warpedskydiver 0 #101 February 13, 2007 Hey I saw them in concert once Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #102 February 13, 2007 QuoteQuote Coincidence? Ironic? Who is to say? Just learning from a master. "I want my jet" Oh look, Kallend is trying to spin away from putting up or owning up, yet again. Must be a day ending with Y. I look forward to you claiming that whole business about Powell trying to cover up My Lai was sarcasm, too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #103 February 13, 2007 QuoteOJ Simpson has not been PROVED to be a killer - yes he was. Civilly, he was proven liable for the deaths. Nixon was never PROVED to have participated in the watergate cover-up - not in court or in congress, but it is pretty much undeniable that he did because of the proof provided. Clinton was never PROVED to have had a BJ and lied about it. - yes he was, and the court sanctioned him $90k because his deliberate lie made the opposing counsel do a lot of work to prove he lied. There is no PROOF that the US government did not engineer the 9/11 events - nope. It's very difficult to prove a negative, like proving God doesn't exist. Depends on the standard of "proof", doesn't it. OJ's prosecution couldn't met the standard demanded in a criminal trial. Civil procedings have a lower standard. Nixon was never found guilty of anything in criminal procedings. You really have illustrated my point very nicely - by setting an arbitrarily high standard (such as beyond ALL doubt" you can ALWAYS claim something empirical hasn't been proved. Quantum electrodynamics has been found accurate to better than 1 part in 10 trillion - beyond all reasonable doubt, but not beyond all doubt. It's an argument the creationists have used repeatedly against evolution. So what is an acceptable standard of proof for something written on DZ.COM? That it appears on some web site somewhere? That it appears on NewsMax? FOX? The Onion?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #104 February 13, 2007 QuoteHey I saw them in concert once Yeah, the Horsemen were an opening act for Dire Straights in the early '80s ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #105 February 13, 2007 That one about the NSC blocking the New York Times from publishing a story was a doozy, too. From what I've read about Propaganda (note the capitalization), it's not about telling out and out lies (at least not initially), but rather it's about distorting the truth to create a dishonest reality... not a complete fabrication... then again not the truth, either. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #106 February 13, 2007 I am not arguing with the proverbs. It's just that when you are speaking of the wealthy, and then quoting factors that speak of "oppression" I want to know how you make the leap between objecting to an increase in minimum wage or not wanting to pay more taxes and oppressing the poor. Those proverbs speak of oppression. I want to know how it is oppression. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #107 February 13, 2007 QuoteThat one about the NSC blocking the New York Times from publishing a story was a doozy, too. From what I've read about Propaganda (note the capitalization), it's not about telling out and out lies (at least not initially), but rather it's about distorting the truth to create a dishonest reality... not a complete fabrication... then again not the truth, either. Maybe you should read something about set theory before making an ass of yourself. Maybe you could also try reading the history of the investigation of the My Lai massacre, find the name of the divisional investigating officer, and what he wrote in his report.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #108 February 13, 2007 QuoteQuoteOJ Simpson has not been PROVED to be a killer - yes he was. Civilly, he was proven liable for the deaths. Nixon was never PROVED to have participated in the watergate cover-up - not in court or in congress, but it is pretty much undeniable that he did because of the proof provided. Clinton was never PROVED to have had a BJ and lied about it. - yes he was, and the court sanctioned him $90k because his deliberate lie made the opposing counsel do a lot of work to prove he lied. There is no PROOF that the US government did not engineer the 9/11 events - nope. It's very difficult to prove a negative, like proving God doesn't exist. Depends on the standard of "proof", doesn't it. OJ's prosecution couldn't met the standard demanded in a criminal trial. Civil procedings have a lower standard. Nixon was never found guilty of anything in criminal procedings. You really have illustrated my point very nicely - by setting an arbitrarily high standard (such as beyond ALL doubt" you can ALWAYS claim something empirical hasn't been proved. Quantum electrodynamics has been found accurate to better than 1 part in 10 trillion - beyond all reasonable doubt, but not beyond all doubt. It's an argument the creationists have used repeatedly against evolution. So what is an acceptable standard of proof for something written on DZ.COM? That it appears on some web site somewhere? That it appears on NewsMax? FOX? The Onion? I'm still waiting for you to prove your assertion that Clinto wasn't proven to have gotten a BJ. It's gonna be kinda hard since it is in the grand jury records that he admitted to having recieved oral sex from her, she admitted giving it, and there is a blue dress that didn't need to say anything at all. Not that I really care , because I don't. And it's not something that pertains to this thread anyway so I'll just let you slide on that one, ok? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #109 February 13, 2007 QuoteSo what is an acceptable standard of proof for something written on DZ.COM? How about confirmation from a credible, objective and neutral source familiar with and/or relevant to the subject matter. And about that NYT quip - cause and effect are related but not the same. Hope that helps. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #110 February 13, 2007 QuoteI am not arguing with the proverbs. It's just that when you are speaking of the wealthy, and then quoting factors that speak of "oppression" I want to know how you make the leap between objecting to an increase in minimum wage or not wanting to pay more taxes and oppressing the poor. Those proverbs speak of oppression. I want to know how it is oppression. I was simply making the point that many times those of us who claim to be Christians, and against things like abortion, are the same people who oppose legislation that would benefit the poor, mainly because it might require them to get by on a little less. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #111 February 13, 2007 QuoteYou really have illustrated my point very nicely - by setting an arbitrarily high standard (such as beyond ALL doubt" you can ALWAYS claim something empirical hasn't been proved. Quantum electrodynamics has been found accurate to better than 1 part in 10 trillion - beyond all reasonable doubt, but not beyond all doubt. What the hell does quantum electrodynamics have to do with the minimum wage??? Actually, I think it has been proven accurate to only within 1 part in 9,999,999,999,999. But that's just me. My standards aren't quite the same as yours. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #112 February 13, 2007 QuoteMaybe you could also try reading the history of the investigation of the My Lai massacre, find the name of the divisional investigating officer, and what he wrote in his report. I guess expecting you to provide a link that specifically addresses this is out of the question. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #113 February 13, 2007 There is no applicable standard of proof. Courts of law and courts of public opinion have entirely different standards and audiences. That's why I look at the court of public opinion to be entirely a separate thing and each person may set their own standards. There is no requirement for a "presumption of innocence" in the court of public opinion. I also believe that there is nothing wrong with the court of public opinion. Thin about the power of well-placed rumors in ruining somebody, i.e., Catherine the Great died while having sex with a horse, Richard Gere had a gerbil stuck in his butt, Michael Jackson molests little boys, etc. None of these have held up in a court of law, but all of which destroy a person's reputation in public opinion. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #114 February 13, 2007 Quotethe same people who oppose legislation that would benefit the poor, mainly because it might require them to get by on a little less. That's not "oppression." "Oppression" is the arbitrary use of authority, force or cruelty to keep someone down. Legally, the definition we use here in cali is "despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights." All definitions seem to indicate that "oppression" requires some affirmative act. I guess there are PLENTY of things that you would determine to be "oppression": - failing to stop to lend a hand to a motorist with a flat tire - failing to pick up a hitchiker - failing to give money to a homeless person - failing to donate time to the soup kitchen - forgetting to give a birthday present to your nephew Apparently, by not opening ourselves more fully to ensure that everyone we see is better off than we are we are oppressing people. Well, if you think about it, I have a right not to help the guys with a flat tire. I have a right not to pick up that hitchiker. I have a right to not support the homeless man. I have the right watch football instead of working the soup line. In fact, forcing me to do those things that I have the right NOT to do itself constitutes "oppression." I oppress an employee if I don't pay him for overtime. I do not oppress a random person for not paying that person if the person does nothing. That random person oppresses ME if that person shakes me down for money I don't want to give. Maybe you believe I am heartless for doing nothing, but it isn't oppression. p.s. - I need to get to work. You are oppressing me. You owe me now for 20 minutes of my time - $67.50. Pay up, buddy. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #115 February 13, 2007 Quote Apparently, by not opening ourselves more fully to ensure that everyone we see is better off than we are we are Better off than we are? Go work the soup kitchen for a day and get back to me. Quote p.s. - I need to get to work. You are oppressing me. You owe me now for 20 minutes of my time - $67.50. Pay up, buddy. Damn, that 's about $28 in taxes. Yes, get back to work. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #116 February 13, 2007 QuoteI was simply making the point that many times those of us who claim to be Christians, and against things like abortion, are the same people who oppose legislation that would benefit the poor, mainly because it might require them to get by on a little less. So you're willing to legislate righteousness when it comes to other people's money, but not when it comes to other people's mor I believe that if you are under conviction by what is written in Proverbs, you should reach into your pocket and help someone out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #117 February 13, 2007 QuoteThe Swedes have plenty of wealthy people, and they have a far lower poverty rate than us, longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality, and more redistribution of wealth. You might want to check the results of the last election in Sweden. Seems the gov has moved right and Unions and such are not happy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #118 February 13, 2007 QuoteQuoteYou really have illustrated my point very nicely - by setting an arbitrarily high standard (such as beyond ALL doubt" you can ALWAYS claim something empirical hasn't been proved. Quantum electrodynamics has been found accurate to better than 1 part in 10 trillion - beyond all reasonable doubt, but not beyond all doubt. What the hell does quantum electrodynamics have to do with the minimum wage??? Actually, I think it has been proven accurate to only within 1 part in 9,999,999,999,999. But that's just me. My standards aren't quite the same as yours. Think about it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #119 February 13, 2007 QuoteQuoteSo what is an acceptable standard of proof for something written on DZ.COM? How about confirmation from a credible, objective and neutral source familiar with and/or relevant to the subject matter. And about that NYT quip - cause and effect are related but not the same. Hope that helps. Think about it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #120 February 13, 2007 QuoteThere is no applicable standard of proof. There you go! What satisfies you may not satisfy a jury, and nothing I write satisfies NCclimber.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #121 February 13, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteYou really have illustrated my point very nicely - by setting an arbitrarily high standard (such as beyond ALL doubt" you can ALWAYS claim something empirical hasn't been proved. Quantum electrodynamics has been found accurate to better than 1 part in 10 trillion - beyond all reasonable doubt, but not beyond all doubt. What the hell does quantum electrodynamics have to do with the minimum wage??? Actually, I think it has been proven accurate to only within 1 part in 9,999,999,999,999. But that's just me. My standards aren't quite the same as yours. Think about it. I know what connection I can make between the two, but that's not important. Since you are the one who made the reference here it is your idea of the connection between the minimum wage and QED that we need to know to understand the substance of your post. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #122 February 14, 2007 QuoteQuoteMaybe you could also try reading the history of the investigation of the My Lai massacre, find the name of the divisional investigating officer, and what he wrote in his report. I guess expecting you to provide a link that specifically addresses this is out of the question. Here ya go, Sunshine. Have a good read: Hersh, Seymour M. (1972). Cover-up: the Army's secret investigation of the massacre at My Lai 4. Random House. ISBN 0-394-47460-0.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gontleman 0 #123 February 14, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteMaybe you could also try reading the history of the investigation of the My Lai massacre, find the name of the divisional investigating officer, and what he wrote in his report. I guess expecting you to provide a link that specifically addresses this is out of the question. Here ya go, Sunshine. Have a good read: Hersh, Seymour M. (1972). Cover-up: the Army's secret investigation of the massacre at My Lai 4. Random House. ISBN 0-394-47460-0. http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0719068916&id=1wisoI-wP5MC&pg=RA2-PA32&lpg=RA2-PA32&ots=Cm2A9SOr1F&dq=the+Army%27s+secret+investigation+of+the+massacre+at+My+Lai+4&sig=DFtJ97Nv6RJXd3colbvkuUXrv74#PPP1,M1 Not the same book, but on the topic complete with cites from the book Kallend just mentioned. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #124 February 14, 2007 QuoteSo you're willing to legislate righteousness when it comes to other people's money, but not when it comes to other people's mor It's the government's money. that's why it is illegal to destroy it. You and I just get to hold onto it for a while and exchange it for goods and service. Quote I believe that if you are under conviction by what is written in Proverbs, you should reach into your pocket and help someone out. Maybe I do. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the religious right. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #125 February 14, 2007 I resent the government control over housecats.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
