Wow "You Light Up My Life" is usually listed under the most inspirational songs out there.

I guess it depends on who listens to it. Not my bag of tea however.

"To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right)."

No thanks

"Nice to see that it isn't just Americans who are having our rights trampled on through stupidity and fear."

Because it's not an American/European/whatever thing. It's a human thing.

It's just far too often one uses America/Europe as a scape goat for their own problems. That why they aren't directly at fault.

"Nice to see that it isn't just Americans who are having our rights trampled on through stupidity and fear."

Because it's not an American/European/whatever thing. It's a human thing.

It's just far too often one uses America/Europe as a scape goat for their own problems. That why they aren't directly at fault.

"all we as a mass do is elect those horribly squeaky clean know-it-all's from the law faculty and debating club to rule us"

--exactly
I know for one, I don't need nor want some bible thumper or business type operating for either their or some organizations benefit.

Bible Thumper, Bible Basher. They are one in the same. Their zeal just follows different paths.

Ah blaming the US for having crappy internet connections in Canada.

Comedy Gold. :)

"Sister 107: Hmm, I also liked the idea of people who change their behavior being reintegrated into polite society...UNTIL you compared it to Christians renouncing sin and being saved. Now I have icky shivers."

I would say you having icky shivers has more to do with you, than Christians.

I would be concerned about that.

Sounds like mind control.. or subliminal stuff. Scary.

I want it gone, and I am 35. And people wonder why kids hate us adults.

Very very good work. And no yoda. I am sure it's supposed to represent the "beast" in said book. Even if you aren't religious, revelations is interesting.

"I used to think that, but if you compare Clinton's eight years with Bush's, it appears that the president can have quite a bit of impact."

When the WTC got bombed first, he really did nothing. And when USS cole was bombed.. again nothing.. Actually there has been more terrorist attacks having to do with US citizens in Clinton's terms that in Bush's. Not that I am saying that means anything. It doesn't. But Clinton didn't do shit to make any wavs.

BTW Lincoln's approval rating was more abysmal than Bush's. And he's on the 5 dollar bill.

"I used to think that, but if you compare Clinton's eight years with Bush's, it appears that the president can have quite a bit of impact."

When the WTC got bombed first, he really did nothing. And when USS cole was bombed.. again nothing.. Actually there has been more terrorist attacks having to do with US citizens in Clinton's terms that in Bush's. Not that I am saying that means anything. It doesn't. But Clinton didn't do shit to make any wavs.

BTW Lincoln's approval rating was more abysmal than Bush's. And he's on the 5 dollar bill.

"Poor, poor misunderstood Kevink!"

I don't think I am misunderstood. Nor did I ever say I was. I just said I was saying things obviously that hit close to the mark in order for people like you to react the way you did.

"Trolls usually do exactly what you've done: enter a discussion in an obnoxious way, scorning the participants, and then complain and act outraged when people give them pushback."
1. I didn't enter in a obnoxious way. Well no more obnoxious that the posts before mine. Yet for some reason you didn't go into a seizure about those posts like you did mine. (Meaning it wasn't anything in my post that stood out, you just didn't like what I had to say. And instead of arguing my point, you just made lame character assassinations. And you are still doing it.
"You got the response you deserved."
I am not the least bit surprise you feel this way.
"Religion is a disease that knows no party in America"
Why? Especially when religion doesn't teach those bad things you are attempting to tie to it. Especially when the SAME bad happening happen in non-religious circles too.
It's a human thing. Not a religious thing.
"#77 KevinK my brother, there is a lot of distance between calling someone an "ignorant, stupid cunt" and what Noen and NickD were saying to you up there."
I agree. And the difference is also, my comments that Noen and NickD attacked weren't directed towards them. They just took it personally and attacked me personally. So yes there is a difference. What they did was actually worse.
"Thank you for that. But you know, someone who accuses people of "conversational terrorism"(!!) at the drop of a hat should not be expected to make fine distinctions like that... so I fear your gentle rebuke will fall on deaf ears."
Um I accused you of it because you were doing it. You again must not have read the page. Would you like me to explain to you what you were doing? (Not that I don't think you already know. You do, you are just spinning to save face.)
BTW EIGENGRAU I agree with you here
"I think the line is quite clear - does it really make it better or worse who you send hateful vitriol to? Just because your troll might be more aligned with popular bias doesn't make it less of an immature and rude rant."
Agreed. And just because someone says something that you don't like, or that you don't agree with, that doesn't mean they are trolling.
Character assassinations like that are made in an attempt to belittle said person's words by labeling them in a negative manner. And yes, it IS conversational terrorism. I don't care how "offended" the person doing it pretends to be. Cut it out and no one will call you on it.

Well it is marketed for teens is it not? You know, to indoctrinate them early. ;)

I kid I kid.

#4 I certainly wasn't promoting TV over books. :) I was just being silly.

Chicks also dig codpieces.

Plus it gives off that haughty "I am smart and stuff" look that impresses the chicks.

"to use your metaphor, johnny wasn't rebelling against getting punished for tsomething he wasn't supposed to do, johnny was rebelling because he did what principal jim wanted and still got fucked over..."

I guess our view of what happened is different. I mean yeah the army we trained to fight off the Russians (We were so evil to help those people!11) did what it was supposed to do. But that isn't why they attacked us. They attacked us because of our presence in the Middle East. Why were we there? Because Iraq attacked Kuwait. Osama didn't like the fact that there was US soldiers in his "holy land" that we were "desecrating" such land. That we should leave. That is what 9/11 was really about. That and our support of Israel. So if you are saying we deserved to get attacked because we had soldiers in the Middle East, then fine. If you think that's something to kill a bunch of people over fine. I don't agree. The only people responsible for that attack or those that carried it out, and planned it.

"yes we did, in afghanistan against the russians. (we did the same in nicuragua and we do the same in colombia right now)"

Please show me examples of how we trained them to kill innocent victims in terrorists attacks. You know, like the ones that has happened to us since the 70s.

"just because the middle east has had violence forever, that doesn't make adding more (and more damaging) violence correct. that's pissing in a black eye."

Ok so you admit that it was a mess before we got there at least. I don't think we are really making it worse. Before something gets better, it usually does get worse. I know it was that way with this country. Will be in the future as well.

"you may be being honest about your opinion, but the truth is luckily a collective hallucination, not just yours. and as far as the hyperbole, you've got plenty."

I am not the one exaggerating claims or happenstances.

"while bill clinton was war-mongering and corrupt (see bombing sudanese pharmaceutical plants, nafta, etc...) he didn't manage to utterly destroy global trust in america the way bush has. calling their policies "the same" is hyperbole."

LOL! The "global" trust thing was PURE media spin and you know it. And yes, Clinton was the START of the embarrassment. I remember being on IRC back in the 90s and having people make fun of our country because of Billy Boy. Again, some people either don't remember the 90s, or are history re-visioning. Yes Bill had his friends. Mostly corrupt people that supported terrorism like Arafat. (He visited Bill the most of any political leader) So yes, the terrorists liked Bill more. And yes, the terrorists hate Bush even more. So even more FUD is going to be spread. The two are equally dim. They BOTH said the SAME THINGS about Iraq. The only difference is, during the 2004 election the left decided to take an about face and act like they ever supported Iraq to win the election. And it backfired on them. Made them look like buffoons to anyone paying attention.

"What does pre-revolutionary schooling have to do with techno geeks. What does climate change have to do with anti-feminist hate mail? What does the fallergroggle have to do with a ferschnizzilator? We'd love to know."

I guess it has to do with the same thing that Double Vaginal Double Anal has to do with it. Yet you didn't feel the need to jump on said user for bringing that up why? Maybe it wasn't that what I said wasn't "on topic" so much as it was what I said that bothered you?

"KevinK, when I was a kid, conservatives used to talk about how important it was to keep government small and manageable. They used to point at the USSR and talk about how the Soviet government spied on its citizens and required them to present identity papers to travel within the country. The conservatives of my youth worried that the USA might one day become like the USSR.
When I look at our Department of Homeland Security, I see just the sort of thing those conservatives were complaining about. They wouldn't have described Little Brother as "anti-conservative".

The problem is people aren't really attacking the true principles. They are attacking whatever "The other side" is doing no matter if it's right or wrong. And both sides are doing it. Lets just pretend Bush had a good idea, I know, I know hard to imagine. But lets pretend.

How many true to form Liberals do you see giving him credit for it. And not bashing it just because it was HIS idea?

Now remember, be honest. Don't say how you WANT it to be, or how you THINK it should be. But how it IS.

Anyhow, I want to thank you anyhow for responding to my post in an honest and non-trollish way. I appreciate that. And you have my respect.

Having said that, It was the same way when Clinton was in office. He could do nothing correct according to the Republicans.

It's this silly political zealousness that is ruining our country. Lets do away with "sides" And lets vote for the PERSON. Not the party.

That will stop most of this silliness.

BTW I wanna quote SISTER above

"This is why the internet needs Teresas. Seriously, personal attacks don't foster a conversation or even a useful argument. They just make people feel terrible and scare people out of the discussion. It's how the bullies win."

Basically what NickD and Noen are doing.

I find it funny how others can see "trolling" in other people, but can't see it in themselves...

"Wow. There's some insightful commentary. It really made me think. What it made me think was: has this person ever read a newspaper or seen a news broadcast?"

Yes I have. I've been around long enough to notice that the extremes of both sides, while they may believe in different things, they act the same. They are the very people they hate.

"You know that man you hate? You look like him every day!"

Idiots indeed rule.

I was watching a special on Lewis Black last night. He hit it on the nail. Anyone that looks up to Bush OR Clinton has low standards.

They both were liars, and they both didn't take responsibilities for their actions. This isn't a troll. This is just the honest truth. I am not taking sides here.

"I know you're not an elitist college graduate or anything, Kevink, but it's "wack," not "wacked." Or does knowing slang make me an elitist?"

Actually if you knew slang, you would know that there is no "proper" form of it. That it changes daily. Different localizations too if you will. Both "wack" and "wacked" are used. Not that it matters. You just took what I said, ignored the statement and attacked some silly inane part of it that has no bearing on the discussion. And you did it in a pretentiously condescending way.

THAT is trolling.

"Now it's pretentious and condescending to be able to speak English at a fifth grade level? Condescending to whom? Fourth graders?"

No, not at all. It is however trollish and in the realm of conversational terrorism when we aren't speaking about grammar and all you do is attack someone for it.

You didn't read the link I gave you did you? You'd have saw what you attempted to do was trollish.

And you are still being a troll. Simply because you don't like what I have to say.

Must have hit pretty close to the mark.

BTW I am not on Obama's side. I am not on Hillary's side. Nor am I on McCain's side. I think we got a ourselves another handful of losers again. Like the past two decades. Not a big surprise.

No one that would be good wants to do it. The job has no respect anymore.

The media has turned the Presidency into a rock and roll concert. And the masses lap it up.

"KevinK "Public schools" didn't depend on taxpayer funding back then. More than likely, they were run by the local churches."

No, they were run by the locals. Basically the local townspeople that made up of what we'd call city hall. :p

"The idea that the government was responsible for primary education came along quite a bit later."

And when it did come around, the Bible wasn't banned from it then either. Not that I care either way. I am just showing how things have been distorted for people's political views before.

"You're talking to a troll."

Because you don't like what I have to say, I am suddenly a troll? Think about your post and who is being a troll.

"can you really, with a straight face, claim that the u.s. is in NO WAY culpable for 9/11?"

I showed you exactly in what way I thought we were "culpable"

"even with the u.s. training al qaeda"

I guess we trained them in the way the US army trained Timothy McVay. While yes, he was in the army, and yes he received training from our government, they didn't teach him to murder buildings full of innocent people because you think you are justified in doing so.

" violently disrupting the middle east, "

The middle east has been violently disrupted for centuries. Where have you been?

"you're even more close-minded than i am, then..."

Close minded? No. Just being honest and realistic without the hyperbole.

"Eight years of disastrous American foreign policy, conducted by the Cheney Presidency ."

You mean the same foreign policy Clinton had?

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/17/iraq.clinton/

I guess I am one of the few people here that remembers before 2001

"Folks,

I think that we may be experiencing a minor infestation of trolls. I have asked for an inquest. I would recommend not replying to anyone who uses inflammatory language or trollspeak like 'moonbat' or 'wingnut'."

Not trolling at all. Usually when those words are used, they are used by one side making fun of the other. I was simply making fun of the EXTREMES of both sides. They are usually the ones the ruin it for the rest of us.

Besides that, more inflammatory words have been used in this thread before I and nothing was said by you, or anyone else.

I find what you did to be a bit more trollish than I. I at least had a valid point.

Why not the Constitution?

It seems people only want to respect the wishes of the founding fathers only when it suites their own political agendas.

For example the whole church and state issues. At the time the "Congress shall not" comment was made, they were teaching kids how to read in public schools using the Bible.

I think with time, any document is going to be distorted to suite the political agenda of whoever wants it bad enough.

"It is, frankly, intellectually dishonest to judge a thirty-year career based on thirty seconds of soundbites"

This is the age of youtube and small attention spans. Clearly you jest.

Esp when a President gives a speech and all one can talk about is how he pronounced a single word.

"a YA novel that pits hacker kids in San Francisco against the DHS in a bid to restore the Bill of Rights to America"

In other words, a anti-conservative rah rah propaganda rag.

BTW I'd be all for restoring all the Bill of Rights back to the original stance.

I doubt most of you would really want that.

"i didn't really find reverend wright's comments offensive. i think holding america accountable for 9/11 (at least in part) isn't really a stretch"

That's like saying that Principal Jim was responsible for his tires getting slashed by Johnny because he suspended Johnny for doing something he wasn't supposed to.

While I am sure Principal Jim's actions toward Johnny may have made Johnny feel that Principal Jim deserved it, we as adults know better. Well we should anyhow.

"The Obama-ites are crying about mistreatment by the press???"

Maybe not the press itself. But just those that are friends with Hillary that have dealings with the press. For example, that information that was leaked about Edwards by a magazine that was owned by one of Hillary's main supporters. She has had the ability to make more "friends" in the past 16 years compared to Obama. She has also had time to make more enemies too. That's why she is trailing behind.

"Oh come on, character is less well defined by the past than it is by the future. "It ain't where you been, it's where you're going."

Depends, especially when one shows a history of doing the same thing over and over again.

BTW Left/Right Liberal/Conservative. All the same basically.

All labels that are put on people so they can take "sides" and feel like they are more superior than the other "side".

I think both sides are wacked. You can't bash the Right, and then take up for the Left or Bash the left, and take up for the right. It's hypocritical. Both sides have their hands just as dirty as the other.

Using political zealousness and "RAH RAH" go team type mentality to deal with the lives of human beings has gotten rather boring and shallow. I'd be all for doing away with the two party system.

It's the wing-nuts and the moon-bats of this planet that is making it suck.

"Since you're in college, Kevink, ask your Remedial English instructor what's wrong with the above sentence."

I never said I was in college. But thanks for that overly pretentious condescending banter you've decided to add to this discussion.

I suggest before you make any further posts you read this.

http://www.proft.org/tips/conv-terror.html

China is finally figuring out communism simply doesn't work. Good for them.

BTW Java clients SUCK. If you are on Windows try mIRC. Linux try BitchX or XChat, and on the Mac, Snak, or XChat Aqua.

I never understood what would make someone want to do this. Unless it was some angst riot girl feminazi type of thing.

And if that's the case, you go girllllll...

"Teens in the US get pregnant, for example, because they think they can't get pregnant the first time."

I was a teen last in 1992. I don't, even back then, remember ANYONE believing this. And I lived in West Viriginia. One of the most backward states in the Union.

I wonder where they get this stuff at?

I mean do I think that out there there are girls that believe this because some idiot guy told them this when they was 13? Sure.

But it's certainly not the norm. Not even close. That's why I hate statements like that. They always get exaggerated.

Again 20 years ago we ALL got sex education in the 6th grade. We are told and taught better. Now I am sure there are those that don't pay attention or whatever. But they days of girls being stupid about sex in the US are pretty much over.

Especially with the advent of the internet.

"I wonder how his "you can't argue with science" philosophy jibes with the prevailing views Republicans hold on global warming and evolution."

For one, global warming is being called "Climate Change" now. So stop calling it global warming. It's making us look silly.

Global cooling didn't catch on. Global Warming however did. Until recently when certain scientists started speaking out about how we really don't know what is going on, then it was renamed climate change.

Can't argue "climate change" because after all, it's changing all the time.

"Climate Change" scare is BIG BUSINESS and BIG POLITICS.

Claiming that anyone that doesn't blindly buy into this is somehow ignorant is actually close minded.

For those that seem to have no problem reminding others how open minded they are, those that blindly support "Global " surely don't practice it.

There are stupid idiots on both sides of the political spectrum.

I've seen "tolerant" liberals in college write some of the most hateful ignorant verbal masturbation I've ever saw.

But I doubt you'll see that on boing boing.

They just make fun of conservatives here. Which of course makes them about as tolerant as the people they hate.