I agree. *Waits for the Right wingers to disagree* ;)

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

What does right wings have to do with it?

Mmm... right wings. With honey mustard.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Would those be anything like buffalo wings? [A term I've never quite understood, because damned if I've ever seen a buffalo with wings...]

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

It's weird: I've had wings in Buffalo, and they were just so-so. So I'm confused too, redraven...but only the left wings, of course :) All those poor 1-winged chickens in the red and blue states....

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Buffaloes don't have wings. That is just silly.

Buffalo wings were invented by a man named Fred Buffalo. Ironically enough, Fred Buffalo lived in Billings, Montana.

Fred Buffalo also invented Buffalo mayonnaise and Buffalo pancakes, but these inventions are obviously less well known.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Mmmmm. Pancakes...

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

You are one of the people I spoke of. You say bad things. I am not listening to you anymore, until you say good things. Well, I guess I have to listen a little, to be able to hear you say the good things so I'll know when to listen to you again.

You make me confused. I don't like you.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Goodness gracious, that's good news to feel good about. I think we should refer to women as they did in pilgrim times: "Goody Redraven and Goody Sherrie, how are you!" That would make some good people feel real good. Good grief I feel good too! Well, that's all the good news I can share so,

Good night!

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Are you masturbating?

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

I'm not masturbating.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

I would like to submit the Ryland's response in to the "Funniest Reply" of the year (so far) category of the ABAHC awards show.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Damn you Matt you right wing bastard!. I'll kill you!, I'll kill you in the Arse!.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

I feel nothing about some things, but something about other things. I even once in a while feel everything about something. I don't think I've ever felt something about nothing, but anything is possible.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Feeling something about nothing is sometimes refered to as "hysteria". For others, it is "Drama". For yet more people, it is "Reality Television".

Feeling a little something can get you in trouble, especially if you are in public, or the little something belongs to someone else.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Feeling a little something can get you in trouble, especially if you are in public, or the little something belongs to someone else.

That made me chuckle out loud :)

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

"You can feel some of the things all of the time, and all of the things some of the time, but you can not feel all of the things all of the time. That's sexual harassment." I think Abraham Lincoln said that.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Or Mary Todd Lincoln...ewww, I just squicked myself....

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

So the death of another is a victory for you? Even if it is a victory I don't know if I would truly celebrate the death of another.

Oh here's another victory for the left. Firing somebody just because they are a republican.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Not a lot in that report to substantiate what this woman is saying about being fired merely because she is a republican. Given the litigious nature of our society, particularly in the entertainment field, I have grave doubts that she was fired because she was of one political party or another. When I see it on the mainstream news, I might believe it, but right now, she just sounds like a whiny, bitter woman who lost her job.

Some good information on the Shiavo case here and here and here

I pray for her peaceful release from the "life" she's been forced to live for the last 15 years.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue.

This is a great political issue, because Senator Nelson of Florida has already refused to become a cosponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats.

Its from the Republican memo itself. It seems its the Republicans that are trying to benefit from personal family tragedy.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Fate, this is not a 'right' or 'left' issue. That kind of statement doesn't make sense. It's not a political issue - it's a moral/religious one, with those who believe that we should have a say about what happens to us in life and death on one side, and those who feel compelled to prolong life, due to their own beliefs, on the other. The fact that our government and president became involved in this is just wrong, and I suspect that there will be a backlash in response to their behavior (polls show that 70+ percent of Americans think their stepping into the Terri Shiavo case was wrong).

The only "victory" is for Terri Shiavo, who, if she truly did not wish to be kept alive in a vegetative state, may finally be allowed to continue on in her soul's journey and leave this life.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Here's a well-written Slate article regarding the legislature and this issue.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

Question:
Does anyone have any research regarding other times that congress or the President 'stepped in' on issues, like with the traffic controllers or baseball umpire strike, etc? I'm racking my brain trying to think of times that this may have happened when the tables were turned and the right argued about overstepping bounds.
Thanks!

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

There was the issue with Elian Gonzales (sp?) when his father wanted him back in Cuba, but his mother's family wanted to keep him in Florida. I remember the US government was trying to keep him in Florida. But, as his surviving parent, his father won and took him back to Cuba.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

I used to pour veg oil in my VW Rabbit truck when I couldn't find ditz. WAY more expensive! Use less refined heating fuel instead. Sure it smokes a bit more, and they dye it blue so they can perhaps catch you with it in your tank - but think of all of the ROAD TAXES you're not paying! (Depends on how much state gas tax you have, but here it was like .50/gal! And the station owner used to just let me fill my tank right from the pump. :)

Ran like a champ for years that way! (Sold it to my cousin's kid, who traded it for a Yugo! Argh! He thought it would be "cool" to have a Yugo! What planet was this kid on!?)

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top

So, you're gonna run your truck(s) on veggies, huh? Sounds neat, but since you mentioned tree-huggers and all, they probably wouldn't have much to do with such things...

The "green" angle of this stuff isn't really all that green, (if you care either way, that is). Vegetable oil is still oil, and you're still burning oil, and it still dumps carbon dioxide and all sorts of nasty stuff into the environment when you do. Less sulfur is emitted and maybe a few less polycyclic aromatic compounds (nasty stuff that can cause cancer and which is emitted when you burn diesel), maybe, but that's it. Apparently it smokes more, too, so it adds fine particulates to the mix, which cause human health problems and compound the effects of other pollutants. In other words, the tree huggers will still hate you for owning a truck in the first place :(

Biodiesel is another example of what people think are fuels that are "green" and therefore OK to use in quantity. Thermal degradation processes are used to turn turkey guts and other biomass into usable fuels as well. Sure, it doesn't come from petroleum products, which makes using them palatable from a trade/dependence on foreign oil standpoint, but it's still oil, and burning any hydrocarbon fuel (including wood, coal, etc.) adds to the problem of so-called "greenhouse" gases. Even the cleanest burning hydrocarbon converts to heat, water and carbon dioxide, the first and last of which are huge contributors to climate change. The fact that a fuel is not derived from petroleum doesn't make it magically "safe" to burn in billions of cars, furnaces and industrial processes. This is something the various propaganda mills seem to have failed to mention about their so-called "green" fuels.

Sometimes arguments are made that "hey, we're increasing plant biomass when we grow vegetable oils", but industrial agriculture leads to soil erosion and all sorts of other problems, and the conversion of plants and animals to fuels is a grossly inefficient, chemical process which consumes more energy than it produces in many cases. South Africa had fun trying to produce fuels via catalysis during the oil embargo, and it was very expensive and very messy. Lots of nasty heavy metals and such laying around afterwards. Next, the biodiesel people will tell you that they're using seed and livestock to make fuel, but cows are notoriously inefficient processors of plant matter into oil, and a further ineffeciency is introduced in the conversion to a diesel-engine friendly fuel. That, and apparently cow burps and cow farts release massive quantities of methane, which is evidently bad news...

I know, I know, try hauling firewood or towing a trailer in a smart car, right? Also, the main reason I'll never drive anything electric bigger than a golf cart: have you ever seen what happens to those little beer cans with trailer tires in a front impact crash at highway speed? Battery acid bath, anyone?

My opinion is that the only way to lessen the impact of people on the climate is conservation and the development of renewable, non-polluting sources of energy we can store or tap and use when needed, not looking for other shit to burn, but I do understand the need for industrial energy consumption and other fuel-intensive activities like air travel, at least until a practical alternative source of non-polluting energy is found. Like, say, tapping the endless (for practical purposes) multiples of the world's energy needs that hit the planet in the form of solar radiation and gravity every day, which might be a good first step. Not that anything like that will ever happen with the oil industry's latest bitch (Republican or Democrat) in the White House, or anything...

Until then, I hope you at least save a few $ with the conversion kit (I assume that's why you're keen on doing it). I'd be curious to hear how it works out for you and if the cost of the kit/conversion is worth it.

Link to this comment :: ^Back to top