Sorry, it's still missing ... yes... link..link
Link is here X
Get it? link?.... missing?
sorry...
Someone asked for this info a while back.....
klik me
You're welcome whomever
Quote:Get it? link?.... missing? sorry...
Aw, gee, ya didn't have to 'splain....
Kara wrote:Quote:Get it? link?.... missing? sorry...
Aw, gee, ya didn't have to 'splain....
Woke upina goofymood ..
did you follow ths ilink from Juans site?
http://www.bagnewsnotes.com/
I don't understand why the GOP has chosen to involve themselves in this either. Maybe you are right and Delay is trying to divert atttention away from himself. But that don't explain everyone else.
I have also long held the view that some of the extreme political religious GOP's are nearly the other side of the same coin as the religious fanatics of Islam.
However, I think both have the right to hold those extreme religious views. It is only when violence gets thrown into it that a line is drawn. IMO
If the majority of the citizens of the United States decide to go against everything this country has stood for since it's conception and have Christianity as it's guiding influence in forming laws while still respecting other religions or those who don't have a religion, then as sad as that case would be, it would only be right that they (we) get to do it. (Although I really don't understand what that means in practice.)
The big difference though in Delay's case and others is that in this country we are not supposed to form it's laws based on religious beliefs. Sometimes I have the feeling that they try to sneak religion in the back door without being so obvious about it that they can be called on it.
Interesting take on the story.
On the hour-long BBC news program today on NPR, there were widely ranging viewpoints in interviews about this case. Reasonable men can differ.
But it has indeed become a media circus.
What has damaged Michael Schiavo's case is possible motivations lurking in the background. He wants to marry his companion and cannot do so until he, as a Catholic, is divorced, annulled, or widowed. So even if her parents take over Terri's custody and care, the problem of him having a living wife is the obstruction to his remarriage. Thus, his self-interest is clear and taints his spoken beliefs, no matter how sincere, that she "would not want to live this way."
Everything that comes out of he Whitehouse any more is straight from Barnum Baily & Rove.
Kara wrote:What has damaged Michael Schiavo's case is possible motivations lurking in the background. He wants to marry his companion and cannot do so until he, as a Catholic, is divorced, annulled, or widowed. So even if her parents take over Terri's custody and care, the problem of him having a living wife is the obstruction to his remarriage. Thus, his self-interest is clear and taints his spoken beliefs, no matter how sincere, that she "would not want to live this way."
Well, that is an interesting bit of news, though I feel I am adding to the problem by talking about it as much as anyone else.
Not here!!! lol
Cycloptichorn
Gelisgesti wrote:Everything that comes out of he Whitehouse any more is straight from Barnum Baily & Rove.
So your saying you believe that this is just another distraction from the whitehouse (them getting involved with this case?) Probably right, which makes it doubly disgusting.
Aw, Cyclops, it was just a lil sidebar... :wink:
In an effort to get back on track:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-03-22-ukraine-iraq_x.htm
Also I read on yahoo that I can't seem to link from the AP that civillians in Iraq are taking up arms against the insurgents. Maybe that means soon we won't be needed as much if at all.
If the occupation and their own police/military doesn't protect them, I see no other solution but to take up arms themselves against the insurgents. It'll need to be a big numbers to have any effect.
cicerone imposter wrote:ican, You're gonna have to figure out this one on your own. I'm too tired playing mental gymnastics with you.
Alas, I am not a mind reader.
I asked you (emphasis added):
Please elaborate on what
you mean by "different levels of truth."
I can guess. I guess you mean that everything stated by anyone at any time is true (or false) to some degree even if that degree in some cases were infinitesimal.
That's a good start. Keep going.
Never is a long time! So how can you know for certain what you would never say?
I recommend you replace your statement,
Quote:Nothing in this life is certain.
by this statement,
Quote:I bet nothing in this life is certain.
Please note that the first sentence of my signature is,
I bet certainty is impossible and probability suffices to govern belief and action.
Is it certain that A and ~A (i.e., not A) cannot be both true or both false at the same time and place? Maybe it depends on the time and/or the place. Maybe it depends on the observer. Beats me! I bet!
cicerone imposter wrote:That's a good start. Keep going.
Where?
I bet
truth is what is absolutely true in a given context! I also bet humans can know at best what is
most probably absolutely true in a given context. I bet that all that is absolutely true on the earth is not necessarily true off the earth.
Please note my signature:
I bet certainty is impossible and probability suffices to govern belief and action.