checkymcfold

5. turn the ppa into a lobbying group.this is really the only thing that even has a chance.

almost definitely means that your video card died or had some sort of large, driver-related error. i'd try reinstalling the drivers for your video card, and if that doesn't work, it's likely fried.in any case, it's not likely going to resurface if you need to use your computer in the meantime.

this isn't really a discussion i was aiming for, but fwiw, i think that it's not significantly less worth looking at than the average, no. i mean, not that such sorts of evaluations are easy to quantify, but still. along these lines, i'm suddenly curious about how stillborn babies and babies that live for under a week or something are worked into these kinds of statistics, honestly.

so you're trying to argue that the for-profit insurance industry (which pays people to figure out how to deny coverage in precisely these sorts of situations) is more likely to be good for teddy than the not-necessarily-for-profit government in this kind of situation? rrriiiiight.

lol, i'm making fun of a guy who says that since people that die young lower the life expectancy, someone who isn't even yet to the 78 year threshold is actually living longer than most people. statistically, if young people are farther from the mean life expectancy, they are skewing the data in the other direction.his caveat, if he wants to make sense, should be that freakishly old people raise the life expectancy. then teddy would be average. not that either his claim or the one he's trying (and failing) to make actually mean anything. my general point is that this is yet another instance of

for the record, this is neither a logically nor mathematically sound statement. so yeah, it will probably rile up republicans.

so glad to hear that you're doing better, bill! and happy birthday!

only because my e-students aren't paying attention.

i'm not wrong.

if UN internal documents don't suffice as documentation for you, you can always turn to the interwebs:http://www.google.com/search?q=palestinian...lient=firefox-amost of those links should suffice.

wait, whoa, so we have a progressive system of taxation in this country? sounds like some crazy, commie, hippie shit if you ask me.

even according to the UN's own official document "the origins and evolution of the palestinian problem: 1917-1988: part II, 1947-1977," completed and distributed in 1990, escalating violence in protest of the UN partition plan was the reason that the plan was formally scrapped and only adopted thereafter as (ultimately, nearly-exact) guidelines for the political boundaries to be formed in the region.honestly, the way that a lot of you are trying to rewrite the history of that part of the world is frighteningly, ideologically, and frustratingly orwellian.

you're kind of cherry picking one random spot in history and a relatively small area of what is now israel, for one thing, but even if i grant you that kind of kerfuffle, owning land and changing political boundaries are two profoundly different things. by your logic, the next time i buy a house, i should declare it the republic of petoria or whatever, and if the US decided that it wanted that land back, i should probably start training my kids to use big guns in defense.also, i'm vaguely familiar with dershowitz's work on making a case for israel, and although he's a smart guy, it suffers fro

as to the first paragraph--sixty years may seem like a long time in a contemporary setting, but in the scope of history, it's not. israel is still an extremely young country, and a large segment of the palestinian population remembers what it was like to have a homeland before the west decided to take it away from them.as to the second, you're still making the mistake of calling palestinians some weird, unified, whole, for one thing. for another, arafat and the PLO wasn't under any obligation to sign any specific treaty. it's hardly my (or your) place to decide whether they should sign a speci

of course not. what it is, though, is the first time that countries outside the region came in and defined legal boundaries in an area which, at best, has been otherwise in dispute for thousands of years. the palestinians were not involved in the formation of the UN partition plan or any other part of that process and did not ok the final definition of israel's boundaries. to that end, the palestinians are not "instigators" any more than any group that wasn't allowed any form of legal defense when someone came in and took their land. they're fighting for what was theirs before the UN said it w

sigh.PokerStars Game #30255091097: Tournament #177937723, $4.00+$0.40 Hold'em No Limit - Level VI (100/200) - 2009/07/09 0:09:11 ETTable '177937723 1' 9-max Seat #4 is the buttonSeat 1: googlepro (9715 in chips) Seat 2: Celui (4228 in chips) Seat 3: Snakemag (6515 in chips) Seat 4: edmunda (4557 in chips) Seat 5: checkymcfold (2759 in chips) Seat 6: moneymike711 (1395 in chips) is sitting outSeat 7: charliejrIII (11724 in chips) Seat 9: tommygurl19 (6400 in chips) checkymcfold: posts small blind 100moneymike711: posts big blind 200*** HOLE CARDS ***Dealt to checkymcfold [As Ad]charliejrIII: fo

my thoughts are with bill and his family. he's a great guy and deserves a lot better than this.

QFTPokerStars Game #30215976767: Tournament #177672112, $4.00+$0.40 Hold'em No Limit - Level IV (50/100) - 2009/07/07 22:43:48 ETTable '177672112 8' 9-max Seat #4 is the buttonSeat 1: chelton99 (3416 in chips) Seat 2: Robmo022 (1395 in chips) Seat 3: theninouw13 (3140 in chips) Seat 4: Biggyp89 (1405 in chips) Seat 5: BALAGOLA (8240 in chips) Seat 6: checkymcfold (1180 in chips) Seat 7: 4GhZPC (4710 in chips) Seat 8: xBlack Widow (3050 in chips) Seat 9: drasset (3170 in chips) BALAGOLA: posts small blind 50checkymcfold: posts big blind 100*** HOLE CARDS ***Dealt to checkymcfold [Qd Qs]4GhZPC:

my aquinas is a bit rusty, but i can play his part if necessary.also, re: evolution--you have to be careful about ascribing morality to evolutionary mechanisms, or even some sort of overarching purpose, etc.. the only reason, evolution-arily speaking, why i don't want to **** my sister isn't that it's wrong or "bad" for the species, but rather that when people do that, genes get messed up, and the offspring that result, for whatever reason, don't survive that great in the world. it's not that there's a good or bad about it, just a sort of "fit" or "unfit," and i think that it's a mistake to as

just mean.

you're a joke. you're also mexican, which is worse.

i lost my 4.40 run goot . KK<QQ aipf and QQ<A10 aipf to busto my first two, then Q9<AK on a Q62 flop for a huge stack in another one .

bah, it sounds so not rigorous. :)ok, bedtime for me. was fun, kids. thanks.

sure, i'll buy that. i just don't think that those sorts of extra-religious grounds can really lay claim to any sort of superior standing over their religious counterparts. i'm not really sure that i like the term "gut feelings," but i think that morality does function this way in most people that i've encountered and had the opportunity to push philosophically. so sure, this haidt fellow sounds ok by me. :)i mean, if you ask anyone "why?" forever about anything, they eventually have to say "just because," right? i mean, unless you're a nietzschean.

tell that to your daughter. she wants me, just so we're clear.