Again, everyone learned the stories and recited them.. It was a part of their daily life. If someone got something wrong, it was corrected. The first oral stories were supposedly dictated to Moses by God, so there is no real room for error there as Moses was educated and existed after writing had been around for a while.

In order for you to think that oral stories varied to any significant degree would also require the written versions to be in conflict to the same degrees and you would have splintering in the text with claims one of correct while the other is not. If there are five versions of the stories since their creation, there would be five texts written yet we have absolutely no evidence of that outside of a few discrepancies that aren't largely material.

It is pretty safe to say that we know the oral stories weren't corrupted even if they are older then the telling to Moses.

Actually, it was a response to a reporter who asked what insights she can gain from being so close to Russia in connection with NATIONAL SECURITY not foreign policy, here answer was "They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska":
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics...

It was in response to a series of questioning about Russia invading another of it's neighbors Georgia. She also warns about Russia and the Ukraine in this same interview which she was laughed at. I would think in context, her comment on this was very rational where as yours is still completely ignorant of the facts.

Exactly. The cure for inequality is to bring them down a bit. To hell with elevating everyone else up, it's too hard. But taking and taking and taking until they are like the rest is easy.

Your example in the first paragraph isn't really applicable: imagine if the majority of Iraq's population were Americans... completely different context.

lol.. not really applicable? The first gulf war didn't end, there was a cease fire with conditions that were not met to the satisfaction of parties to the war. You are correct it is not applicable to Russia invading Crimea which is why it isn't a precedence.

Also, keep in mind that the USA had several opportunities to resolve the WMD inspection problem (like allowing the EU to chose the inspectors) but they always chose the escalating "my way or the highway" option.

And the sanctions against Iraq would have been effective if France, Russia, and China hadn't scammed the UN oil for food program to get cheap oil in violation of sanctions they voted to put in place. OF course this wouldn't have been possible without the corruption in the UN also, Kofi Annan and his family made out pretty well on it too.

The only thing about the Iraq invasion that can be legitimately traced to oil is the strong opposition by the countries and people extorting Iraq for their oil before the invasion.

Just look at who controls all of Iraq's oil exports right now.

You mean China? After the US invasion, the UN still tightly controlled Iraqi oil and over the years released larger amounts to the control of the Iraqi government until finally, they lifted the restrictions on it. If you are going to imply the US controls it or at some time controlled it, you have absolutely no fact based evidence of such happenings. China moved in as soon as the oil became available and is purchasing the vast majority of it. The best you can do is somehow conflate a situation in which the US benefits and planned on benefiting from other countries buying up the Iraqi oil.

I'm sorry but your worldview on the subject simply does not match reality much.

Ok, take it easy now. It's not like they have a choice in the matter.

lol.. I'm forming my basis on the law and my extensive knowledge of a BB or pellet guns in use today. I exaggerated a bit but there are air riffles on the market which have a .51 inch barrel diameter (.50 cal) that would make it fit this definition.

(B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; You can find videos of them on YouTube if you are curious about them.

Only if you are an idiot who forms your opinion second hand from rumors and gossip instead of actually listening to what she says in its entirety.

Not really, This law defines a WMD for the purpose of domestic law enforcement as basically needing to expel something or cause damage by a projectile being expelled. A BB gun for instance can be a WMD but a rock alone couldn't. However, a rock in a slingshot might be.

It's tricky narrowing down a definition because it relies on devices defined in section 921 also and that specifically mentioned a starter pistol as a firearm if it can_be modified to shoot a projectile propelled by an explosive device even though it hasn't_been.

Originally, the term entered popular vocabulary by the use in the Safwan cease fire agreement with Iraq with the first gulf war. How it has changed to include a pencil sharpener or some silly irrelevant objects I don't know.

hmm.. when did this happen?

As for a sovereign country, Iraq was still in a cease fire with the US under the conditions it followed certain rules. They weren't following those rules. And yes, it did matter if Iraq had WMDs, their promise to dispose of them and allow verification was the heart of the cease fire that ended the first gulf war after Iraq invaded Kuwait and Kuwait asked the US to help them.

Precedence is a bitch? So Russia was in a war with Crimea and ceased hostilities on the basis Crimea followed a few rules and then resumed hostilities when it was obvious they didn't follow the rules?

That is the precedence after all. the first gulf war was ended on the conditions of full disarmament of specific weapons and the halting of programs to create or develop them. That failed to happen time and time again and the means to verify it happened failed time and time again.

You are correct in your other assessments though. The US definitely has nothing to stand on- we have a president that leads from behind, trying to make every gaff a planned operation (red line anyone) as if he was some kid who fell down and tried to look cool when jumping back up exclaiming "I meant to do that". I'm just glad there are no red lines in the dirt this time for I fear China might broker a deal to disarm Ukraine or something to ensure peace and allow the pres to save face again.

I think you have Tina Fey and Sarah Palin confused.

Unless you are thinking about the short run hit "Who's Nailin' Paylin?".

Giving examples of things that cannot create other things that are part of themselves does not disprove the ability of something to create something that is part of itself, any more than giving examples of blackbirds precludes the existance of bluebirds.

True, but can you explain how given and example of something that cannot create other things that are part of itself can also create things that are part of itself? That paradox would have to exist if a creator created the universe inside the universe not yet created.

A self-modifying program can create a subroutine. It is still part of the program.

Ahh... A complex repeat of the example I initially provided with the object on the paper. A subroutine is by definition limited to the subroutine and the program is outside it. But I see you go on missing this little tidbit of logic.

A catepillar can create a butterfly and still be the same organism.

Actually, no. A caterpillar changes into a butterfly, nothing is created. It is a well known process of metamorphosis.

A hypothatical "god" could create the universe by forming itself or part of itself into the universe, and in so doing could leave evidence of either its prior state or of the anatomy of the whole accessible to the residents of that universe.

What would the god -hypothetical or not, exist in before it created the universe? What makes that different then the universe it created? Now a god could be created at the same time a universe is created but to claim that which did not exist created that which did not exist is a little illogical to say the least. And even then, creating something at the same time is just semantics as if one was born as the byproduct of the birth of the other. But that is inconsistent with the line of thought we are discussing because the assertion has been made that one created the other, not that both simultaneously appeared.

Now, if you want to argue the semantics about exactly what a universe is and what constraints the permeability or nonpermeability of the boundaries of that object put on interaction between a hypothetical "creator" and the contents of the universe, that could be a more meaningful conversation, but there we'd just be establishing the implications of unproven theories should they be proven true, and we are far from proving many of them.

I'll go one further and ask you how something can exist before it is created? I do think you are relying on the creation of objects within the universe for your misunderstandings and not the properties of the universe that we are or at least think we are subject to. But in order for something to have created our universe, we have to be an object with boundaries that apply to us- not the creator who acted to create. Otherwise, the logic can't flow.

Who did that?

WTF.. I goggled flesh light thinking it was something I should know but never heard of before. Surprisingly, it's a masturbation product. So why do you think only males who masturbate with a flashlight looking thing will be sent into the depths of the earth and what makes you think there are millions of them?

I mean hell, I can deal with the dinosaurs.. I just don't know about the flesh light things.

Exactly. Corporations do not absolve liability, it separates and limits liability from acts you have no control over. As a share holder of a company that does not in any way take actions or cause the company to take actions, you are only liable to the extent of the value of investment. As a CEO who order the books to be cooked, you are criminally and civilly liable for your part in the parade. As the CFO who decided safety harnesses for the guys working on scaffolding 200 feet in the air despite OSHA regulations were too costly and burdensome, you are criminally and civilly liable for the deaths of the two who fell last year.

Of course it is often hard to follow the trail back to hirer ups like the CEO and so it makes it appear as if they never get in trouble. But to suddenly demand they take punishment for something they should have had control over but didn't is like demanding the mother of some kid go to jail when her son of 21 years fails to stop at a stop sign and kills someone in a minivan that hits him. We don't or at least we are not supposed to convict people of crimes others commit and we are not supposed to punish by corruption of blood. It's basic principles in the constitution.