kiaer.ts

Thanks, I learned two interesting things reading that piece. So did I.'m interested to know what your two are. Sorry, I got distracted by that image Dennis posted. The two things were that Putin's assistants quizzed Greenspan about Ayn Rand, and the link to the Boehner meltdown. Boehner is symbolic of exactly what's wrong with the Republican party. He should be horsewhipped. With his hair and tan and makeup he deserves to be nothing more than a secondary character on Jersey Shore.

Have you ever used cornstarch babypowder?

здравей, Radin!

More "sick, twisted sub-species" on video: video links deleted It just doesn't get any lower or more despicable than this. Thanks so much for helping us innocent souls to see the depravity and evil that lurks all around us. What exactly is your point? That the obvious fact that some people tell tacky or even despicable jokes somehow justifies Ted's joke about what has been a murderous war crime by the U.S. government and a human tragedy for the Iraqi people? Martin Your pacifist viewpoint in opposition to present United States foreign policy is the sort of bizarre, dopey moral crusade one might expect to encounter on the Huffington Post or Code Pink or some other left-wing touchy-feely webforum. You are obviously free to advocate loving those who want to kill us or whatever foolishness strikes your fancy, but to post your hopelessly misguided views here and then proceed to mount a vicious personal attack on Ted was totally absurd. The fact that you (and that pompous libertarian "scholar" you admire so much) substitute stale, rude, overwrought invective for arguments just underscores the fact that you cannot logically defend this happy pacifist horsecrap. You really ought to look up the word "pacifist" in the dictionary. I am not and never have been a pacifist. The fact that you think that opposing and morally condemning a murderous, non-defensive war launched by the U.S. government that has brought about the death of hundreds of thousands of people and that has turned 10% of the entire population into refugees, constitutes pacifism, shows how utterly distorted your view of pacifism is. This may come as a revelation to you, but the majority of countries in the world today manage to provide for their own defense just fine without launching murderous wars of aggression against other countries. It has been a rather long time since Switzerland last fought in a war. If you think that the Swiss are pacifists, I suggest you gather together an army and try launching an invasion of Switzerland. You'll see first hand just how pacifistic the Swiss are. As to your view that they want to kill us, why don't you try doing some basic arithmetic. Add up the total number of Americans killed by Muslims. Then add up the total number of Muslims killed by Americans. See which of the two is greater. When you're done with this exercise, add up the total amount of American territory occupied by Muslims. Then add up the total amount of Muslim territory occupied by Americans. See which of the two is greater. Perhaps, after you have gone through this exercise, you will come to realize that a more logical conclusion would be for them to believe that "we" want to kill them, rather than for us to believe that "they" want to kill us. Furthermore, I have never advocated that we "love" the Iraqis. This is a false dichotomy, that we must either love them or murder them and occupy their country. How about we leave them the hell alone, stop killing them, stop occupying their land, and get the hell out of their country? I'm glad you can have a sense of humor about all of those dead, wounded, and homeless Iraqis. Yeah, that's really funny. Of course, it's easy for you to laugh about it. You can sit here safe in your cocoon, watching the devastation your government has inflicted on a people who live far, far away. And in your spare time, you can write moral justifications for this carnage. And you can pretend to be a highly moral person, an exemplar of the highest principles of objectivist morality, a believer in freedom, liberty, and individual rights. Except for those other nonpersons, that is. Martin So now Dennis is the racist? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIrhVo1WA78

You keep mentioning this bad joke of Ted's, how about a link? I don't know what you're talking about. Was it on this thread? Martin, to take you seriously for a moment, your responses on this thread have been utterly hysterical. Nowhere have I expressed any delight in the murder of innocents, any hatred for foreigners, or any ignorance of the horror of war. You, who do not know and have not ever met me, have simply attributed these attitudes to me. You apparently don't know that I am a multilingual xenophile, that I lived and worked with Mexican illegal aliens long enough to become fully fluent in Spanish, that I purposefully chose to live in various hispanic neighborhoods in NYC, that I have experienced murder first hand, including that of both a loved one, and of a next door neighbor, that I have had to defend myself barefisted and with weapons on many occasions, that I have also experienced war first hand, with this building, 140 West Street in Lower Manhattan being my place of employment, pierced by the falling antennae of the World Trade Center, that my father actually worked in an office an a floor of the South Tower which was hit by the plane on 9/11, and that a next door neighbor of my childhood died at Window on the World, although I have not asked his survivors whether he was one who leapt or burned to death. No, you know none of this, but you feel entitled to assume that because I have expressed the opinion that there is no problem with using force to interrogate unlawful enemy combatants, that I must enjoy making jokes about violence and the slaughter of innocents. But you have made a mistake. The subject of my jokes above has not been the supposed innocent victims of the violence of war. The subject of my jokes has been you and your ignorant hysterical reaction. The horror. The horror.

It may be comprehensible, but it is definitely incorrect. Nor is not common in spoken speech, or in any certain dialect. You would definitely not find it in any properly edited work except to reflect substandard speech. The word how in the sentence "I wonder how she looks" means like what and not in what manner. (Etymologically, the word how (OE hwo) descends from an oblique case form of the word what (OE hwat).) We are not discussing whether she sees clearly or not, but what she looks like. Since how already means "like what", to ask "how she looks like" is to ask "what she looks like like."

Netflix! Unlimited streaming on demand and movies in the mail with a two-day turn-around for less than the price of a discounted DVD a month? Netflix is an incredible service.

You do realize, Michael, that you do not have to respond to every one of my posts? (I certainly do.)

Control freak? Who's the one who accuses people of trying to take over OL with their "clique" and relegates posts that make him uncomfortable to the garbage pile? Just sayin.

Ted, I honestly don't know of any TV news program that headlines cars driving safely. I just expanded on someone else who made that up as a humorous example. But since you have a preference for this sort of thing, I might try to find something for you. Maybe pictures of airplanes arriving on time. People grocery shopping at a clean and well-stocked store. School in session with alert students. Smiling policemen getting off work. And maybe for drama and excitement, babies playing with toys. Your example illustrates the difference between the expected and the unexpected, not the good and the bad. Given the choice, most people will be attracted to the story about the one person rescued from the rubble, not the 10,000 lost. Of course, if, say, rubbernecking at catfights is one's guilty pleasure, one may have a different opinion. In which case that trait belongs to him who has it, and one shouldn't slander mankind by attributing to it such personal vices.

Yes, Phil. (And to add my answer for Bob, mixture is one way in which title has traditionally been established over unclaimed land. Once title is established continued mixture is not necessary - but if you want your title defended, payment of property tax is.)

I am not "people" - speak for yourself.

Ballast seldom needs to be thrown overboard but isn't missed when it is. Pretentious twits seldom need to be ground under someone's boot heel, but nobody much gives a shit on those occasions when it does happen. JR

Just to explain the grammatical issue... In the English construction "Cooper looks like what," "like" is a preposition followed by "what" as a non-specific noun. In "how Cooper looks," "how" is a conjunction followed by a clause. Rearranging "how Cooper would have looked like" into standard order, it would read, "Cooper would have looked like how Cooper would have looked" -- a preposition followed by a conjunction followed by a clause. Not kosher English. Ellen Ellen: I understand that point. I am confused about Ted's statement: "Adam, can you not give your opinion for Xray as a native English speaker? Is not either 'what he looks like' (a fool, a presidential candidate, a god) or 'how he looks' (foolish, presidential, divine) better than the substandard 'how he looks like'?" Is the red statement because I don't talk good English? Sorry cheap joke. Adam I don't know how to help you here, Adam, I explained myself three times. I was eliciting your opinion as a native speaker of English of Xray's statement. It had nothing to do with anything you said yourself. For most English speakers, speech is like riding a bicycle, something they can do, but not explain.

If that is Rand's contention then I disagree with it. It is empirical nonsense. Anyone familiar with the extended Bach family or the Bernoulli family would know better. According to Rand, if I do not become a musical genius (never mind that I am tune deaf and half my physical hearing is already shot) it is because I have not tried hard enough. To which I reply -- balderdash! Ba'al Chatzaf But it's not Rand's own words - it's MSK's exaggeration, as he himself said.

Thanks Ted for a concise description of the product, including the name of the book, and actual links to more information and where to buy it. Much appreciated. This will make an awesome gift for my niece. If your niece is solely interested in one language, there are bilingual instead of multi-lingual editions available. But I would recommend the five language version in most cases, given the small difference in price. Spanish is the second language after English, so the five language version is not at all inconvenient for those mostly interested in Spanish. Here are two images from the French and Spanish bilingual editions:

Phil, you know very well the nature of this site, the preferences of its owner, and what to expect from various posters. By responding to such provocations you simply encourage them and participate in the very hijack about which you complain. Simply ignore them and get on with your contributions.

Adam, can you not give your opinion for Xray as a native English speaker? Is not either "what he looks like" (a fool, a presidential candidate, a god) or "how he looks" (foolish, presidential, divine) better than the substandard "how he looks like"? I must have missed something here Ted. Can you explain the above more clearly? Xray wrote: " imagine how Cooper would have looked like..." I said that an English speaker would either say " imagine how Cooper would have looked (full stop)" or imagine what Cooper would have looked like" but that "imagine how Cooper would have looked like" was substandard. Do you not agree?

On occasion I am rather impressed by the quality of a book. The Firefly Five Language Visual Dictionary is most excellent. It's dense and handsome illustrations will teach you the names for things you don't even know in English - let alone Spanish, French, German and Italian. Searchable 1st Edition http://www.amazon.com/Firefly-Five-Language-Visual-Dictionary/dp/1552977781 Aavailable 2nd Edition: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1554074924/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=1552977781&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0XNE0H2VCBBD0TA6G5D0

Adam, can you not give your opinion for Xray as a native English speaker? Is not either "what he looks like" (a fool, a presidential candidate, a god) or "how he looks" (foolish, presidential, divine) better than the substandard "how he looks like"?

Man sagt entweder <<how he would have looked>> oder <<what he would have looked like>>>, aber nicht beide <<how>> und <<like>> zusammen. Wo steht das genau, dass "man" es nicht so sagen kann? "How does Billy's new girlfriend look like?" would be incorrect English then? I googled a bit, and in these English text sources, "how" und "like" are used together too: Let me write in English for the benefit of the others. I had a problem learning Spanish because people would not correct my mistakes when they understood my meaning. So I like to point out such minor errors when I see them. After reading Xray write above "imagine how Cooper would have looked like then." I told her that one would either say "what he would have looked like" or "how he would have looked" but not both "how" and "like" in the same sentence. She asked me where exactly it is written that one doesn't do such a thing. Where one might find an explicit rule against it, I don't know. It is the sort of knowledge that a native speaker has implicitly - and I am quite sure the writers of those internet sentences above would have accepted the correction to delete the like or change the how to what. (Keep in mind also that in German, "wie" means both how and like. ""Wie sieht sie aus?" means how does she look - literally, "How sees she out?" - while "Sie sieht wie ein Pferd aus" would mean she looks like a horse - literally, "She sees how a horse out.") But "how" already means "like what" in the Cooper sentence, so adding "like" is pleonastic.

Man sagt entweder <<how he would have looked>> oder <<what he would have looked like>>>, aber nicht beide <<how>> und <<like>> zusammen.

I don't particularly care for - no - I can't stand Branagh. But his Hamlet was outstanding. First rate. I am also a huge fan of: Richard III w/ Ian McKellen Richard II w/ Fiona Shaw (I have a copy, and would upload it to YouTube if I knew how.) King Lear w/ Laurence Olivier King Lear w/ James Earl Jones MacBeth Roman Polanski Titus w/ Anthony Hopkins I vacillate between King Lear and Richard II as my favorite play.

The answer to the question? Very easy. You want the government to protect you from squatters? The government doesn't work for you for free - pay a property tax. You want the government to enforce your contract? The government doesn't work for free. Pay a percentage of its value, or do without the ability to sue. You want a patent? Pay a percentage. If taxes were 5% of what they are now, and business was booming with a lack of regulation, people would be hapy and proud to pay 'taxes'. I definitely can see the need for a new thread to cover this.