you still haven't shown how i've spun anything, the quote from your "respected" resource is: this statement is untrue or at least too general to be applied directly to bush's statement. the term "promote" does NOT simply mean permit. period. you're obviously PO'd because bush doesn't accept your belief system as valid. big freaking deal. get over it. 95% of the country doesn't. nothing unusual. just because you don't understand his religious beliefs does not make my comments spin... taks

yes, really. his SAT scores alone qualified him... he was in the lower half, however. that is true. and commissar, i never said he didn't get any help from his parents getting into yale, i just said he qualified without it. it is not uncommon. even mr. clinton had a shady "get out of vietnam free" past... taks

i wasn't knocking the fact that you posted the data... just mentioned that the question was actually rhetorical... tonal intent cannot be conveyed via message board posts. sorry, you have zero proof that bush is an idiot other than ideological bias. you can believe what you want, even dislike his policies, but that doesn't make him an idiot. btw... you said "but I do make generalizations about people who I find to be stupid " ad-hominem attacks... of course, most of such threads have since been yanked. not surprising as phosphor doesn't screw around with moderating taks

uh, no. you can think that if you want, but there is a difference among schools. oh, and like it or not, he did qualify for entrance based on test scores. just pointing out a fact. oh, and yes, i can back that fact up with real life experience in a fraternity... our rituals were ridiculous, as were those of other fraternities. taks

actually, that adds up to 1290, not 1390... bush got a 1206, not much worse than you, and when he took it, it applied directly as a measure of IQ (about mid 120's, actually). i didn't do nearly as well overall (much better in math, however) though i did take them when i was a first semester junior.. apparently. congrats... not too bad... but not nearly enough to be criticizing bush as an idiot. if you do so, you should probably start barking about kerry, too, just to be fair and all... either way, bush does have multiple degrees, and contrary to your beliefs, he's not stupid. of course, you regularly feel the need to directly attack those you disagree with, particularly by criticizing their intelligence... for whatever reason i suppose it makes you feel good about yourself to be "smarter" than the general teenage population in here. you go boy! nope, the question was rhetorical anyway... taks

btw, rhomal, try to make your next point without lobbing an insult, ok? it might make you more believable. taks

yeah, spin = "using facts" in your book... so tell me, how exactly did i spin what they said? your "neutral" website did some "off the cuff" interpretation of what bush said. sorry, bud, but THAT is spin... not what i said. btw, just because you think something is neutral and respected does not mean it is... taks

so exactly how well did you do on the SAT's commissar... i mean, since you seem so self righteous in your criticism of others' intelligence? bush's scores place him at an IQ of 120... and like it or not, C's/B's out of yale is better than A's out of most other schools. irrelevant newc023... the argument was about bush's comments regarding wicca as a religion. at the time, he was not commander in chief. to expect him to understand that a single chapter existed within the chaplain's book is unreasonable. also, btw, skull and bones, like any other fraternal organization, tend to make up their own "occult" rituals. usually there isn't any basis in real ritual. taks

oh, btw, the first article mentions the supposed definition of promote used by bush... they are a bit off, actually. promote is a little stronger than just permit. permit is along the lines of "to tolerate" while promote, as used by bush, is more along the lines of "to favor." they're trying to put words into his mouth that aren't his... taks

first of all, bush made these comments BEFORE becoming commander in chief, so this statement is unfounded. secondly, he referred to witchcraft instead of wicca... of course, given his background, it's pretty safe to assume he doesn't know the difference between wicca and witchcraft. thirdly, paganism was not mentioned that i could see... taks

never directly... you continually balk at the fact that he's christian and doesn't accept paganism as a valid religion. you continually confuse the meaning of the terms "tolerance" and "acceptance." you don't accept his religion yet you want him to accept yours... i can't be any more obvious. taks

of course, you still don't know the difference between tolerance and acceptance so your whining should be taken with a grain of salt. you don't accept his religion, why should he accept yours? taks

this guy's an idiot... "Importantly, this study wasn't funded by partisan political groups. To the contrary, it was underwritten by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Ford Foundation." uh, these are two of the most liberal foundations out there. who's this guy trying to fool? this guy consistently cites as evidence "well established facts" that are neither "well established" nor necessarily factual. his obvious disdain for bush supporters is apparent in nearly every sentence and only kerry supporters are "realists" with the foresight and knowledge to know "what's really happening" in the world. i'm neither religious nor unaware of world opinion about bush. i did not close my eyes to the problems we've had. what i did notice is that slick politicians, such as kerry, bringing a cameraman to vietnam, flying his hairstylist around the country, living right and voting left, are not fit to be in office. oh, and by the way, you can't hunt dove without a license since they are migratory which means kerry either a) lied about it or b) hunted them illegally. he'd have done ANYTHING to get into office... maybe it's just that those of us that didn't vote for him just plain weren't pulled in by his obvious ruse. at least we know what we're getting with bush. taks

then move please, because we don't need people with such narrowminded focus "helping" our society. you obviously have very little understanding of the constitution and your posts regularly confirm that. go over to europe's amazing society, twice the people and 1/3 the productivity. fail with them while i laugh at your obvious ignorance. at least over there, you won't have to worry about religion intruding into your life... taks

impossible to read if you've chosen the black background as i have... oh wait, do we even have a choice? i should check. darque, if you haven't figured out PoTC by now... taks