I just too a guess at it's concentration. Anyway, at 95% alcohol, Everclear should be good even for the weakest backpackers because there's almost no water in it to tote around at all and it's about as close to totally pure alcohol as you can get.
There's no denying that under Nixon, it was continued. Or that he ran with some BS about a secret plan. Plus he added Cambodia. But that is basically like Obama, who continued Iraq and started a bunch of smaller things on the side. Which has contributed to Obama's credibility gap amongst liberals.
Anyway, Obama and Nixon are prime evidence that Democrats and Republicans suck.
Actually, getting pure 100% alcohol to drink is hard because ethanol attracts water and without some seriously toxic chemicals, or a cost prohibitive vacuum environment, it's basically impossible to distill past 96% purity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E... And even then, you need to protect that 100% pure ethanol from humidity because it will attract water.
Note, I'm not disagreeing with your main point, but I think something like Everclear or Bacardi 151, sold everywhere, and around 75% ethanol, is probably sufficient to do the trick -- for a reasonably fit back packer I have trouble believing the extra couple ounces of water in those high proof boozes make all that much difference.
I personally think that the vociferous attacks are counterproductive, but as an atheist, I totally understand the ire. Religion is behind a lot of law that is antagonistic to liberty and science and a source of incredible amounts of bigotry. Christians like to play the martyr, but they are a bullying majority with a really dirty history that has opposed and obstructed progress in the science, arts, and human condition for millennia.
So in answer to your question, think of it this way: most atheists aren't that concerned with Santa Claus because unlike Jesus, Santa isn't used as a basis for such social or scientific censorship.
Having said that, I think an approach along the lines of honey rather than vinegar would be more practical because being confrontational tends to solidify the hatred against atheists. I do understand this can look like appeasement and that in the face of oppressive policies, more is sometimes called for, but in general, I think atheists would be better off letting the curious come to them (demonstrates open mind) rather than beating up on true-believers (who will only go deeper into belief as a response -- there is something inherently irrational in trying to use reason to debunk faith).
Hell, they're so fucked up they might as well be Democrats.
I'm on the liberal side of this coin and it see it the same way you do, though I phrase it in reverse:
Democrats: The New GOP.
Democrats seem to have embraced Nixon -- his healthcare suggestions, endless war, mass surveillance. I don't really know whether Nixon was such a booster of Wall Street/banksters as the DNC, but I'm guessing so because of the economic twiddling done to pay for Viet Nam.
Anyway, our DNCGOP-monoparty really needs competition -- from both sides. I believe this so strongly I would vote for a 3d party conservative over a dem or repub any day of the week if that person had a shot (otherwise I just vote Green or for my cat).
Maybe some year, several small parties should draft up a list of things they agree on, and run a candidate who would promise to stick to that list during the term of office and try to just hold the status quo on the other things. There is an enormous intersection between policies supported by Greens and Libertarians for example. Anyway, select the one candidate and combine the vote. A few spoiled elections might make the DNCGOPtards take notice.
It's a tactic used by Feinstein astroturfers. By the time people get this far down the thread, they can barely remember what the main topic is.
Don't forget Geocities.
Wrong. No matter what, a Republican or a Democrat will be elected. The difference between the GOP and DNC on mass surveillance is exactly 0.
Yes, I'll vote 3d party, but I know the score.
Start at 11:14 -- if you take her later comments around 13:29 out of context, it sounds like she is criticizing GWB's push for war. If you put it in context, it is exceptionally clear she is criticizing cutting taxes during war and that her opinion is that getting rid of Saddam is equivalent to whatever went on in Bosnia and that we should do it. She doesn't care if the world community is against war in Iraq -- she thinks we should go alone, but she also thinks GWB should have tried harder to get world support.
So... she supports the war (increases costs) but does not support tax cuts. That's about exactly what the GP said. To mean the opposite, she would have to have said war with Saddam is a bad idea. Period. What she did say is that war in Iraq was a _good_ idea AND taxes should not be cut. Seriously, explain how she didn't say that.
That's the way it always is with an adverse inference. For example, one party requests discovery, the other party destroys it -- adverse influence instruction. Nobody knows for certain what was destroyed (if they did, it would be actual evidence because there'd be a copy or something like that) -- but the jury is allowed to infer (i.e guess) that it would be damaging. That's the whole point of the adverse inference instruction -- by destroying possible evidence, it is presumed you are destroying evidence that would be damaging, even if in actual fact the evidence would not have been damaging. It's the best we can do in that circumstance and the evidence destroyer, whether Olly North or HRC, should get fucked hard over it.
The fact that I recognize HRC for a neo-con warmonging surveilling Democrat makes me a Republican? Funny -- I can't tell the difference between the New GOP (aka Democrats) and the Old GOP (aka parody of itself). If Nixon had a godchildren, they'd be named GWB, Obama, and Clinton. These latter three get to do way more than he ever did, and Obama even got Nixon's health care plan passed.
Anyway, go take your partisan bullshit and fuck yourself with it in the eye. I hate them both, GOP and DNC alike because they are exactly alike.
But if a Clinton get's elected again, I know at least one thing for sure, that is that she won't start approving tax cuts while boosting spending (gotta boost that Military industrial complex or they might not get their checks at election time) like the Republicans want.
When HRC was agitating to get a war started in Iraq back in the early 2003, she said exactly that, which is awesome if you consider starting a war in Iraq a good thing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
- 1:40 HRC enters room
- ~ Code pink intro: war in Iraq will harm American and Iraqi families and cost a lot.
- 6:30 HRC parrots the WMD arguments, blames the danger to Iraqis on Hussein, ignores harm to Americans, financial costs, and the fact that Iraq was not a threat to the US nor involved in 9/11.
- 8:52 HRC lies about careful review of WMD info. HRC never even read the National Intelligence Estimate which while suggesting WMDs existed, also contained significant disagreements with that conclusion that a reader not interested in a particular outcome would have agreed called the whole thing into question.
- 10:00 Audience member: not up to the US to disarm Hussein, up to the world community, Iraq has no connection to terrorism, not only are Iraqi people in danger, so are US people, and will harm the economy. It's reckless.
- 11:14 HRC: The world community would not take on difficult problems without US forcing the issue. Goes on and on about Bosnia. Segues into how GWB tax cuts are a bad idea.
- 13:29 Interesting note on the negative effect of the tax cuts: "Here at home, this administration is bankrupting our economy forcing us to make the worst kinds of false choices between national and homeland security, which they don't fund
..." - -- IOW, HRC would have preferred GWB raise taxes for more war and domestic surveillance. --
- 14:12 HRC is given a pink slip
- 14:20 HRC goes off: "I am the Senator from NY I will never put my people at risk
..." - -- Yeah, like Saddam had anything to do with 9/11
However, destruction of evidence leads to an inference that the information would be damaging.
Astroturfer, and a bad one.
Clinton is PUBLIC official.
I am a PRIVATE citizen.
That a public official should be required to save absolutely everything says absolutely nothing at all about what a private person like me can do with my email. Even the spam. Who knows, they could be be making deals with cleverly spam-appearing emails and so those need to be stored for analysis too.
"Ada is the work of an architect, not a computer scientist." - Jean Icbiah, inventor of Ada, weenie
