Username: Opiner
Name Blame
Apr 2, 2008 6:20 PM
"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?" -Gandhi
I favor the core of the postulate on a general sense where the naming of objects doesn't change its constitute. "mad destruction" is a bad construction because it implies the cause is madness which justifies it. Mad people are not liable for their actions. These destructions are usually brought about under terrorism, barbaric regimes or evil principles and conduct enemy visions and not under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy.
Drop Atop or Chop-Chop Clip-Clop a Clippety-Clop to the Hippity-Hop Hilltop.
Apr 1, 2008 12:36 PM
Sacrifice of artifice and edifice to satisfice the front office is sometimes needed for the overall benefice.
Ideology Analogy
Apr 1, 2008 1:14 PM
Hi cosmonaut, I hope you're as well as spell can tell. The motive behind the bias could simply be a need to excrete the hate towards lords by swording records or rewording buzzwords. The gutter sinking verbiages might be expressages of unbandages from sewerage voyages. Demagogic logic is paralysis of dialogic cryptologic.
Religion Intercession
Apr 1, 2008 1:47 PM
True dimensions of religion disillusion expressions and provision progression.
LadyV2 Fady Sea Blue
Apr 2, 2008 2:23 PM
"I expect whoever takes the office to represent all Americans equally, fairly, and rationally."
The statement seems well intended but not deeply extended. Representing all in what exactly? This is an incomplete idea. How can someone represent all? This is impossibility. The foundation of the argument is the president should not favor one over another. In other words, a fair president.
Flooding is A Sodding?
Apr 2, 2008 2:41 PM
Are there no rules that ferule these skimble-skamble torrents.
CharlieDontSurf on Astroturf
Apr 1, 2008 8:28 PM
With all due respect to Thomas Paine but this quote is not fully thought through.
"When people fear the government, there is tyranny. When government fears the people, there is liberty."
Government commonly is either the set of policies managing the country or the collective employees under the different institutions. People fearing a set of rules or economical managerial doctrines does not necessarily produce tyranny. For example, if the US was a monarchy. People fearing the monarchical principles do not necessarily indicate existence of tyranny. Unfair judiciary and law enforcement systems signify tyranny. The other definition of government brings us to a socratical argument where they are us so how can we fear ourselves? Neither does fearing the people in the public force or the principles is a clear indicator of tyranny. Saying there is tyranny without regards to relativity implies an assured knowledge of states of being in practicality that tyranny is inexistent. From observation one could infer that tyranny persisted in most states. The underlying premise is fear indicates existence of liberty and tyranny does not affirm or confirm a firm squirm.
Re: What Would Make A Perfect Show?
Apr 1, 2008 1:55 PM
Dr. Zakir Naik and the most prominent Christian scholar and Rabbi in America engage in a civilized interfaith dialogue.
CharlieDontSurf Rough Turf
Apr 1, 2008 4:28 PM
Promoting digging one's head in mud and pretense our existence and creation are not there is demoting wigging. Until you can explain the creation of existence then one shouldn't delve into deep scientific, theocratic and philosophic subjects. Once you have sufficient education about them then you wouldn't be blatting this back-patting.
Re: What Would Make A Perfect Show?
Apr 1, 2008 5:42 PM
Thoughts conceived from dark barks are usually sparks of space marks. The nonsensical religious talks on the show appear to be founded from unsound confoundedness. The Hindu will make a good addition, the more core glore lore soars the more score we can explore.
Rumor Consumer
Apr 1, 2008 3:58 PM
The tumoral rumor of dishumor is stumor.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977298532&grpId=3659174697244816&nav=Groupspac
Re: The Bush Administration
Apr 1, 2008 2:01 PM
Favorability of the perception from the presidential memory will be proportional to the goodness it left behind.
Ideology Analogy
Apr 1, 2008 1:14 PM
Hi cosmonaut, I hope you're as well as spell can tell. The motive behind the bias could simply be a need to excrete the hate towards lords by swording records or rewording buzzwords. The gutter sinking verbiages might be expressages of unbandages from sewerage voyages. Demagogic logic is paralysis of dialogic cryptologic.
Re: What Issue Floats Your Boat?
Apr 1, 2008 4:39 PM
What issue do you think will drive this election?
Given the limited choices it becomes a matter of pen handgrip comfort while casting.
Cruel Ferule of A New Rule
Apr 1, 2008 5:24 PM
New Rule : If the media insists on adhering to misopedia then there every intermedia should be citing an encyclopedia.
Re: Cheating vs. Divorce vs. Suffering
Apr 1, 2008 3:42 PM
Bill brought up the question tonight:
In a loveless marriage where there was no chance of ever having family relations again, what should you do?
Let's see the underlying premise of this thought. We have "loveless marriage", "never had a chance", "family relations" and "again". "loveless marriage" raises infinite questions to why marriage would contradict its foundation. "where there was no chance of ever having" The abstractness of the exactness might be a distraction form the attraction. The criterion used for evaluations of the inexistence of a chance is absence. Regardless of criterion what the thereon states is unlikeliness. Family relations exist irrelevant of emotional relationship status between spouses. Therefore asserting a marriage never had a chance for family relations is a fallacy due to the misconceived direct relationship between the object and the subject. The underlying premise remises customized compromise or optimized surmise. The intent of the argument monuments questions when the options provided are slided. Most reasonable answer is to amend and tend to each other's reach is lost.
What would you do and how would it be different than what Gov. Spitzer decided to do?
Hehe, Anybody mentions my personal life ill-manneredly is subject for prosecution.
Slash Bash before the Match
Apr 3, 2008 8:17 PM
Islam lays it straight. Accusing someone of adultery without bringing four witnesses that saw them in the act, you get lashed.
Re: The Race for President
Apr 1, 2008 5:06 PM
Who will win their "parties" nomination? Correction: "party's" nominee can win one party only.
The obvious answer is the nominee that won at the end of the primaries however, I am willing to take a chance here and say McCain has a higher chance than Dr. Ron Paul if this overspending campaign funding scandal is dissolved before it evolved.
Who will be the next president?
The infinite possibilities make it hard to predict. Drama with the Dali Lama and Yokohama in Alabama are an aceldama when they cry for their mama in pajamas.
Who would you like to see in the race but isn't Mike Bloomberg, Al Gore, Dick Cheney?
Grace is his face.
Immense Sense of Offense
Apr 2, 2008 3:15 PM
What drives you INSANE about this election??
The absence of commonsense is the menace.
Re: Should Hillary just drop out of the race?
Apr 1, 2008 9:17 PM
Not all understand shot calls.
Re: Should Hillary just drop out of the race?
Apr 1, 2008 8:57 PM
Sometimes making a deal while you can is better than flan with a tan on the pan.
Marijuana OK for an Iguana but not Perpetuana?
Apr 2, 2008 8:26 PM
On the 3/21 show, Congressman Barney Frank stated the he was going to introduce a bill that stopped the federal government from prosecuting patients who smoked legally prescribed medical marijuana.
The bill implies legalizing marijuana for medical purposes. This bill will not fill answers about the pills. Restricting control of a substance to a small group of people is not usually advisable. Marijuana's benefit to society seems more than its harms. Comparing alcohol makes restrictions on marijuana seem unreasonable. Who or what gave the government the right to limit substances that are not dangerous? The bill should spill the will of Phil to instill a legalization drill for all and not only the ill.
Would it have any chance of passing?
Asking this question implies there is a chance. If there was no chance, then this question would not have been asked. The chance at a glance would dance around the stance of France.
GreenGiant Clean Suppliant
Apr 3, 2008 5:22 AM
Hi GreenGiant, I hope you are doing better than seagoing. You said, "Nobody use crack, cocaine, heroine, or any other illegal substance for medicinal purposes except marijuana." I am not sure exactly what this is based upon but cocaine, heroine and other restricted drugs are frequently used in pharmaceuticals. Heroin for example was founded by Bayer. Most of these drugs were found by the pharmaceutical industry. The tug of the drug plug mugs the rug under the shrug.
http://www.addictionscience.net/ASNclass.htm
Re: Barney Frank's Medical Marijuana Proposal
Apr 7, 2008 9:31 PM
Hello titannia, I hope toxicomania and squandermania are not your campania. You say,
"and almost any plant can heal you."
Any real appeal to this heal deal? The 400,000 were considered?
"Nothing is so bad it can't help someone,"
Is this in regards to tangibles only? How about a knout that mout redout the shout of a devout? What about snot that clot the spot, blot of carrot or rot in a pot?
"and nothing is so good it can't harm someone."
Why would anyone say this, baffles me. I think the meaning of harm was overlooked when typing this sentence. Why is beneficial advice harmful?
Racism Ostracism
Apr 3, 2008 11:26 PM
Increased racism in media recently by using racist terms like "black" "white" could hurt the Dali Lama's drama. The construct of the question obstruct any realistic suggestion. A question that presents two false options as the only available answers is as dancers table comely spree was captions. Unawareness of infinite possibilities is as disabilities limit bareness. Variance tarriance as luxuriance invariance is chance stance. The skewness of polls is the fewness of trolls.
The Democratic Autocratic Confedential Presidential Customaries Primaries
Apr 1, 2008 12:03 PM
Erratic democratic Socratics are a good start for a quadratic prodemocratic operatics.
No comments:
Post a Comment