EvilMonkey

QUOTE (Texsox @ Apr 17, 2008 -> 02:44 PM) That depends, there are some people around here with 5,000 posts and if 900 were worth reading, that would say a lot. How about people with 31,540 posts?

QUOTE (Texsox @ Apr 17, 2008 -> 02:13 PM) So which disgusts you more. a flag display designed to provoke emotions of national pride, outrage, get people talking about the flag or a display designed to get you to pull in and buy gas there? BTW, I fly a huge flag, so I'm a better American then anyone with a smaller flag And I'm going to add flag smilies to every post to prove what a great American I am. First, I don't think displays like the one I linked are meant to show national pride, and if they are, they are not meant to show it in a positive light. "Oh look at the knee-jerk conservatives genuflecting to a piece of cloth!" . I am very disgusted when it is abused in order to piss someone off. We've seen it before, it is nothing new. Then I have different levels of distaste for the others. People who display them at their homes and don't take care of them the right way started off with good intentions and just got lazy or something. That should be OK with liberals, though, since it is all about intention and feeling good. As for the businesses, I think to some extent, depending on the business, it IS a display of American Pride. I have flag decals on my front doors, which I have to change every few months when they start to peel. Yeah, some of the HUGE flags seem like overkill, like the one by Berlins House of Tools that you can see from I-80.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Apr 17, 2008 -> 02:05 PM) He just said it is *not* about not caring and liking them. Both of which you said. Ug. getting kinda like a 'who's on first' now. Getting confused! Must find lost brain cells!

QUOTE (Texsox @ Apr 17, 2008 -> 03:01 PM) So you don't want to get into agreeing with me? Actually, he would be agreeing with me. You have yet to list your reasons.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Apr 17, 2008 -> 01:20 PM) The fear of loss is a great motivator. Seeing the flag, belly exposed, and vulnerable is a great metaphor for your rights that are also being made vulnerable. BTW, look around at all the worn and tattered flags being displayed. Look at the flags being displayed at night without a light. Out of order, etc. Cotton flags in the rain. Giant flags that are really being used as advertisements for gas stations and auto dealers. If you really want to express outrage, there are plenty of opportunties to do that. And no, I am not burning the flag as an expression of my free speech. We are retiring those tattered flags I see everywhere. Funny, some folks were too cheap to take down their old flag and buy a new one. I agree that more people need to take better and proper care of their flags. I have brought bad flag etiquette to the attention of several people around my previous residence. Most people looked puzzled. There are not many people with flags at my current place, but the few that are there seem to be in good shape and displayed correctly.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Apr 17, 2008 -> 01:34 PM) Just placing the earlier comments in context. Alpha believes the reason they are not invited by other Arab countries is no one cares about them and they are not liked. I believe there are other reasons that are probably higher on the list. Using a familiar analogy usually makes that point easier and better. Well, let's hear your reasons. I would put it along the lines of the area still being very tribal, and that there is generally not alot of movement among the various nations. Egyptians don't want 'em because they are a different type of arab. Is that dislike? I think so, but feel free to call ti something else. But as mentioned earlier, they would be chosen over a Jew. As for the US/Mexican wall, you are half right. A lot of Americans don't want Mexicans here, that don't follow the rules for coming here. Over in the middle east, there are no rules for Palestinians to become an Egyptian or Iranian citizen. because you can't.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 17, 2008 -> 12:27 PM) Are you asking the people or the government? Ask either. That whole area is very territorial. If it is any arab vs a jew or the US, of course they side with the arab. But there is a pecking order among the countries in the region, and the Palestinians are at the bottom of the s***heap.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 17, 2008 -> 12:52 PM) I don't think Alpha said anything about them not having the right to do things like this though. But, yeah, there are people that want to suppress rights which is the wrong way to go. However, if you want to scorn, ridicule, or be disgusted by something, that's perfectly acceptable too. I notice whenever somebody says something controversial and faces a backlash they try to hide behind the 1st amendment (or somebody tries to hide them for them). You are correct, I didn't say she shouldn't be allowed to do that, just that I think it was a stupid thing to do, and she should be subject to whatever ridicule and scorn that people who hated it feel free to throw her way. Sure, you have a right to 'free speech', but the people subjected to your crappy experiment or art also have that same right to let you know how they feel.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 17, 2008 -> 01:03 PM) I don't want to get too far off topic, but those are just random numbers that don't do anything by themselves. Now, if they were linked to something to make it proportional, like the GDP of the US, the EU, and the Arab League together (and without bothering to do research my gut feeling says the size of the first 2 dwarfs the size of the 3rd) then they'd be more meaningful. And, what I actually get out of those numbers is that you're saying they provided $124 million of aid in spite of the fact that they don't care one bit. We haven't started talking about charities either. Like I said before... I wouldn't go that far. Sure, those countries might hesitate to take refugees. But the support is there. For s***s and giggles see what happens if you ask 100 random Arabs from different countries who they support or have more positive feelings for... the Palestinians against the Israelis, or us in the war on terror. Sure, ask away. And while you are at it, them ask them if they would be willing to grant asylum and eventual citizenship to the same Palestinians?

Just wrong. Regardless of your abortion position.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 17, 2008 -> 12:08 PM) To say they "don't care one bit" is a little extreme considering public support for them in that part of the world is pretty overwhelming. And tangible. Not wanting to take refugees doesn't indicate a lack of support especially when you've got people sending money to Hizballah, etc. For the Palestinian Authority, in 2003, the US funded $224 million, the EU $187 million, the Arab League $124 million, Norway $53 million, the World Bank $50 million, the United Kingdom $43 million, Italy $40 million, and the last $170 million by others. Norway, all by itself, gave about half as much as the whole Arab League together. $124 million is what, a days oil production? I understand that is 's not like Gaza is a resort destination, or is loaded with heavy industry. Things are tough. This isn't going to sound right, but at least Mexicans in need of work are trying to go TO the work. When you hear of Pali's crossing the border, it is only associated with blowing up busses and schools. Palis in Egypt can never gain citizenship, even if they marry an Egyptian. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) defines a Palestinian refugee as a person "whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict". Few of the Palestinian refugees who fled in 1948 are still alive. However, UNRWA's definition of a refugee also covers the descendants of persons who became refugees in 1948 regardless of whether they live in refugee camps or in established, permanent communities or towns. Based on this definition the number of Palestinian refugees has grown from 711,000 in 1950 to over four million registered with the UN in 2002! OK, I am going off on a tangent here. I believe that the 'help' they get from the other Arab countries in the area is the bare minimum they can provide to say that they are doing something, and that if they really cared about them, the other countries could contribute substantially more than they do now.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 17, 2008 -> 10:43 AM) I wouldn't go that far. If the other arab countries in the area cared one bit for the Pali's, there would be no refugees. Israel isn't the only one that has a wall to keep them out. Egypt doesn't want them, Jordan doesn't want them, and so on. I would go that far.

QUOTE (NUKE @ Apr 17, 2008 -> 09:54 AM) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...id=opinionsbox1 Even the Washington Post, that bastion of conservative thought thinks Carter is wrong. Just how are we supposed to get anything sone in the middle east when we have this guy running around lending legitimacy to a known terrorist leader? Seems Mr Carter is getting a little senile in his old age and now he's every bit as bad of an EX-president as he was an actual one. I think you are barking up the same tree I was with the flag. All you will hear about is how repressed the poor Palistinians are, and that they just want a state of their own, and if the eeeevil jooooos would just leave them alone, there would be a paradise in the desert. People wonder why the Jews don't like the Palistinians, they SHOULD wonder why the rest of their arab brothers don't like them. I did find it funny that even Kofi wouldn't back him on this.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Apr 17, 2008 -> 08:03 AM) Would you feel better if he didn't call it art, but an experiment? Jim's comments ring true to me. I'm planning a flag burning for the 4th of July during the fireworks display. I guess I could call it art, but didn't really think of that, perhaps it would attract a few more people if I did. The event should attract close to 400 people. I currently have about two dozen kids and several adults, from 11-65, planning on burning flags. I have had no shortage of people willling to dionate flags to be burned. At first we had to ask people but after word got around we were receiving calls and people just dropping them off. I have notified the Fire Marshall and it appears we will be well within our rights and will not endanger anyone. We also have at least two tv stations agreeing to cover the event. The coverage will probably not be that wide and you would not have even known about it if I did not tell you. A youtube vid seems like a great idea. Tex, you are not burning the flags as an expression of your free speech, or in an attempt to win an NEA grant. Totally different concept there, so lets move on. Why is there a need for such an experiment? Don't you already know what the reactions will be? So all you do when you do that is push buttons hoping for a reaction. WOuld you and others be so ho-hum about it were the flags Iranian or Palastinian? I guess we won't know, since the moment those flags were to hit the floor, the PC police would be all over them. Oh, and the usual beheading statements would come out, and CAIR would issue press releases, and the principal would say the school is sorry, and arrange for CAIR to give a speech at the school. What we could use is a line from the Filibuster standards in real life. 4. I will not post statements for the purpose of angering others. Apply that to 'experiments', or 'art'. This so-called experiment was pointless, and only served to piss off a bunch of people to varying degrees. While you and Jim might think some people get worked up over the flag for disingenuous reasons, for others, like the vet in the video, that flag means alot, and doing what was done is just like a personal insult to him. Political and social discourse is already at an all-time low, why push this button?

QUOTE (Reddy @ Apr 16, 2008 -> 08:07 PM) they have the right to do it, whether you or i agree or not. that's what's great about this country. I no where implied that they didn't. And the idiot who planned this deserves to be scorned by her fellow students, most of whom honored the flag and at least walked around. However, I want to know how this can be considered 'art'. And how come it took all day for the fire marshall to have it removed.

http://www.dailybulldog.com/stories/UMF_flags.html Kinda convenient that the fire marshal showed up at 4pm to have it removed. I wonder when he first heard about it?

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Apr 16, 2008 -> 05:44 PM) I'm calling BS on this. The party elite did not support Ned Lamont. Not in the Primary and not in the General. Why don't you ask Obama who he campaigned for? Here's a hint, it wasn't the Democratic Nominee. The Democrats stayed the hell away from CT in 2006, and Reid and Schumer cut a deal with Lieberman to allow him the ability to win. The party elite didn't ditch him. Just turns out the people who vote in the Democratic Party itself thought he maybe should have retired. You are right, they didn't support Ned. They also didn't support Joe, they stayed away from him like a leper because they didn't want to anger the KosKids.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Apr 16, 2008 -> 04:31 PM) plus i'll take it to another level... when your party nominates you for the 2nd highest office in the land, is it ok to be a turncoat and ditch the party when its not conveinent for you anymore? I believe it was the party that 'ditched' him, when they decided to run a challenger to him in the primary because they didn't like his war views. Nevermind all the rest of the votes, that one area was enough for them to tell him they don't want him anymore. And then when he ended up winning anyway, they came crawling back to have him caucus with them to maintain the majority. He could have told them where to go, but he didn't, and stood with his (ex) party. Hell, why don't we just behead him for being the apostate he is, damn him for changing parties! it's not like the Dems have ever accepted a Republican who decided to switch parties or anything (Jim Jeffords).

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 03:18 PM) Blah blah blah. . . What, do you run a print shop or something?? Some days (like today) I am not so sure.

Technically, you would need to purchase a copy somewhere, or obtain permission from whoever created the original one to make a copy. Not sure if you could work up a 'fair use' claim on a poster. Otherwise it would be theft. But if you were to try and make a copy, the problem with duplicating it is that if it was originally printed on a press, it is made up of little dots. So if you were to scan it and then try to reprint, you have just made dots of dots, and you lose alot of the sharpness from the original. To get a good scan of something poster size, you would have to find a graphics house with a drum scaner (or someone with a really big flatbed). Not cheap. Then to print posters, you can go anywhere from $8 per square foot on up to $20+, depending on the quality you want/need.

QUOTE (kjshoe04 @ Apr 14, 2008 -> 07:28 PM) I drove to Branson and back yesterday, it sucked. I have to do that twice a year, as my inlaws live about 10 minutes from there. Unless you want to ride a gocart, it is not much fun. Although they do occasionally have a good show there. I saw Wayne Newton a few years back, it was an excellent show.

QUOTE (Flash Tizzle @ Apr 14, 2008 -> 03:21 AM) Has anyone else aside from myself never sneezed more than one time in a row? It's always one and done with me. This is something I first noticed a long time ago, but it wasn't until today that I was reminded. Whenever my press operator refills the powder sprayer, he sneezes like 20 times or more in a row. He has to sit down for a few minutes because he is so dizzy afterwards. We start counting when he does that and take quick bets as to how many he will do. He hates that.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Apr 14, 2008 -> 08:38 AM) Somewhere in between the two, is the most accurate, and each candidate is probably at a slightly different spot. I think there motivation is not much different than anyone else running for office, they want things done "their way" which they believe is right. Certainly the power, recognition, or other internal reinforcements come with it. But I think we could start at the local level, and using a real example, SS's run for the school board. I am certain that this came out of seeing problems, knowing what the correct solution is, and wanting to be in position to enact that plan. Would their have been some personal satisfaction mixed in? I would hope so. ratchet it up a notch, and pick Mayor, Congressman, Governor, or President. The only thing that changes are the problems and the authority to make changes, the money to get there, the people who are interested and willing to help with their time, treasure, and talents. But at the root, I think you have to have a motivation to serve. Looking at most of our leader's backgrounds they are involved from an early age and stay involved even after retirement. Whether it is Bush and Clinton raising money or Carter building homes for the homeless and monitoring elections. Tex, I am going to agree with you here for the most part. I think most people at least start for good reasons and intentions. It is when the bigger money gets involved that compromises have to be made, and that is where people start to change. When it takes a billion dollars to get elected to office, you owe alot of people.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Apr 13, 2008 -> 11:19 PM) Wasn't the use of torture one of the reasons we had to stop Hussein? It's easy to make that statement, but it then places us squarely with the rogue nations. I think I would rather be among the ethical nations that do not use torture. Does that also mean you would not complain when those same techniques were used on American soldiers? Since it would mean the US is rejecting the Geneva Conventions, changing US Laws, and most International Laws. And if it meant US forces were forced to shift through hundreds or thousands of false leads, that wouldn't be an issue? Considering that the terrorists were already torturing anyone they captured (beheadings, anyone?), BEFORE the US was accused of anything, I don't see how our interogation tactics changed how our soldiers were and will be treated by terrorists. Terrorists are not part of the Geneva conventions and are not afforded the same protections. Argue that it is inhumane if you will, but since the rules don't apply to them, the Geneva Conventions are not being violated.

QUOTE (bmags @ Apr 13, 2008 -> 10:55 PM) So Warren Buffet doesn't give to charity then? Should I take that notion seriously? Because Al Gore hasn't given enough, all liberals don't give to charity? SS is correct I believe in what Buffet has planned for wehn he croaks. However he is one of the more vocal critics of us not being taxed enough. Yet he spends a small fortune on accountants to get every tax break he can, just like the rest of us. If he feels so undertaxed, he can certainly afford to pay more to ease his conscience.