Mister P-Mosh

The Racistpublicans are up to their dirty tricks, as usual. I'm suprised they haven't started lynching non-Aryans yet. Here's a sample of a letter from Republicans meant to discourage blacks from voting. Unfortunately, this is just one example of many of how the Republican party is out to make their fraud last time look tame in comparison. They've already disenfranchised voters in Oregon, Nevada, Ohio, and Florida, and they are screwing over voters in every state. Nevermind the voting machines from Diebold which according to the president of Diebold will deliver the presidential election to Bush. Even if Bush were to somehow win the electoral votes he needs, his supporters have committed enough fraud already that there is no way it could ever be proven that he would have a legit win.

Once while staying in an unnamed expensive hotel in Houston, I found a tiny vial of what appeared to be heroin sitting on top of the mini-bar. I picked it up with a napkin and flushed it down the toilet, but that was a very weird experience.

Thanks for those that gave the suggestions and looked into it, particularly exc. ;)--> Anyway, there is no question that they were bed bugs, because I saw some, and they looked like this: I went to a doctor today, and he gave me a shot and a couple pills to take tomorrow and for the next three days, although the bumps are going down pretty well on their own. With the hotel, they were a bit shady in how they were dealing with it. The day we discovered that the bedbugs were there, the manager waited for my wife to leave, then he grabbed some of the maintenance guys and tried to hurry and take our bed out and replace it. When my wife returned (with me, as it was my lunch time) the manager told us to get out of the room. One of the maintenance guys lied to us and told us that the previous guests had complained about the bed having a bad boxspring, so they were replacing it. It wasn't until we pressed them further that we found out that there were bedbugs, and that we had to move to another room (which the next day we discovered had bedbugs as well.)

I won't give too many specifics right now, but I am in Ohio.

As some of you may know, I am a contract computer programmer, meaning I travel all over the place and do work for a few months while staying in a hotel, and then move on to the next contract. Anyway, I was staying in an Extended Stay for a week on my current contract, and discovered that there were bed bugs. In fact, the manager of the hotel moved us to a new room where we found bedbugs as well so we checked out of the hotel altogether. We washed all of our clothes, went through all of our luggage, and washed the dog before going to the new place. However, by then it was too late. I am covered with a multitude of bites from the bed bugs. They feel like a mix between a bad mosquito bite and a papercut. I have hundreds of them from my neck down to my toes, and it's miserable. My wife is perfectly fine. I'm wondering if any of you know of a good way to treat bed bug bites. I bought some ointment from the drug store that helps some, but it doesn't get rid of the itching/pain. If there is anything out there that is good for this I'd appreciate hearing what it is. Another thing that I'd like to consider is to see what legal recourse I may have against the hotel. I believe that they knew of the bed bugs in our room before we went there, based on how weird the manager was acting and the way that the manager informed us of them. I really don't want to sue them or anything, but I am not happy with them and I think the company should feel as miserable as I am right now.

If you like zombie movies and British humor, this is a great movie. It's about a loser named Shaun who gets dumped by his girlfriend, and in his depressing life winds up in the midst of a zombie crisis. I can't really say much more because it would ruin the plot I guess, but I think it's probably the most realistic zombie movie ever. :D-->

A funny movie if you like puppets and South Park type of humor. The movie is sort of a parody of American jingoism played out with puppets. It was originally rated NC-17 because of a puppet sex scene (it's still very graphic, or at least as graphic as puppets can be) and it's fairly gory. I never knew puppets were filled with blood and guts. Anyway, it wasn't as funny as the South Park movie, but it definitely had it's moments where I was laughing so hard I couldn't breathe.

Congress voted to go to war against Afghanistan even though the Bush administration tried to blame Saddam Hussein so they could invade Iraq, so you may have a point. However, Saudi Arabia was certainly a silent partner in the 9/11 attacks. The majority of the attackers are Saudis, bin Laden is a Saudi, and al Qaeda gets a lot of money from Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government is just as repressive as the Taliban. If the American public knew what our so-called ally was really like, and how high in their government the ties to al Qaeda are (hint: a whole lot more than Iraq ever was), they would be demanding we attack Saudi Arabia, even if it raised our gas prices.

Actually I think Michael Moore got part of it right, but he left out quite a bit of stuff. I have to go to work in two minutes so I won't write a detailed post right now, but I've looked into this quite a bit and found that: 1) Bush has had his businesses financed by wealthy Saudis since the beginning of his career, including the bin Laden family. 2) Bush ignored the threat of terrorism prior to 9/11, including failing to listen to outgoing Clinton advisors who tried to hand their information off to Bush advisors, failing to take the bipartisan Hart-Rudman report seriously until after 9/11, and failing to ignore countless memos of which the famous August 6th one titled "Bin Laden determined to strike U.S." seriously. He didn't even keep up Clinton's level of anti-terrorist efforts. 3) He gave $42 million to the Taliban in May 2001. 4) Bush did not immediately go after Afghanistan when we knew that bin Laden was responsible and that bin Laden was in Afghanistan. 5) Even though most of the hijackers were Saudis, Bush refused to do anything against the Saudis. To this day, the Saudis have offered amnesty to al Qaeda terrorists and have refused to let the U.S. go after them in their own country. Saudi Arabia provides most of the funding for al Qaeda as well, all the way up to some of the princes and government officials. 6) Bush abandoned the fight in Afghanistan and left it to the Afghan warlords and the Pakistanis to go after bin Laden and other al Qaeda and Taliban fugitives. This is inexcusable to give up the fight against our enemies so he can make money off of Iraq. 7) Iraq was an unnecessary war, and a distraction from our real enemy. Many of our soldiers have died there for the Bush administration's greed, and even the bin Laden family has profitted from the war in Iraq. Bush clearly has connections to bad people, and gives them special favor for it. If I were president on September 2001, I would have attacked both Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.

Please provide details of when, in Kerry's lifetime, we were at war with France. So you are claiming, based on propaganda, that Kerry is guilty of doing 30 years ago what Bush did while president. There are people in the Bush administration that are guilty of treason but will never be tried. They overthrew the U.S. government when the Supreme Court appointed Bush as president when there was no clear winner in 2000. They were in bed with the bin Ladens and the Saudis. They made a war with Iraq which has placed our nation and our citizens in greater danger than before the war. They have sold our freedom to big businesses and swindled our tax dollars in an obvious con. At the very least, they are guilty for allowing 9/11 to happen when it was obvious to anyone who had access to their level of data that it was going to happen. You are confused. Bush is the one you are talking about, except he has actually aided those that have attacked us and killed our civilians. Did John Kerry or Jane Fonda point a gun at you? So you hate our country and would prefer to restrict voting to a small number of people who were forced to go to a war that was wrong. It would be even worse if you stole the right to vote from everyone but those who volunteered to go to war. Sorry Eagle, but this is America, not Saudi Arabia. We have something called freedom here, whether you like it or not. So you would gladly act as a traitor just because your guy didn't win? I'm not happy with Bush as president, and think he's part of a group of evil people who are destroying the nation. However, I'm not going to become a traitor to my own nation just because some of my fellow citizens are stupid enough to support the guy. It's extremely hypocritical of you to defame Kerry by calling him a traitor, then you talk about how you would like to be a traitor yourself. You have no proof that Kerry was a traitor, and even if he was, we get to pick between a person who was a traitor over 30 years ago when he was young and shell shocked, or a traitor three years ago who was simply stupid and greedy. Well, at least we can take comfort in knowing that your uninformed vote won't count for anything.

Although I mostly agree with you on that, there are other factors to consider that may make you lean the other way. What if the guy bought the beer from a drive through liqour store that kept them cold and gave away free cupholders for your car with the beers? It isn't just that they are leaving it up to the consumer to not be stupid, but that they are selling the alcohol specifically to facilitate him getting drunk while driving. The liquor store can't claim to be innocent when they are focused on getting people to drive drunk. They aren't the main one to blame since the guy that bought the beers is the actual criminal, but the family should be able to sue the drive through liquor store for helping the drunk driver commit a crime. Budweiser would not be liable unless they were putting ads out that show how fun it is to get drunk and drive. Another possible reason would be that they decided to put some hallucinagenic drug in their beer as a secret ingredient, and the driver only expected it to be a beer. Ford would not be liable for the same reasons. They'd either have to advertise to people as Fod being the choice vehicle for driving drunk, or they would have to make their vehicle flawed in such a way that it would make it easier to run over someone trying to cross the street, such as knowingly having faulty brakes and not doing anything to fix it. With guns, it makes sense for some liability to be there as well, although mainly with the sellers. If someone doesn't do a background check and sells a pistol to a rapist drug dealer, then that gun seller should get in trouble with the law. I don't think that gun manufacturers should be liable for that. However, if they were to advertise in such a way that would entice criminals to use their guns to commit crimes (e.g. if they were to pay to advertise their guns in a movie like "Boys 'n the hood"), or if they designed their guns in such a way that it was either easy to modify to be illegal, or that they were able to be used in a clearly illegal manner of which there was no legal reason for it, or if there was some flaw that would cause the gun to blow up in people's faces when they used it (non-suicidal I mean), then they would be legally liable. For example, if a company designed a PVC air rifle with plastic CO2 containers, as well as plastic bullets, and came with a shirt that doubled as a holder to conceal it, then named the gun the "Terror Tool 5000, guaranteed to get past all metal detectors" I think that the people who designed it should be held liable if a terrorist were to use their weapons. With that being said, companies should be held accountable for what the produce, but within reason. I don't agree with those that sue gun manufacturers because someone used them to shoot someone else. The seller may be somewhat liable, but may not if the seller adhered to the law. I don't think that the ridiculous lawsuits should be used to define the validity of all of the cases. Sometimes there is a good reason for them.

That's why I want to get the election over with, and then look into what I can do for media reform. The biggest problem, in my opinion, is that the media are a bunch of greedy @$$holes, who only care about getting more advertising dollars. There are decent reporters out there, but they're all watered down once the editors and such get through with them. There's also some blame with the public, since we are the ones who prefer tabloid media like Fox News over the truth. So, I hope Kerry wins. It's not that I expect him to fix everything that Bush has screwed up because that's not realistic. I just think he will tread water or whatever to not make things a lot worse and not divide the nation as much. On the other hand, a Bush win would make it a lot easier to cause reform because people would get fed up. However, I don't think that the deaths of more innocent people or a draft would be worth a Bush victory.

My wife didn't want to take my last name either, but did on U.S. paperwork because it makes things easier. In many other cultures, particularly latin cultures, you don't take the last name like that, but append it onto yours (if you are a woman getting married.) For example, if she was Teresa Whatever Appellado before she got married, then become Teresa Whatever Heinz after being married. Since her first husband died, I imagine that she wanted to keep his last name to honor him and for the kids, but then eventually got over it and changed it because she saw that it was hurting her husband now.

The problem is that Bush offered nothing. He was incapable of having a conversation, and instead chose to repeat the same soundbites over and over rather than give an answer. I find the idea of a president that doesn't even have the mental capacity to debate an opponent -- which even guests of the Jerry Springer show are capable of doing -- to be disturbing. Even worse was how he screwed up and confused Iraq and al Qaeda, as well as Saddam and Usama. Slips happen now and then, but that is a huge difference and something that a president that claims to make terrorism his top priority should never mess up. The problem is that we have already seen what Bush did. He gave the Taliban money prior to 9/11, he failed to do what members of both party wanted him to do in order to at least maintain Clinton's level of anti-terrorism activities and funding when he took office, and he ignored the intelligence that lead to the attack. As far as I can tell, Bush did everything wrong with regards to terrorism prior to 9/11 except for going as far as flying the planes into our buildings himself. I know that not everyone agrees, but having read the Hart Rudman report, having read about how Ashcroft and Bush cut intelligence funding prior to 9/11, how Bush ignored the memos relating to the imminent terrorist attack, and all of the evidence that other countries were trying to give him of a terrorist attack, the only two ways I can see to interpret it are either that Bush is incompetent or a traitor. Despite how much I mislike him, I don't think he would have intentionally allowed 9/11 to happen. I wouldn't put it past Cheney or Wolfowitz, though. Anyway, I really don't think Kerry could do worse against terrorism, because there isn't much worse you can do minus starting a war with China and reinstating the draft, and forcing people to run around over there wearing orange hunting suits and only being armed with BB guns. I think Kerry would be less willing to bend over to the Republicans after how Clinton was treated. When Clinton actually tried to go after terrorists they claimed it was to distract people from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. I wish those people could have had a crystal ball to see 9/11 occuring, because maybe then they would have shut up and agreed with it. Anyway, if another 9/11 were to occur, I imagine that the Republican party would blame him and stab him in the back and put politics ahead of actually going after the terrorists. I blame the Republican party for going to Iraq and abandoning the search for bin Laden and the fight against al Qaeda to focus on Iraq instead. I see that as putting politics and greed above the good of our nation. The Democrats are probably no better, but at least they haven't done something that bad. At least not yet. That's why I can never support Bush and do not respect him in any way. I feel pity for him because he's pathetic in some ways, but he has done a horrible job, and he has evil people working for him that are screwing our country (Ashcroft, Cheney, etc should all be in jail now.) Kerry may not be my ideal choice, but I see him as being infinitely better than the alternative. It's like choosing Pee Wee Herman for president over Charles Manson. Neither are ideal, but at least one you can trust not to kill you and your family.

The Iraqi PM was not democratically elected but rather an appointee by Paul Bremer and the Bush administration (I believe he was second in line after the Iraqis killed the first choice.) There's no reason we should believe him if he tells the British people that the situation in Iraq is dire, then turns around and campaigns for Bush by agreeing with Bush's misleading assessment of Iraq. Of course, I imagine that if the Iraqi PM were to say that things are nearing civil war, as our own intelligence agencies think, he'd end up dead one way or another. Like John Kerry, I believe that the safety and well-being of my own country is a lot more important than Iraq. We do have a responsibility to fix the mess we created over there, but at the same time I think we should be spending our tax dollars to secure the U.S. first, and the Iraqi oil fields for Halliburton last.

I work because I need money, not because I really believe that my employer is a great company that is doing great things in the world (well, cellphone service is nice I suppose.) I do believe that I have a good work ethic, but it's for personal reasons and not because of any concern for the future of the company. I think that blaming the youth of today or their parents is only half of the problem. Companies have changed, and they are even less loyal and bigger backstabbers than lazy employees. I've been laid off, I've been forced to work unpaid (if I wanted to keep my job), and all the other things that companies do to screw their workers over. The days where you get a job at 18 and work there until you retire are long gone. These days, you have to take care of yourself, and you have to have an antagonistic view towards your employer if you work for a company. They will fire you so their CEO can buy a new yacht and some cocaine to snort off of naked hookers. Anyway, I do think it's important to do a good job and to live up to your end of the work contract. However, it's stupid to go out of your way for a company that you don't own. The company won't return the favor.

I'm not suprised some people here are still impressed with Bush. All the non ex-TWI conservatives that I know were dissapointed with Bush, and felt that even though they still support Bush, Kerry didn't seem as bad as they thought he would be. Personally, I think that Kerry said things that I didn't like, but overall he acted much more presidential, and even if I don't agree with everything he says, he seemed rational. He also had a lot more self control and gave more straight answers than Bush did. Bush, on the other hand, repeated the same things over and over in response to the questions. He squirmed, interrupted, and made a lot of weird expressions and twitched a lot. He may have Parkinson's disease if he acts like that all the time. Of the messages of the two, the biggest complaint I had with Kerry is that he wasn't forceful enough against Bush. If I had been up there on that podium, Bush would have either been crying like the sissy he is. The biggest problem with Bush is either that he repeated the same soundbites over and over, or that he ridiculed the idea of securing the U.S., while talking about how important it is to secure Iraq. I look forward to the future debates, because if this one was supposed to be Bush's strong topic, he will fail miserably in the next two. I imagine the Bush campaign is trying to work on other strategies like commercials or possibly even an "October suprise" rather than focusing on the debates or his job.

So has anyone, honestly believed that "God" has talked to them in such a way that they can be 100% sure that it wasn't a temporary form of mental illness? The problem is that "God" never tells people, "Hey, go take your kid to the hospital because he has a vascular malformation that can be treated now, but if not, he will have seizures and die" or "You should invest your money in IBM, because they will turn out to beat other companies in ten years and you will never have to work again. Be sure to put at least 10% into the collection plate and then be sure to witness to everyone else about this because it will convert a lot of people." It's always, "I am God. Don't be afraid of anything." Or, "Fear not. There is a car barreling towards you on this icy road and weaving a bit. They might run into you." Until people start getting real things via revelation that are impossible to know any other way, and this can be proven, it just looks like all claims of "God" talking to people is little more than their subconscience talking.

Here's a good one, called either a fresca or a palomita: - Squirt, Fresca, or other similar fruit soda - Good tequila (Cazadores, Don Julio, etc) - Ice Pour the ice into a glass, and put as much tequila as you would like into the glass, and then pour the soda in.

I knew Noah. It's good to hear that their family is out.

Or the, "George W. Bush sucks off the terrorists like the Saudi whore he is" one, that explodes in a stream of sticky white liquid?

I am curious as to why Christians believe that they are right and all others are wrong when it comes to their belief in Jehovah. This is a two part discussion, though. God Vs. Zeus Nobody beliefs in Zeus anymore. However, why would a Christian scoff at someone who would claim to believe in Zeus? What makes a belief in Zeus any less valid than a belief in Jehovah? God Vs. Allah A lot of Christians seem to hate Muslims, but at the same time they share mostly the same beliefs. In fact, both the Christian god and Allah are alternative opinions of Jehovah, the Jewish god. Why would the Christian version of Jehovah be any more valid than the Jewish version or the Muslim version?

The problem is because of corporations like Ticketmaster having a monopoly on big venues, as well as a monopoly on deals with major record labels for setting up the concerts. Personally, I'd rather listen to a small local group that recorded their music in a garage and burned it to a CD on their home PC. It seems like anyone that becomes a musician for the money loses their talent as well as self respect, at least now in the days of Britney Spears and N'Sync.

Why is it that politicians are all huggy all of a sudden? Bush and McCain were cuddling in photos this week as well, This photo, for example. On the White House website , Bush even claims to be a "West Texas girl."

I'm a little bit less polite than Oakspear, so I'll go ahead and ask what I think he would be interested in knowing as well. Pretty much all religions claim to have an afterlife though, but there are none that have produced actual immortals walking around here that we can prove exist. Plus, we can prove that Christians die 100% of the time just like non-Christians, so there is no evidence to support that Christians benefit in an afterlife. Doesn't Christianity as well? Whether you believe you go straight to heaven, or whether you believe in TWI-styled "falling asleep but waking up when Christ comes back" doctrine, Christianity attempts to rationalize death and claims to have a work-around. The concepts of Heaven and Hell are not all that different from everything from the ancient Egyptians to the Buddhists to the Muslims to anything else. No religion claims that you will not die and can honestly prove that. Why not? If he made us, then we are exactly what he wants us to be. Why should self-depreciation be part of a religion like Christianity when it flies in the face of creationism? How do you know this? How can you prove it? The same as before, what evidence is there of the Christian god's existance, and if you can prove that, what evidence do you have of his goodness and gentleness?