Forums Index >> General >> Thanks Democrats
Page : 1 . . . . . 8 : 9 : <10> : 11 : 12 . . . . . 23
By YEE-GUAN WONG
Eh, what fer Canadian name is this ^ on that local paper? XD
Ah, Chief, Ollie North, as Insect Man says, is not the, well, ah, you know...
The speech by Otis Bush the other night brought back to the minds of many this quote from Winston Churchill, circa 1940:
The British people can face any misfortune with fortitude and buoyancy as long as they are convinced that those who are in charge of their affairs are not deceiving them or are not themselves dwelling in a fool‘s paradise.
OK, substitute the word "American" for "British."
There you have current Democratic stra-gedy, as Bugs Bunny used to say. (Combine the words strategy and tragedy...)
The strategy is: Stick deception and fool's paradise on the Bush-ites camp any way you can and you have the political upper hand again. And as Kos says, "THIS IS IT FOLKS!" Or was it, "THAT'S ALL FOLKS!"
This is why DSM makes them all so giddy. We caught a fish! We caught a fish! It's so small though. And it looks more like an old shoe instead...
In the meantime, the questions of the war's management -- currently -- and that all-important link between 9/11 and Iraq continues to be discussed among the rest of us.
Also, in the meantime, we get this from Howard Dean:
On MSNBC's Hardball :
Dean tells Matthews, "The president made a huge blunder in defending the United States."
?????
Last edited: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 at 9:23:52 AM
PS: The college buddy is sad news...
Wow, Bush is still in office... After seeing all of your "evidence" I didn't think that there was any way he'd make it through the weekend!
What a day!
When Clinton is in jail for PERJURY you can talk about how Bush is a criminal.
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky."
(Bill Clinton, January 26, 1998)
"The (Saddam ) regime has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now."
(George Bush, March 17, 2003 - speech to nation setting 48-hour deadline for Saddam to leave Iraq or face war)
Are you capable of identifying the differences?
Last edited: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 at 6:23:32 PM
@ 44
Well - there's a ton of differences.
The second one is the truth.
In all seriousness, there's this dude named Al-Zarqawi, and the well documented training camps (including a mock-up of an airliner with "American Airlines" on the side), and then there's the a few thousand Kurds who would testify under oath that Iraq had WMD (only problem is their dead)...........
That's as far as I'm going with my Tom Brokaw impression.
Michael Moore would be impressed though.
Actually, the (one documented) Kurd gassing took place in the late 90's....several years after tbe cessation of hostilities between Iran and Iraq. You do make a good point though (and thank you for the reminder)....Iraq had in fact previously employed WMD in the conflict you speak of.
As a matter of fact, there was a push by congressional Dems before the current Iraq war regarding "Gulf War syndrome"....to recognize it as the result of unconfirmed Iraqi WMD employment in the swamp area north of Kuwait. From what I remember, the Iraqis alledgedly employed various gases to cover their rear during their withdrawal. Unfortunately, these weapons dissipate rapidly and their emplyment could never be officially confirmed by the NEST teams who were employed in the Middle East for this very reason (they were situated to cover Israel).
I am having a difficult time connecting Reagan to this. Are you referring to Iran-Contra?
Incidentally....the current US WMD inventory has only been employed once....in war time....during WWII.
Since then, it was used as a deterrent to counter Soviet communist expansion in eastern Europe and to a lesser extent certain areas of Asia. This all went away upon the Soviet Union's collapse.
Is this your issue with them?
As far as our still maintaining our inventory....they have become a necessary deterrent in today's global security environment. Just ask the Israelis what kind of deterrent they can be.....as well as bring foes to the peace table (ask Egypt and Jordan).
Sorry bro.....this is an area I am well versed in.
Oh, and as a further note about Iraq not harboring terrorists.......:
"Abu Nidal was living in Baghdad before the war."
You know....he's the guy that shot the wheelchair bound American passenger during the hijacking of the Achille Lauro.
I'm not sure if the libs had had a chance to edit that out of the history books yet (when you were in school), so I understand if you don't know about it.
Sorry to ramble, but I had another thought.
Regarding "bring 'em home".....I respond "why the hell would we want to do that?"
Did we pull the troops out of Japan...or West Germany after WWII? Of course we were (and still are ) there at the invitation of the host governments. Anytime we've been asked to leave, we did (Subic Bay). What's even more interesting, is that the Filipino Gov't is now asking us back. But that can be for another day.
: :
Edit comment:
You know Chief, I'm never going to be an apologist for anyone who wants to cause another harm; never. And truth be told, there are a lot of questionable characters across the globe who should be glad I don't have my hand on the trigger of US nukes. I couple of times a week I have to bang my head against a wall to knock down the hawk in me.
You got me thinking about that dip who hijacked the ocean liner... It's weird how we Americans can live daily with "Brooklyn Teen Is Slain For His iPod" yet get all excited with helpless people being thrown overboard. OK, ok, bad example. The thing is we play right into those people plans because it's the recognition those asses want and we give it to them. No easy answer.
Hey, I'm still a lot more wary of coming across a 13 year-old gang banger with a 357 than I am about crossing paths with an al Qaeda operative. But I am pissed that I had to learn how to spell al Qaeda. Let's nuke-em!
{WalMart free for over 24 months!}
JJ.1, if you post sentences, please strip-away context and meaning. All those words cause confusion. In fact, just use ellipsis to fast-forward to the important bits and make the really important connections.
Old ideas are tired. Shake yourselves.
If Bush can accept that global warming is has a "man-made" component, maybe you can too.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-warming5jul05,0,7451975.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Ha, so ya think Chief is well versed in WMD's Flea, heh heh?. Ahem... Looks like he forgot to sing the chorus. Thanks Chief! :)
For one thing, what about the push for development of the "bunker buster nuke" ? Seems like the road to proliferation in the US continues to be paved courtesy of the Bush administration. How does this symbolically portray America in the world view?
As you may know both democrats and republicans in congress have thwarted funding this so far. Let's hope they succeed.
Here's a good article I just found.
US weighs its role in weapons development
Debate mounts on Capitol Hill over whether to modernize the US stockpile of nuclear warheads.
By Peter Grier | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
-WASHINGTON – Are some US nuclear weapons so old and finicky they need to be rebuilt into simpler, sturdier bombs?
Should scientists at the nation's nuclear labs study new kinds of weapons specifically intended to frighten rogue dictators?
As Washington worries about possible proliferation in Iran and North Korea, the administration and lawmakers on Capitol Hill are involved in concerted debate about what actions - if any - are needed to maintain and modernize the nuclear stockpile of the US.
On one level, the outcome of this debate could have a profound effect on the nature of the nation's nuclear deterrent. On another level, it could also influence the attitudes of other nations toward US nonproliferation efforts. This could be seen as early as next month, when a Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) review conference opens at the UN in New York.
"Washington still maintains a large nuclear arsenal designed for the cold war, and it fails to take into account the current impact of its nuclear policies on those of other governments," writes Clinton-era Director of Central Intelligence John Deutch in a recent issue of the journal Foreign Affairs.
Currently the US maintains a stockpile of around 5,000 active nuclear warheads, according to estimates from experts outside government.
Under the terms of the Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty struck by President Bush and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin two years ago, that figure is supposed to be reduced to between 1,700 and 2,200 deployed weapons by 2012.
Mr. Deutch believes reductions could go even further than that. He would cut the arsenal to fewer than 1,000 warheads, which he says would be enough to counter the nation now most likely to try and match US capability: China.
"China... Is thought to have a total inventory of 400 nuclear weapons, including a small but growing ballistic missile force capable of reaching the United States," Deutch writes.
But for some other nations it is not just the size of the US arsenal that is critical. It is also the extent to which plans call for that arsenal to be refurbished and modernized.
In part, this is so because of the bargain struck under the (NPT). Signee states without nuclear weapons agree not to acquire them under the treaty. Signee states with nuclear weapons agree not to transfer them to anyone else - and to work toward eventual elimination of their own arsenals.
"The majority of the countries that belong to the NPT today are not confident that the nuclear weapons states intend to fulfill their NPT pledge to eliminate nuclear weapons," says Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association.
Among the things these critic countries point to are plans that indicate that someday the US might build new types of nuclear devices. In this regard one project now stands out: the earth-penetrator warhead, or so-called "bunker buster" bomb.
Under this program, the US is studying the feasibility of taking the current B83 bomb, putting a very hard case on it, and controlling the manner in which it strikes the ground very precisely, so that it can penetrate a few meters into the ground and remain intact before exploding.
The administration is requesting $4 million for its bunker-buster study in the fiscal 2006 budget, and anticipates a further $14 million request for fiscal 2007. The program faces resistance in Congress, where some powerful lawmakers have blocked previous attempts to fund it. The White House is trying again, because Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld personally reviewed the program and directed the money be put back in the budget.
"He did this not because he's particularly interested in developing a new weapon, but because there are adversaries who are building deeply buried facilities, and it is unwise for there to be anything that's beyond the reach of US power," said Linton Brooks, the administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, at a Senate hearing on April 14.
Another effort critics view with suspicion is the Reliable Replacement Warhead program (RRW). Under RRW scientists at the US national labs are studying replacement parts for current warheads. These parts might change the nature of some warheads, which were designed 30 years ago. During the cold war, the military wanted lightweight and tremendous explosive power in its nuclear weapons. Today, the desired qualities might be instead sturdiness, reliability, and lower cost.
Administration officials say that the focus of this program is to extend the life of current warheads, not develop whole new categories of weapons. Nor will it lead to a resumption of nuclear tests, they say, since in essence they are looking at making existing weapons simpler and more robust.
Critics aren't so sure. Among other things, they worry that the nation's nuclear scientists will inevitably want to test their new devices if they differ much from existing designs. The administration is also requesting money to reduce the time it might take to ready the Nevada Test Site from 24 to 18 months, they point out.
"The program could morph into a program to develop new nuclear weapons capabilities," says Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association.
Well versed?
Ploughshares.org
Last edited: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 at 11:54:54 AM
^ Heard that it uses a particularly bad type of radioactive component too.
{WalMart free for over 24 months!}
The body:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050706/ap_on_re_eu/g_8_bush_bike_accident;_ylt=Au9ZNI5Hif7l0c04bnBeumis0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-
and the brain:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/shoptalk_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000973352
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Democratic_letter_Rove_must_explain_role_in_CIA_outing_0705.html
Oh man... (sweating profusely) this is certainly the end of Pres. Bush - (sob, sob, sob...) there's no way this won't be the final nail in the coffin... You're right on the mark tally!
Get a grip on reality boys!
What a day!
Great article Az. Believe it or not, you and I are on the same side of this issue.....I am a big fan of non-proliferation as well as inventory reduction. The components' upgradability referred to in the article are a critical part of both the CIS/Russia's and the US reduction plans...as there aren't a whole lot of viable uses for the heavy metals, and they are expensive as hell to re-process.
I think that computer technology has progressed far enough to the point that weapons testing is more saber rattling than anything else (Pakistan & India's tit for tat in 2000)....actually, more usable data comes from simulation than actually detonating one of the damn things.
The bunker buster idea is, I think, a PR thing (pressure on Iran, North Korea, and Brazil)....or maybe some bureaucrats fantasy. We can already dig a hole as deep as we want/need to by targeting multiple warheads on one pos (were the legitimate need to arise). A nuclear explosion 2-300M underground results in not that much less fallout...more than you would expect. Not to mention that any country that would resort to/have a need to hide such a complex (that would require assured obliteration) would most likely place it in the proximity of a populated metro area anyway.
@ Flea
Dude...I love actually discussing vs the partisan stuff. You rank right up there with Stinky in my book!
I am gonna grab some dinner then will double check the above.
@ JJ
The strategy is: Stick deception and fool's paradise on the Bush-ites camp any way you can and you have the political upper hand again. And as Kos says, "THIS IS IT FOLKS!" Or was it, "THAT'S ALL FOLKS!"
I think that while this worked in the early '90's (both sides honed it to a fine art), the American voter has actually become keenly aware of this, and has become increasingly skeptical; it has simply lost traction. One giant indicator of this is the ratings decline of the big 3 networks nightly news programs.
Last edited: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 at 7:04:07 PM
Hey Chief, I imagine you're looking into the gassing timeline. Bush is such a good reality distorter he makes it sound like it was yesterday doesn't he. And we're pretty much hapless for believing our supreme commander but it ain't our fault; think "KODACHROME" bubba.
Actually that gassing happened in 1988. It was near the end of the Iraq/Iranian war and Iran was making a stand near Halabja. I'd say a majority of common belief is that we don't really know who did the shelling that killed 5000 of the town but it was not a deliberate attempt to kill civilians. Rather they were poor sob's caught in the crossfire. Granted, the Kurds and Saddam had fought for years but there really was an active war being fought and the Iranians were in town being supported by Kurd resistance fighters. You'll find accounts of the time blaming Saddam and others blaming Iran. Some say Iran because it looked like they were killed with a cyanide-based gas which they were known to use while the Iraqis were thought to have used mustard gas in the fighting. Whoopee.
When news of the gassing broke Senators Claiborne Pell, Al Gore, and Jesse Helms introduced legislation that would have impose sanctions on Iraq for its use of chemical weapons.
"The Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988" was passed unanimously by the US senate but subsequently vetoed by Reagan whose administration had been providing Iraq with $700 million a year in credit guarantees. And guess who was the national security advisor at the time who helped Reagan make the decision to give Saddam a pass? Colin Powell.
And bla, bla, bla, Bush 1 continues to provide aid to Saddam and squelch objections. We give $4 BILLION more to Saddam (Thanks Bush 1!) Bla, bla, bla, gulf war happens and we kick sand butts. Bla, bla, bla, Bush 1 encourages "the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step down." But surprise, we let Saddam keep his fleet of helicopter gun-ships after the Gulf War ceasefire. Sorry Kurds, it was nice knowing ya.
Bla, bla, bla, Bush II happens. Were saved! Thank you Jesus!
BTW that's why
1. That the massacre at Halabja was an act of war between Iraq and Iran and the the gas most likely came from the Iranians.
or;
2. That Saddam Hussein did gas his own people and he was enabled by the Regan Administration.
{WalMart free for over 24 months!}
Last edited: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 at 9:05:14 PM
Hey dude,
I stand corrected. I was thinking a Serbian incident in 1999 had taken place in the late '90's...it's a damn shame that so much of this crap happens that events get confused.
The rest I stand beside. I'm worn out, so will just post the links. There's probably 40-50k of info here - pretty good stuff.
GlobalSecurity.Org - Iraq WMD Facilities
Federation of American Scientists Whitepaper on Iraq WMD (PDF)
And these two regarding the Halabja incident...includes eyewitness / survivor's accounts of the events of that day:
Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP) Website Memorial
On vacation until 07/11 - will reply then!
I get cha' Chief. Could it be some US scientists fanatical dream as well? I once had a convo with a former DOE employee from the Nevada test site that was interesting. He stated something to the effect of the brains (err) at Los Alamos just frothing at the mouth to produce these things.
If it's a bluff, history shows that that can cause further international development as well I think. Didn't Kruschev play that game with us?
The Kurds just happened to get downwind?
@ Chief
@ JJ
The strategy is: Stick deception and fool's paradise on the Bush-ites camp any way you can and you have the political upper hand again. And as Kos says, "THIS IS IT FOLKS!" Or was it, "THAT'S ALL FOLKS!"
I think that while this worked in the early '90's (both sides honed it to a fine art), the American voter has actually become keenly aware of this, and has become increasingly skeptical; it has simply lost traction. One giant indicator of this is the ratings decline of the big 3 networks nightly news programs.
I see your point, but there are too many examples of the spin cycle going on by the Democrats that proves that they are doing just this.
However, there are conservatives that try the same trick. The article that you posted by Ollie North is an example. It has valid points, but its overall theme is to slot opposition and the Democrats entirely into the troop-basher category.
Have a relaxing R&R.
Last edited: Friday, July 08, 2005 at 6:22:12 AM
I heard that Tony Blair, when he first received notice of the terror attacks in London, was reading a story about goats to Dubya.
(I know, I know...cheap shot, bad timing, poor taste. Have at me...I can't help myself.)
Last edited: Friday, July 08, 2005 at 7:12:44 AM
Off topic post here. Although this would be the best place to present this.
I implore you to watch this movie called Promises.
http://www.offoffoff.com/film/2001/promises.php3
Like a midget at a urinal, I was going to have to be on my toes.
Invite a retard to a picnic and you'd better expect to get drool in the potato salad.
God bless ya Rogue.
What happened yesterday is just a day in the life of Israel, Palestine, Iraq and so many other countries. Hasn't the western world realized this yet? Where's the outrage?
Also, I find Blair's reaction so disgustingly disturbing in light of his recent accusations against Israel for going after Hamas. Unfortunately, now he know's what it feels like.
I hope he's saying TY to Dubya for helping to spread this terrorist filth. Hey it's not anyone's intention there obviously, but it's beyond disbelief at their arrogance about the whole matter IMO.
I think Geldof has a lot more to say than some of our world leaders these days. No surprise there.
^Totally agree.
I just read in the newspaper this morning that Canada is/was included in the Al Qaeda's Top 5 Countries To Bomb list. Apparently, Osama had a change of heart a while back (hmmm......possibly because we're the portal to the US?), but experts are saying it's inevitable. Let me see......Countries that have been bombed...1. US 2. Indonesia ("Australia") 3. Spain 4. Britain.
Countries left to bomb........Well, I'm just hoping we drop to #6.
Thanks Dubya!!!
Well I think we need to reform SS.
t raider
Rhetoric, boys.
A little Nietzsche-ian like hammer?:
Those youths know that their rewards in fighting you, the USA, is double than their rewards in fighting someone else not from the people of the book. They have no intention except to enter paradise by killing you. An infidel, and enemy of God like you, cannot be in the same hell with his righteous executioner.
Comic relief: waggling the logic around to Bush causing this.
PS: Antidote to the responses, from Mr. Merton:
"It told me that all the evils of the world were the product of capitalism. Therefore, all that had to be done to get rid of the evils of the world was to get rid of capitalism."
The difficulties here are not the Crusaders of years past (as certainly some -- including Osama -- imply), any more than it was correct that communism made capitalism as the source of all evil, as Thomas Merton saw (^ quote).
If you think that the US and its actions are the sole source of these problems, you are pitching in the wrong ballpark.
Last edited: Saturday, July 09, 2005 at 8:12:54 AM
Rhetoric JJ? LOL good answer. Naw, thats just how I feel pal. Do people that express their outrage over terror scare you or did you just not have your coffee yet? Geez.
If you think that the US and its actions are the sole source of these problems, you are pitching in the wrong ballpark.
Haha go ahead and try and spin my comment JJ to your hearts content.
Last edited: Saturday, July 09, 2005 at 9:27:11 AM
I certainly don't mind spin :)
That tricky Bush fooled me again. I just didn't read far enough between the lines when he gave his speech at Fort Bragg.
General John Vines, put it well the other day. He said, We either deal with terrorism and this extremism abroad, or we deal with it when it comes to us.
Thanks for taking one on the chin for us UK. We love ya.
{WalMart free for over 24 months!}
@ Jangles
I really have to question that article you read. US number 1? How do they figure? Flying those airliners into buildings caught everyone off guard once but that kind of stunt is going to be hard to repeat. And anything less than that is so Columbine or McDonald's. Been there done that. There's over 10,000 of us that get gunned-down in the US every year. Yes sir, we'll shoot, poison, and burn you death in the good'ol US of A. We're proud to have coined the the term "going postal." You Canadians should suck it up and shoot for number 1. Woosie. 
{WalMart free for over 24 months!}
Last edited: Saturday, July 09, 2005 at 5:21:07 PM
@ Az
The comment was not directed at you. This "discussion" is directed at current events and current politics.
But, to comment on your response, I can only say that I find the polarizing of events to be aggravating and that is the way I feel about it.
@ else
All who find Bush the prime mover in the current world situation might want to read the words of Osama again:
"They [suicide bombers] have no intention except to enter paradise by killing you. An infidel, and enemy of God like you, cannot be in the same hell with his righteous executioner."
The last line says that the bomber is a "righteous executioner." Also, the "same hell" is not reserved for those people who died as the result of the bomber's act. (What does that mean? Maybe it means there must be a different hell or something???) Therefore, the person on the way to work in the double-decker bus in London was the "infidel, and enemy of God"? I don't think so.
Let me ask you (all): Why are retaliations against Arabs and Muslims in Britain now being called "hate crimes" and the bombings by terrorists and "insurgents" not called crimes?
Both are hate crimes and the bombing certainly seem much higher up in the "hate crime" list.
...I almost can't resist replaying a few of the recent spins by the media, who are doing such a disservice to everyone these days. I might, I love the Democrats. They are so predictable.
Last edited: Sunday, July 10, 2005 at 2:50:01 PM
Good post Flea. How sad the state of the US feels sometimes.
At times it seems as though Americans are too afraid, or not committed, to responding to our own problems the way we choose to do so elsewhere. JJ's post is pretty emblematic of that. He's so predictable.:)
JJ, to just dismiss the posts of others as just being rhetoric and then say to me what you just did is ironic. Sounds like you're laughing at yourself. It's a good laugh. Wow what 'discussion'.
And polarized events aggravate you JJ? Oh puleeeease, look at the topic title geez. Maybe look in the mirror too if 'polarity' bothers you.
Why talk politics on a gaming forum anyway? Oh I see...you're playing a game.
Last edited: Sunday, July 10, 2005 at 4:48:25 PM
Hey AZ.
And to think of all the billions we have wasted in Iraq too. $400 Billion could have gone a long way to shoring up our own boarder, port, rail, and highway security. I really can't understand how it's OK for the Republicans to throw that money away at mid-east sand and be so reluctant to spend it here. They don't want to "grow the government" I guess. Asses.
Anyone who was paying attention at the time Bush was making his case for invading Iraq could see it was very, uh thin. Now we have the benefit of hindsight, memo's of meetings, military documentation, UN documentation, and thorough examination of the made-up "facts" to now realize how the administration duped us into invading Iraq.
(On a side note; don't feel sorry for that journalist b**** Judith Miller. She's the one in jail for not revealing her "source" concerning the outing of Valerie Plame working for the CIA. Plame is the wife of Joe Wilson who pissed-off the Bush administration by discrediting the phony Nigerian yellowcake story. And damn-it, how was the administration going to sell the Iraqi war to Congress and the American people if the truth kept coming out.
Miller was a major player of selling the administrations angle on WMD's. Her modus operandi is to learn something (such as JJ's false intel regarding WMD's) then bounce the idea off of another (Chief) and write a story citing two sources. Slick.)
So Bush got the war he wanted and then couldn't even "win the peace" correctly. What a f***-head. There was a distressing story today in the Eugene Register-Guard.
http://www.registerguard.com/news/2005/07/10/a1.terrorwar.0710.html
Experts fear 'endless' war on terrorism
An Associated Press survey of longtime students of international terrorism finds them ever more convinced, in the aftermath of London's bloody Thursday, that the world has entered a long siege in a new kind of war. They believe that al-Qaeda is mutating into a global insurgency, a possible prototype for other 21st-century movements, technologically astute, almost leaderless. And the way out is far from clear.
In fact, says Michael Scheuer, the ex-CIA analyst, rather than move toward solutions, the United States took a big step backward by invading Iraq.
Now, he said, ``we're at the point where jihad is self-sustaining,'' where Islamic ``holy warriors'' in Iraq fight America with or without allegiance to al-Qaeda's bin Laden.
{WalMart free for over 24 months!}
Last edited: Sunday, July 10, 2005 at 6:41:14 PM
Farenheit 9/11 was on Showtime tonight - what a piece of crap.
No wonder Bush won his second term!
Well, I suppose you're entitled to your opinion since you paid for it by watching.
Still can't string more than three different sentences together eh DM. Still waiting... Sigh. Just goes to show how wrong W can get:
"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.
- US President George W. Bush"
You and him must read goat stories together. Does he read the big words for you?
Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?
- US President George W. Bush (January 11, 2000)
{WalMart free for over 24 months!}
Journalist b****
What a f***-head.
@ DM
Plenty of examples here of "foaming at the mouth" but please recall that Bush suggested that we not do likewise and keep the tone down. Let them continue on with it.
@ Rogue
I want to mention before it passes, that that was a good link. It is alarming to see kids who live so close together making the other side into an abstraction.
As the last paragraph notes though: "In a way, it's awfully simplistic to think that if people in such a ruptured society would just get together... Whether kids like these can change the world I don't know, but they're ready to find common ground even if the adult world isn't."
Last edited: Sunday, July 10, 2005 at 8:47:52 PM
Sadder still Flea is that the Iraq war bucks would probably not have gone to any of the things you mentioned to such a degree. Much less healthcare, education or the environment.
I agree with you fully about Judith Miller. What a lil' tory.
I enjoyed reading the story you linked. It doesn't take a CIA analyst to figure that out though does it.
Ugh, figures we have a Bonesman at the helm. They say kids that the Bonesman give themselves demon names ( who in their right mind...lol. ) Quick call Billy
Graham...Again!
Thanks JJ - looks like you're due an R&R yourself.
Did someone say boner?
Sadly, this crap was, would be, and would have been going on without US involvement in Iraq. I will gladly link all the stories here if I must.
Iraq's the fat kid on the team fellas....easy to blame things on.
"If you think that the US and its actions are the sole source of these problems, you are pitching in the wrong ballpark."
My "Word of the Month".
And again: The difficulties here are not the result of our actions any more than it was correct that communism made capitalism the source of all evil.
Capice (ga-peesh)?
Check out Bob Herbert's Op/Ed in the NYT today. Just the headline is enough.
It Just Gets Worse
By BOB HERBERT
The bombings in London should be a reminder that the war in Iraq has increased the danger of terrorist attacks.
There is no case or cause for linear thinking about the war and terrorism, IMO. Too much evidence is present against it.
Last edited: Monday, July 11, 2005 at 7:14:47 AM
^ Just remember that when we leave the house in the morning we are much more likely to be whacked by an American than al Qaeda.
{WalMart free for over 24 months!}
Good point. The murder rate for an American is higher in Washington DC than Iraq (80.6/100k vs 60/100k - this assumes a constant 160k troops in theater.)
"Cabbie in the wire!!!!!! Don't worry...if the tollboothes don't get 'em, the claymores will."
Be careful out there....watch those falafels.
We are much more likely to be whacked by an American than al Qaeda.
We need to remember that when it comes time to take care of our troops and emergency responders.
Last edited: Monday, July 11, 2005 at 7:50:36 AM
Oh - I almost forgot to bring home the bacon:
"The idea that al-Qaeda was no threat until we created it does not stand the slightest scrutiny of events in the 1990s -- from the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, to the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000 and, of course, the September 11 atrocity a year later. And no one seriously thinks that only America was in their sights. The ideology of Islamism doesn't stop at the superpower's borders; its ambitions sweep through Europe; indeed that is where it is breeding so many of its jihadists."
- London Times columnist Gerard Baker
Quickly @ this thread, Chief:
You have been a class act, Chief. Thanks for your positive work.
R&R.
PS: You were very right about SK. Why the fences are low...
Last edited: Monday, July 11, 2005 at 7:44:37 AM
Thanks dude - I really appreciate it.
Actually Chief, the murder rate is much higher in DC IMO. The ratio of live births to abortions in the District of Columbia runs pretty close to 1:1 some years.
And since you can spare a dime.... The USO has a paypal link too. Shall I link it? :)
Last edited: Monday, July 11, 2005 at 4:48:46 PM
I think that would be a fantastic idea....actually think I'll post two:
Here's another one:
Both are fantastic causes.
Yeeeeeeeep, that's right. It ain't over 'til the fat lady has sung...and waffles are served for all.
First up - Social Security.
I bring you the following from an email I rec'd earlier today. Slightly partisan, but I though "What the hey...what's not lately?"
SO:
Subject: Social Security
We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like
a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the
handle.--Winston Churchill
SOCIAL SECURITY:
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the
Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be
completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into
the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to
put into the Program would be deductible from their
income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the
independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the
General operating fund, and therefore, would only be
used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program,
and no other Government program, and,
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees
would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and
are now receiving a Social Security check every
month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed
on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal
government to "put away," you may be interested in
the following:
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from
the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the
General fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the
Democratically-controlled House and Senate.
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
"tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving
annuity payments to immigrants?
MY FAVORITE :
A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic
Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at
age 65, began to receive SSI Social Security
payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments
to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and
violation of the original contract (FICA), the
Democrats turn around and tell you that the
Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens
believe it!
I haven't had a chance to fact check yet - I'm sure someone will. I deleted the "pass this on" part of the email.
Well? Agree? Disagree?