May be helpful if those are not good enough:
http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/statplus/
http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/statplus/
Today (Thursday) only.
-- Ronn! :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On Dec 6, 2007 5:45 AM, Ronn! Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
May be helpful if those are not good enough:
http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/statplus/
http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/statplus/
Cool, thanks... Never heard of this site before.
Nick
--
Nick Arnett
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 09:10 AM Thursday 12/6/2007, Nick Arnett wrote:
On Dec 6, 2007 5:45 AM, Ronn! Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
May be helpful if those are not good enough:
http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/statplus/
http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/statplus/
Cool, thanks... Never heard of this
No, the essential phrase in what I said was _billions of dollars_.
Let me walk through various levels of supply and discuss how
easy I think it is to hide shipment.
thank you for that dissertation, dan, but i wasn't suggesting that it
was.
But, I don't think that's what you are talking about
From: The Fool
Lies:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188463,00.html
http://www.wwtdd.com/index.php?type=onei=757
http://www.nypost.com/gossip/pagesix/65830.htm
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1527001/20060324/hayes_isaac.jhtml?he
adlines=true
Adding another wrinkle
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4379422.stm
Abortion depression link queried
There is no credible evidence that women who terminate an unwanted
first pregnancy are at a higher risk of depression, researchers say.
A recent US study had suggested having an abortion increased
William T Goodall wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4379422.stm
Abortion depression link queried
There is no credible evidence that women who terminate an unwanted
first pregnancy are at a higher risk of depression, researchers say.
A recent US study had suggested having an
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A30384-2004Apr21?language=print
er
That Woodward Magic
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Wednesday, April 21, 2004; 10:18 AM
How does he do it?
That's one of the questions you hear a lot as Washington conversation
continues to be
I'm definitely watching too many DS9 dvd's. ReptiliKlan sounds like a
Jem'Hadar moniker.
:-D
Jon
Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com
_
Learn how to help protect your privacy and prevent fraud online at Tech
Hacks Scams.
http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/2004-03-04/news.html/1/index.html
Congressional candidate Mike Murphy feels the strong arm of the GOP
BY JOHN GONZALEZ
Mike Murphy's run for the District 4 congressional seat has ruffled
feathers in the national GOP. He just can't figure out why.
At 01:58 AM 3/9/04, The Fool wrote:
...snip...
Telford was recorded saying that the relationship between Hall and the
president goes back a long way--they've helped each other for forever
and a day, and the White House won't rest until he wins. Then, later:
Just consider what you're doing now.
At 07:51 PM 1/15/2004 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote:
John wrote:
JDG - And did I mention that apparently I support lying to and deceiving
the American public too?
I'm sorry that you took my comments personally.
Thank you.For what it is worth, I did not take your comments at all
nearly as
John wrote:
JDG - And did I mention that apparently I support lying to and deceiving
the American public too?
I'm sorry that you took my comments personally. I do not believe that you
support the dishonest policies of the Bush
administration; I know that you do not believe that they are being
The Lies:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=storycid=514e=2u=/ap/20040104/a
p_on_el_pr/democrats_debate_6
The Actual Transcript:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54363-2004Jan4?language=printe
r
-
I Pledge Impertinence to the Flag-Waving of the Unindicted
Co-Conspirators
From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 04:46 PM 11/12/2003 -0800 Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll agree fully that the average person in Iraq is
better off now than a
year ago. But, the overwhelming majority
As a preamble, let me recount that I supported the military action in
Afghanistan beforehand because I thought we could not let Al Quida a free
pass after 9-11 and leaned against the military action in Iraq because I
thought that
1) There was no clear and present danger to the US presented by
- Original Message -
From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: Empire Of Lies
As a preamble, let me recount that I supported the military action in
Afghanistan beforehand because I thought we
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll agree fully that the average person in Iraq is
better off now than a
year ago. But, the overwhelming majority in Iraq
sees the US as an
occupier, not a liberator. And, their opinion of
us, as measured in polls,
is rapidly deteriorating.
Dan
- Original Message -
From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 6:46 PM
Subject: Re: Empire Of Lies
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll agree fully that the average person in Iraq is
better off now
At 04:46 PM 11/12/2003 -0800 Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll agree fully that the average person in Iraq is
better off now than a
year ago. But, the overwhelming majority in Iraq
sees the US as an
occupier, not a liberator. And, their opinion of
us, as
- Original Message -
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 10:01 PM
Subject: Re: Empire Of Lies
At 04:46 PM 11/12/2003 -0800 Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll agree fully
At 08:18 AM 7/30/2003 -0500 Horn, John wrote:
From: Gautam Mukunda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Franks is, I think, a choice that might surprise
people a little bit. I'm quite serious, though.
Tommy Franks, as leader of CENTCOM, led the liberation
of two countries at a cost of less than 500
Comparing the victory in Iraq with the English victory
at Agincourt is very, very dangerous. While the
English DID have a tremendous victory at that famous
battle, in the end it meant...nothing. A bit of
prestige for the combattants and more humiliation for
the French Crown. But it was the actual
Robert Seeberger wrote
snip
I just finished reading this today.
What a hoot!
I've got this on my Christmas wish list.
A year or so back I read Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot . . . a Hoot as
well.
I have two humor books in my to-read stack, Franken's Why Not Me? and Dave
Barry's Tricky
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0525947647/qid=1064201122/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/102-7196545-4354567
I just finished reading this today.
What a hoot!
xponent
A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right Maru
rob
___
I just finished reading this today.
What a hoot!
I thought it was wonderful.
I'd also strongly recommend Paul Krugman's new The Great Unraveling, and Big
Lies by Joe Conason.
Tom Beck
www.prydonians.org
www.mercerjewishsingles.org
I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I
Doug Pensinger wrote:
Not to lionize Lee, but direct comparisons probably aren't a good
metric. One has to consider the North's considerable advantages in
battle a few of which were greater numbers, better technology, and the
superior condition of its troops. The one advantage the South had
From: Gautam Mukunda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Franks is, I think, a choice that might surprise
people a little bit. I'm quite serious, though.
Tommy Franks, as leader of CENTCOM, led the liberation
of two countries at a cost of less than 500 allied
lives. Where the Soviet Union and
On Monday, July 28, 2003, at 06:27 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote:
A Speech From The Extremist Front:
snipped
Smith should stick to fiction.
As for the base canard that FDR somehow conned the Japanese into
attacking Pearl Harbor, well this is the kind of scum that scum scrape
off the soles of
On Monday, July 28, 2003, at 09:16 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- Bryon Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oddly, the guy wasn't at all racist, as far as I
could tell, and he was from
Wisconsin, so I don't think it was about him
protecting his southern pride.
The only thing I can think of is that some
From: Gautam Mukunda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I agree it's a very good book - probably the best
single-volume history of the war, actually. But I
actually disagree with that conclusion. I don't think
state's rights had anything to do with the war,
actually.
much snippage
I'm not sure
At 09:20 AM 7/29/2003 -0400, you wrote:
On Monday, July 28, 2003, at 09:16 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- Bryon Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oddly, the guy wasn't at all racist, as far as I
could tell, and he was from
Wisconsin, so I don't think it was about him
protecting his southern pride.
Kevin Tarr wrote:
At 09:20 AM 7/29/2003 -0400, John Garcia wrote:
My List of Great American Generals (in order):
Washington
Grant
Sherman
Marshall
Vandergrift
Gray
Feel free to agree or not.
Grant came from hardscrabble circumstances and personal failure to lead
the greatest
--- Kevin Tarr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 09:20 AM 7/29/2003 -0400, you wrote:
On Monday, July 28, 2003, at 09:16 PM, Gautam
Mukunda wrote:
--- Bryon Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My List of Great American Generals (in order):
Washington
Grant
Sherman
Marshall
Vandergrift
Gray
On Tuesday, July 29, 2003, at 06:32 PM, Kevin Tarr wrote:
At 09:20 AM 7/29/2003 -0400, you wrote:
On Monday, July 28, 2003, at 09:16 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- Bryon Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oddly, the guy wasn't at all racist, as far as I
could tell, and he was from
Wisconsin, so I
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know enough about the non Civil
War/Revolutionary War generals
to have an educated opinion, but having read the
McPherson, Shelby Foote
and some of Caton's stuff, I have to wonder on what
merits you rate
Grant so highly. Tactically I'd
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
Well, my assessment of Grant starts with John Keegan's
The Mask of Command. It's surely worth something that
Keegan picked Grant as his exemplar of democratic
military leadership. Beyond that, however - and
granting you the disastrous mistake of Cold Harbor - I
think that
slavery
lies in the writings of abolitionists like Frederick Douglass, who demanded,
rather late in the war, that it be made to be about slavery. He would not
have demanded that if it were already so, now would he?
If the War for Southern Independence was about slavery, why did slavery
remain
--- Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
A Speech From The Extremist Front:
I like to think of myself as something of a Lincoln
expert. I'm certainly a Lincoln _fanatic_. Where did
you find such a piece of junk? I'm really curious in
particular as to the historians he found who said
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
The idea that it was about
confiscatory taxation is, of course, absurd.
It's nice to find something we can agree on wholeheartedly.
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
rob posted:
A Speech From The Extremist Front:
[actual speech snipped]
You Want Controversy, You Get Controversy Maru
Whatever happened to putting L3 in the subject line for posts this long
;-)
Some of the historical data here sounds a little... unsound, but I'm sure
there are others on the
- Original Message -
From: Reggie Bautista [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 6:40 PM
Subject: Re: Empire Of Lies
rob posted:
A Speech From The Extremist Front:
[actual speech snipped]
You Want Controversy, You Get Controversy Maru
Whatever
From: Gautam Mukunda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The other stuff is equally tendentious, of course.
The idea that the Civil War wasn't about slavery is
the product of a frankly racist school of historical
thinking that few historians of the post-Civil Rights
era would accept. The idea that
--- Horn, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree completely. I just finished reading The
Battle Cry of
Freedom a few months ago. It was clear from there
that the war
was, in fact, about states rights. (Which is one of
many things
historical revisionists like to say.) However, the
rights
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
A Speech From The Extremist Front:
I like to think of myself as something of a Lincoln
expert. I'm certainly a Lincoln _fanatic_. Where did
you find such a piece of junk?
On L. Neil Smith's website?
I've read one
Robert Seeberger wrote:
Actually, I had a different motive.
With all the polarizing discussion on the list lately, dividing us into
liberal and conservative camps, I wanted to show that there are Americans
out there who in completely serious tones will make everyone on this list
appear to
http://www.floridatoday.com/!NEWSROOM/localstoryA5951A.htm
State clarifies malpractice facts
More doctors coming in, no sharp rise in settlements
By Paige St. John
FLORIDA TODAY
TALLAHASSEE -- There are more doctors coming to Florida than leaving the
state.
There is no avalanche of
My malpractice insurance will be doubling next year. Not because
of lawsuits or rising incidence of client injury, not because of widening
scope of practice... but because the market will bear it. Plain and
simple economics how exciting.
Dee
From the article on malpractice-
Witness after
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Forgive me, but I'm not sure of your point in posting this with the subject More Lies - who are you accusing of lying? The Bush Administration or Howard Dean?
No, forgive me, poor choice of titles. The Bushes are, of coarse, the
devious ones.
Doug
by what appears to be the deliberate effort of this administration to
mislead the American people, Congress and the United Nations.
Forgive me, but I'm not sure of your point in posting this with the subject More
Lies - who are you accusing of lying? The Bush Administration or Howard Dean?
--
Tom
William T. Goodall wrote:
But you don't actually have a religion, just 'spiritual beliefs'. Under the
definition of religion DanM was trying to foist on us (as far as I
understand him) you aren't religious at all. Under the more generally
accepted definition of religion that I cobbled together
From: Ronn! Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 06:29 PM 11/27/02 -0600, The Fool wrote:
From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 11:58 27-11-2002 -0600, Reggie Bautista wrote:
The only people for whom the Bible is a lie are the people who
insist
that
it is literal truth, and
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 10:53:23PM -0500, Jon Gabriel wrote:
The ANSWER isn't evil, the QUESTION is evil!!
:-)
Jon
BTW and seriously, My wife asks these same questions, but she knows
she'll get an honest answer without sarcastic (or godforbid 'humorous')
comments. If she's looking for
of
this particular (more or less) Christian who is definitely not a
fundamentalist.
The original thing that started this whole discussion was a proof that
religion is evil because of lies. If, in my case, my religion is not a lie,
then in my case, at least, religion is not evil based
At 06:29 PM 11/27/02 -0600, The Fool wrote:
From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 11:58 27-11-2002 -0600, Reggie Bautista wrote:
The only people for whom the Bible is a lie are the people who insist
that
it is literal truth, and those fundamentalists are obviously misled
anyway,
on 27/11/02 5:06 am, John D. Giorgis at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, William T Goodall wrote:
[a] Lies are evil [1]
If you were living in Belgium circa 1943, and had a Jewish family in your
basement, and two guys in tacky uniforms ask you Wo sind die Juden? and
you say
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Verzonden: woensdag 27 november 2002 6:06
Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Onderwerp: Lies Aren't Evil Re: Religion is evil (proof)
[a] Lies are evil [1]
If you were living in Belgium circa 1943, and had a Jewish
William T Goodall wrote:
Or it could be the lesser of two evils.
When there are only two choices, then the lesser
of the two evils is _not_ evil.
Alberto Monteiro
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
on 27/11/02 1:48 pm, Richard Baker at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeroen said:
QED lies are evil.
Not at all. The statement lies are evil might more accurately be
stated all lies are evil. John G gave a counterexample,
Which was flawed.
so the
statement all lies are evil is not true
on 27/11/02 2:04 pm, Alberto Monteiro at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
William T Goodall wrote:
Or it could be the lesser of two evils.
When there are only two choices, then the lesser
of the two evils is _not_ evil.
Unless it is.
--
William T Goodall
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
William T Goodall wrote:
Or it could be the lesser of two evils.
Strange syncronicity: Within the past day, Julia posted a link to a site
that sells t-shirts, sweatshirts, stickers, etc. I was looking at that site
just before reading your email, and the last shirt I looked at said Cthulu
William T Goodall wrote:
No, all lies are still evil.
Fiction is a form of creative lying (fictional stories are, by definition,
not true, and anything not true must be a lie, right?). So is fiction evil?
Reggie Bautista
_
MSN
In a message dated 11/27/2002 7:51:28 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When there are only two choices, then the lesser
of the two evils is _not_ evil.
Unless it is.
That depends upon what your defin...
**BANG**
Ow.
I'll shut up now.
William Taylor
Reggie Bautista wrote:
Fiction is a form of creative lying (fictional stories
are, by definition, not true, and anything not true
must be a lie, right?). So is fiction evil?
Fictional stories are not lies, because lies can only
exist when there the purpose is deception.
Sometimes
William T Goodall wrote:
No, all lies are still evil.
I replied:
Fiction is a form of creative lying (fictional stories are, by
definition,
not true, and anything not true must be a lie, right?). So is fiction
evil?
William responded:
Lie - a false statement made with the intention
I wrote:
The only people for whom the Bible is a lie are the
people who insist that it is literal truth,
Alberto replied:
This is an empty set. Books such as _Job_ are
considered as fiction by everyone.
Perhaps this is true in Brazil, but I know of at least one person who sits
two rows
on 27/11/02 5:58 pm, Reggie Bautista at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
William T Goodall wrote:
No, all lies are still evil.
I replied:
Fiction is a form of creative lying (fictional stories are, by
definition,
not true, and anything not true must be a lie, right?). So is fiction
evil
not a
fundamentalist.
The original thing that started this whole discussion was a proof that
religion is evil because of lies. If, in my case, my religion is not a lie,
then in my case, at least, religion is not evil based on that proof.
Now, if you'd care to revise the proof...
:-)
Reggie Bautista
- Original Message -
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: BRIN-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 8:33 AM
Subject: Re: Lies Aren't Evil Re: Religion is evil (proof)
on 27/11/02 1:48 pm, Richard Baker at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeroen said:
QED lies
From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 11:58 27-11-2002 -0600, Reggie Bautista wrote:
The only people for whom the Bible is a lie are the people who insist
that
it is literal truth, and those fundamentalists are obviously misled
anyway, because the Bible can't *possibly* all be
on 28/11/02 12:29 am, Robert Seeberger at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, all lies are still evil.
No honey, those pants don't make you look fat.
I rest my case.
But 'honey' was probably asking because she intends to go out in public and
be seen by lots of people wearing *those* pants
At 06:29 PM 11/27/2002 -0600, you wrote:
- Original Message -
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: BRIN-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 8:33 AM
Subject: Re: Lies Aren't Evil Re: Religion is evil (proof)
on 27/11/02 1:48 pm, Richard Baker at [EMAIL
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 06:29 PM 11/27/2002 -0600 The Fool wrote:
Yeshua's father joseph has two geneologies, both different from each
other, listed in matthew, and luke.
One is possibly the genealogy of Mary.
NO. Nowhere does it say 'Mary'.
It says father to 'Joseph'
- Original Message -
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: BRIN-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: Lies Aren't Evil Re: Religion is evil (proof)
on 28/11/02 12:29 am, Robert Seeberger at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, all lies
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of William T Goodall
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 7:39 PM
To: BRIN-L
Subject: Re: Lies Aren't Evil Re: Religion is evil (proof)
on 28/11/02 12:29 am, Robert Seeberger at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
No, all lies are still evil
. This is a bad defense but
wasn't Iraq six months away at one time, before 1991?
In the context of Clinton, his sex lies didn't exist in a vacuum. He was in
a court of law giving sworn testimony and he lied. How can that be defended?
Kevin T.
___
http
Kevin Tarr wrote:
The writer said President Bush is lying about two things,
Iraq's unmanned drones and nuclear capabilities.
The author is cutting a fine line between
what was said and what he considers a lie. Is he denying
that there are unmanned drones?
I don't see how Iraq
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021125s=alterman
--
Nick Arnett
Phone/fax: (408) 904-7198
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
President in terms of calling him a liar on
matters of public policy.
Which is pretty good support for the main point of the article, that
journalists sidestep mention lies about politics, but feel it is
perfectly okay to harp on lies related to the personal life of the
president. Seems sort
79 matches
Mail list logo
