eddo

I firmly believe that I am the only intelligent being in the universe...

+10 points for the incredibly funny pun.

If I was still here, I'd likely be pissed by that comment. Good thing I left already.

Here's a car post for ya: and it's here on this site! knock yourself out with it. please.

I thought it did. I have been misled from the day I joined Screw this, you lying assholes. I'm outta here...

[attach=full]1950[/attach] Kum ba yah, my Lord, kum ba yah! Kum ba yah, my Lord, kum ba yah! Kum ba yah, my Lord, kum ba yah! O Lord, kum ba yah!

I agree with wez. Wikipedia swallows enough crap as it is.

I'm guessing he didn't learn after the first few...

I'm not an expert or anything, but usually when it comes to police- if you do what you are told then you don't get shot.

I would venture a guess that this mother was getting the crap beat out of her on a regular basis as well. Not to excuse the behavior, or the allowing of it, but she was probably scared out of her mind.

oddly enough, that was pretty much my first thought.

THE FACTS: True enough, Obama does not take money from oil companies. No candidate does. It is illegal for corporations to give money to politicians. Corporations, however, do have political action committees that collect voluntary donations from employees and then donate them to candidates. Obama doesn't take money from PACs. He also doesn't take money from lobbyists. But he does accept money from executives and other employees of oil companies and two of his fundraisers are oil company executives. As of Feb. 29, Obama's presidential campaign had received nearly $214,000 from oil and gas industry employees and their families, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Clinton had received nearly $307,000 from industry workers and their families and Republican Sen. John McCain, the likely GOP presidential nominee, received nearly $394,000, according to the center's totals. Two of Obama's fundraisers are Robert Cavnar, the chairman and chief executive of Houston-based Mission Resources Corp., and George Kaiser, the president and CEO of Tulsa-based Kaiser-Francis Oil Co. In January and February alone, Obama received nearly $18,000 from Exxon Mobil workers, according to Federal Election Commission records. Most of the donations were of $250 or less; the money came from workers ranging from executives to engineers to geologists to shift supervisors. Overall, he has raised about $34,000 from Exxon Mobil workers since the beginning of his campaign. Exxon Mobil employees have given Clinton about $16,000 since the beginning of last year.

THE FACTS: True enough, Obama does not take money from oil companies. No candidate does. It is illegal for corporations to give money to politicians. Corporations, however, do have political action committees that collect voluntary donations from employees and then donate them to candidates. Obama doesn't take money from PACs. He also doesn't take money from lobbyists. But he does accept money from executives and other employees of oil companies and two of his fundraisers are oil company executives. As of Feb. 29, Obama's presidential campaign had received nearly $214,000 from oil and gas industry employees and their families, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Clinton had received nearly $307,000 from industry workers and their families and Republican Sen. John McCain, the likely GOP presidential nominee, received nearly $394,000, according to the center's totals. Two of Obama's fundraisers are Robert Cavnar, the chairman and chief executive of Houston-based Mission Resources Corp., and George Kaiser, the president and CEO of Tulsa-based Kaiser-Francis Oil Co. In January and February alone, Obama received nearly $18,000 from Exxon Mobil workers, according to Federal Election Commission records. Most of the donations were of $250 or less; the money came from workers ranging from executives to engineers to geologists to shift supervisors. Overall, he has raised about $34,000 from Exxon Mobil workers since the beginning of his campaign. Exxon Mobil employees have given Clinton about $16,000 since the beginning of last year.

thanks for ruining it...

thanks for ruining it...

lol, I love the pirate one. the look the old lady gives the kid when he "yee haw's" cracks m up every time

lol, I love the pirate one. the look the old lady gives the kid when he "yee haw's" cracks m up every time

That makes sense, but what I got out of the original thought in this post was a more of a: You stab me in the ass with a needle. 2 weeks later I hit you. The anger 2 weeks later is, while provoked by you, at that point my fault. Same circumstances, just a difference in time and thought between the original action and the reaction. Although Karma would likely kick your butt for assaulting such a fine booty.

Siding with a sex offender, or reacting to an employee that disobeyed a direct order? Firing her was overboard, IMO, but she did exactly what her boss told her not to do.

If you believe in Karma, wouldn't that keep you from seeking revenge? Out of fear that karma will in turn bite you in the butt as well?

it's not right, but I would gladly give up my job to lock up a child predator.

That section of scripture doesn't back up your definition at all. Jesus didn't say that judging = hypocrisy. He said that those that were more worried about pointing the sin in someone else's life, as opposed to checking the sin in their own life, was a hypocrite- and that fits perfectly with Webster's definition. ie: "You get rid of sin in your own life, but I am gonna keep on sinning." Now He did tell us not to judge, and that if we did, we would be judged in the same manner- but He doesn't equate that to hypocrisy. In other words, according to Jesus and Webster: The act of judging another's actions as wrong, if you are doing the same thing, is hypocrisy- as you are acting opposite to your stated beliefs or feelings. But hypocrisy does not necessarily involve judging someone else. Your definition of the word itself is wrong, and I think that is causing a misrepresentation of your point (and thus causing you to misunderstand other's points.) Think of it this way: You are taking care of an 80 year old man, and the chart says to give him 30cc's of Penicillin every 2 hours. Your understanding of what the word "Penicillin" is had better match whomever wrote the chart, or you are gonna have some issues. Same with the word "30cc's" and "2 hours". Your point about the school isn't invalid, but your definition of the word "hypocrisy" is. Not because I say so, but because the accepted word expert- the dictionary- says so.

I totally agree. This girl was trying to push another student into traffic? and then assaulted the police officer? I have no issue with the use of the taser here.

You can think it all you want, but your belief of what the word means doesn't line up with what the definition of the word is. It's hard to have a decent discussion or debate when people have differing definitions for the same word. I'm not trying to fight with you wez, really, but certain things need to be understood by all parties to promote decent discussion. Word definition is one of those things. If you want to add the "judging" part to the definition of hypocrisy, then I suggest you write Webster and let him know he's wrong.

Funny, I don't see that as part of Websters definition: But then, you always have had an issue with the understanding of that word. I'm not totally sure how the KKK mention really fits in, as IWS is making an excellent point: To the school administrators- These soldiers speaking would be "too political" But allowing the teachers to share their political views, and show political backed movies is okie dokie. That is classically hypocritical because the teachers are doing one thing (sharing political views,) and then telling other that they cannot do the same thing (share political views.) The belief that Global warming is because of man tends to be more of a Democratic belief than a Republican one. Because of that, An Inconvenient Truth is most definitely a political movie. Soldiers coming back and telling of (possibly good) things they saw would fall in line with what the Republicans want to be shared. It appears that this school is leaning towards the left, and that is what makes the hypocrisy seem apparent.