The problem with that is, they've already had seven Super Bowl APPEARANCES. They are 6-1 in those appearances. If they make it this year, they would tie the Cowpies for the most appearances, with eight.

<<< turning 43 tomorrow ... up to you about the "good-looking" part




[Another one bites the dust ... "account has been deactivated" ]

I see ... so seat belt laws, motorcycle helmet laws, complete bans on smoking in private businesses (such as bars or restaurants), all-encompassing gun-control legislation (in direct violation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution), mandated government-run education, oppressive taxes on a multitude of items designed to discourage certain behaviors ... these are NOT put into place to tell people how they should live? These are "live and let live" policies? Really?



How convenient it is for you to see things in such terms, considering that you are so obviously a liberal yourself. One of the things I hear and read constantly from people on your side is that those on the right view things in a way that is too simplistic, too "black-and-white" ... and yet here you are engaging in that exact type of "my side is good, the other side is evil" rhetoric.

Jumping into this thread a bit late, but there are some things to correct.

The political spectrum is about the level of government control that is applied to the society being governed. The extreme far right end of this spectrum is no government control whatsoever (i.e., anarchy), while the extreme far left end is absolute government control. Fascism is a term that has been "redefined" to apply to the "right wing" in this country, but it is an ill-fitting redefinition. If you look up fascism in the dictionary, you will find the following (or something markedly similar):


1) a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2) Oppressive, dictatorial control.


I don't know anyone who is on the right end of the political spectrum who would advocate such a controlling form of government. For those that would apply the term to Bush 43, I can tell you that as a "right-winger" who is moving more and more into the libertarian philosophy (notice, that's with a lowercase "l"), I don't see either of the Presidents Bush as being very much on the right end of the spectrum. They both advocate the "New World Order" (as famously and gleefully spoken about by Bush 41), and did absolutely nothing to contain the unsustainable spending growth the Democrats desired, while getting very little - if anything - in return, in terms of political philosophy.

It doesn't have to be "in addition" ... it could easily be the same person! It also doesn't have to be so that only one person can drink ... same person could do the driving (and heat-packing) for as many as will fit in whatever vehicle he has.

Absolutely OK to deny gun-CARRIERS the "right" to drink (as if there actually were such a thing), just as it is OK for any server to deny someone alcohol if the server believes them to be already drunk.

It never ceases to amaze me that people as stupid as the guy to whom this post refers have even survived to "adulthood" (if only in the chronological sense).

Perhaps you didn't notice, but underneath your picture it shows the date you joined, which for you is nine days ago, not "a couple months". No sympathy here.

Not that it condones his behavior, but the only thing that makes any sense at all is that the sergeant must have thought she was prank-calling, which unfortunately happens far too much on 911.

I guess both of you missed these two paragraphs from the original post:

Alabama ... isn't that the state that George Wallace and "Bull" Connor are from? Certainly you remember George Wallace, the Democrat governor who stood in the schoolhouse door to symbolically prevent integration, right? Or "Bull" Connor, the Democrat Public Safety Commissioner of Birmingham (and KKK member) who turned the firehoses on black civil rights demonstrators? Hmmm ... seems to me that's where they're from, yep.

You make a lot of sweeping generalizations, but you say little of any actual substance. Being a Christian, I absolutely believe it was wrong for someone to murder that abortionist, and I'm quite certain that the overwhelming majority of Christians would agree with me. So nobody has "kidnapped the Christians", as you put it. There's simply a very small number of people who feel that they are justified in taking the law into their own hands, even though that's wrong.

As far as your final statement, there are adherents to both major political parties that nevertheless buck their parties' stated beliefs on any number of issues, abortion being one of them. There are Democrats who are pro-life, and there are Republicans that aren't. However, that has nothing to do with the utter falsehood that "republicans ... don't mind going to war and killing women and children." Not only do most Republicans that I've ever known feel completely opposite of that, but it's also NOT what's been happening, to the extent that we can control it. We've been fighting an enemy that feels no remorse whatsoever for hiding in schoolhouses or hospitals, or for sending women and children out as human bombs, yet we've been going out of our way to make certain there is as little "collateral damage" as possible. It is the terrorist groups that have no problem with killing women and children if it will achieve their intended goal, as has been proven time and time again, especially on Sept. 11, 2001.

Regardless of her current status, I couldn't disagree more with your friend. I want a woman who has the ability to talk about ideas, books, etc. If she can't, then she and I have no hope of lasting.

Jessi, I think you also asked how a woman is to dress so as to be attractive, but not appear slutty. First, there are a lot of clothes you can wear that are attractive (even elegant, which I think someone else said), but that are nowhere near "slutty". Second, I don't care how attractive a woman's clothes are, if she looks angry, morose, or like a sourpuss all the time, I don't want anything to do with her. One of the most attractive things about someone else is their ability to laugh and smile and be positive in the face of whatever is going on in their lives ... and let's face it, most of us have at least a couple of "somethings" going on in our lives that could socially cripple us if we let them.

BINGO! Sex does cloud judgment, so when it happens early in a relationship, people start to ignore any red flags that might come up that, without the sex factor, would have someone running for the hills. The second statement I bolded is very true as well, but it is not a conscious thing. I'm not saying it's right, or that it's not something of a double-standard, but if a woman "gives it up" too quickly, we subconsciously lose respect for her. [It may not be true in all cases, but I think it happens more than most of us are willing to admit.]



I truly believe that's the wrong attitude to have, but I also think that if you don't believe me now, it's something you'll have to figure out for yourself eventually. Although some people never do, I suppose.

Well, there are over 6 billion people in the world, and it's close to 50/50, so there are over 3 billion males in the world. No idea how many are married, too young, too old, etc. But at least there's a starting point.

I've been a church-going Christian for the last 15 years, and I'm as much of an individualist now as ever (if not more so). Of course, I don't know what type of church those "controlling and morally self-righteous" folks go to ... in those 15 years, the churches I've chosen to attend have all been non-denominational. One of the reasons I like them is the fact that they are independent, not having to answer to some overseeing body.

You're right, there are a lot of people that seem to want to control others (or perhaps, to be controlled), but that's absolutely not a phenomenon that is in any way limited to the (allegedly) "religious". Extremists and manipulators exist, if not thrive, on both ends of the political and religious spectrum, as well. The problem is, they're the ones who are being vocal, so they are seen as representative of all people who believe a certain way, even if that is not at all the case.

it's not a bad day ... does that count?

... and I'm sure it was nothing but altruism that made Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) stash $90,000 in his freezer (to give but one example) ... right?

"supermike", your current avatar (the hammer and sickle with the star above it, from the old Soviet flag) tells me a lot about you. If you yearn for that, it just means that those of us opposed to the very idea of Socialism/Communism need to fight that much harder to keep it out of our country for as long as possible. I'd rather die than to live under that style of governance.

It probably wouldn't amaze me all that much, though it does appear there are others on these boards (not just krupa) who would be stunned if they knew.