1. Did England really think they had a shot at winning the tournament?

2. Is there anything more annoying than those friggin' horns?

A couple of days later I wrote that I've pretty much quit posting as trying to discuss controversial, or unpopulal, topics in a calm, honest, and rational manner also proved impossible. My point was immediately confirmed as I was attacked for all sorts of nefarious motives, except, of course, the subject I was talking about. In trying to present an intellectual, albeit hypothetical, explanation of Paul's position i.e. private vs. public discrimination, the folly of such an attempt was also immediately confirmed.

So, in a long-winded, roundabout way, my question is: if Paul's position was "absolutely odious, disgusting, and inhuman, even though he was talking about Private (not Public) actions, why the instant support of Pay Pal's position? Aren't they quite similar?

Now AS is a far Right site. And I do not agree with much of what it posts nor do I always believe what it posts.

But laying aside the fact that Ebay, who owns Paypal, allows members to sell items that many would call hate speech (see link), do we want a "bank," and that is exactly what Paypal is, to get into the content censorship business?

If Paypal thinks that a transaction is illegal or if a customer is involved in criminal activity it should immediately block the transaction and notify the proper law enforcement agency.

It should not try to tell bloggers what they can and cannot write by shutting down their sources of revenue.

This is the classic "When they came for...... I did nothing..." situation. Anyone who calls themselves a liberal or who cares about the freedom of the internet should be outraged.

WASHINGTON -- President Obama for the first time will address the nation about the ongoing oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico on Tuesday night and outline his plans to legally force BP executives to create an escrow account reserving billions of dollars to compensate businesses and individuals if the company does not do so on its own, a senior administration official said on Sunday.

I can't look.

I believe Paul feels that "freedom" goes even further. While virtually no one disputes the illegality of discrimination in public domains, or even private domains where monopolies exist, he questions why a private enterprise can't discriminate for any reason whatsoever.

In other words, he feels the Constitution explicitly grants individuals the right, the "freedom" to be a jerk, however repellent that position may be.

I don't know what to think about this. It could be good or it could be bad. Certainly, everyone and their brother will want to control these resources. I'm sure the USA wants some payoff for all the lives and $$$$ we've poured into the country. Won't the Taliban fight for this, too? And China?

And then, of course, there is the massively corrupt Karzai administration.

I hope you picked up a German win at least.