EvilMonkey

QUOTE(Steff @ Aug 10, 2007 -> 10:35 AM) "Leave your hat on" Tom Jones yeah, that one! Although the version i was thinking of had someone else singing it.

'Keep your hat on' by I-can't-remember-who.

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Aug 8, 2007 -> 11:28 AM) First, do you have proof YOU? Asking for proof? You are kidding, right? Have you ever offered up proof for any of the insane things even the liberals on here slapped you down for calling people racist if they were white don't like illegal immigration? You need to go back to the kids room.

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Aug 8, 2007 -> 11:20 AM) We did not invade Iraq on the grounds of self-defense from our planes being shot at in the no-fly zone. You asked I answered it. Sorry that it doesn't fit your warped world view. Or were they firing off those SAM's by accident?

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Aug 8, 2007 -> 10:36 AM) Does anyone here think that had Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that the war at this point would be considered to be more successful? One more question. Does anyone here think that Iraq was actively seeking to attack America, with weapons of mass destruction or by other means? They attacked America every day when they shot at our planes patrolling the no-fly zone prior to the invasion.

Ozzie makes the call, but I also wondered why he didn't try and steal before bunting, especially considering how bad the hitters looked all night. Oh well.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Aug 7, 2007 -> 08:52 PM) Well, if somebody would have let me know it was Light Work Tuesday I'd have been on and I'd have bought popcorn for everybody. I like popcorn.

I read about this last week. It didn't say it in this story, but apparently his WIFE works for TNR. No bias there, eh?

QUOTE(Soxy @ Aug 7, 2007 -> 11:59 AM) I disagree about the construction zone thing. When workers are present it always makes me just nuts when people are still zooming around so fast. I do get irked when you have the work zone speed limit, but no workers. Regardless, I don't speed in construction zones--it's too dangerous. not too get too far off on a tangent, but I remember a few years back when they first started the increased fines in construction zones, it was a kneejerk reaction to a worker being killed by a speeder. They failed to mention that the speeder was drunk. or that of the 7 previous fatalities in the previous 7 years, 6 of those were also from drunk drivers, and one was from a worker who backed over a coworker. So regardless of the fines, etc, the drunks were going to speed anyway. So all that fine does is screw you or me if we happen to be going fatser than 45 and a cop was bored. or we get nailed by a f***ing camera, which is also bull. It is revenue generation under the guise of worker safety.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Aug 7, 2007 -> 01:15 PM) GoSox, what's your solution? Get a bigger tinfoil hat.

Like what Soxy said, if it is already a low crime area, I guess there is no harm. But with the exception of school zones, speeding should be at the low end of the priority scale. it is just a money making scheme, just like Chicago's traffic cameras. And just like the increased fines in construction zones.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 1, 2007 -> 07:55 AM) Because they have tried making this a "political" thing... that's the real reason why things haven't gotten done over there like it needs to. And that's squarely on this administration. Stop the pansy ass waivering back and forth because of "poltical consequences", get it right, and THEN get out. But not until then. THAT is the point I tried to make earlier.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 31, 2007 -> 09:07 PM) So basically the argument is that: a. We should accept it being bad, because it might become worse if we got ourselves out of the way. b. 4.5 years into this, it's time for a plan. c. Because some people hold up Bush=Hitler signs, everyone who is vocally against this war is therefore wrong and has no standing on anything. A. I never said that we should accept it being bad. I didn't want to be there in the first place, but like a bad lease, you are stuck until you can finish the deal. If we just get out of the way, it WILL get worse. So when the Dems orchestrate a pullout, and you see a genocide on a scale never before seen in Iraq, will the Dems blame that on Bush as well? B. It is time for a plan. that will work. They have had plans, and so far, they have NOT worked, as the whole world can see. They need a plan that takes into account the only objective, which is winning, and not worry about whatever PR may come out of it. I don't care if we piss off a few thousand more Muslims, or the UN, or whoever. Just win. If the current people in charge can't find a way to do that, get some new ones. But winning isn't just 'pulling out'. C. Nice leap to assume I mean all war protestors arr wrong. As with every point, people are on both ends of the spectrum. There are crazy people against the war whom I would classify and nutroots. Murtha. That Sheehan b****. Just about anyone who posts on DailyKoz. You can be against the war and not be a total dips***, but for some of the more vocal ones, that is hard to do. You can continue to argue this amongst yourselves. I am going to blow my money in Vegas. See you all in a week.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jul 31, 2007 -> 05:11 PM) I don't mean to be crass but rather direct, so please do not mistake that as writing on a message board is a poor medium for inflection, etc. Explain how exactly we're nutroots when every possible explanation for this invasion that was given was proven false. Explain how exactly we're nutroots when the antiwar movement was pretty much right about the entire damn invasion rhetoric BS that 70% of the public bought as a bill of goods back in 2003. The US needs to GTFO and set up a Marshall Plan style assistance package for the country that we recklessly f***ed up beyond recognition in an aggressive, pre-emptive war. The scariest thing about the war is not the amount of Iraqi and US dead/wounded. It isn't the fact that the country is damn near FUBAR. It isn't the amount of mental/physical trauma that US soldiers and Iraqis are facing even after they have finished with combat. What I find severely frightening in Iraq is US taxpayer dollars going to private mercenary fighting firms such as Blackwater USA who have no oversight or accountability for their actions within Iraq. There is no oversight from the US government, despite being a paying customer, for any actions that Blackwater may perpetrate inside Iraq or any other place where they are stationed. You will note that I am not arguing that things are going great there, or are even on the right course. I think it has turned into a pretty big clusterf***, and I think most of it is because the people on the ground either don't want to do what they need to do, or can't do what they need to do, because of political concerns here and abroad. Now then, as for nutroots, I am referring to the fringe element of the Dems that is of course the most vocal (as most fringle elements tend to be, whichever fringe they are on) that typically refer to Bush = Hitler, no war for oil, etc. LCR, as anti-Bush as you are, you are not some raving lunitic standing outside Bush's ranch with Bush = Hitler signs. I will agree that we need a plan, but you cannot put a firm date on it for withdrawal. You can put down things like if the Iraqi's haven't done x by a certain date, they pay us a huge amount of money. I like that. But even you have to realize that if we just pull out, even if you set a date of 6 or 9 months down the road, the place will become even worse than you claim it is now. You might as well let Iran just annex the whole place right now, and execute about half the people there who happen to be the wrong type of Muslim. We need a plan, that doesn't take into account how it might play on the 6pm news, or if it will offend France or the UN, we need a plan that will accomplish whatever the objective is. It is war, war is dirty, even when played by the 'rules'. People die, sometimes civilians, lets just make sure that it is the bad guys doing most of the dying. And every time I hear that 4 American soldiers were killed in Iraq today, I also want to know how many bad guys were killed that day. Let me be clear, I don't want the US to be there. I would have been happy bombing Saddam back in to the 13th century so he can go visit Allah. But we need a plan that goes with a victory. How do we get that? I don't know. Maybe one of the generals knows, but what is holding them back? Politics.

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Jul 31, 2007 -> 03:45 PM) so should we jump for joy every six months when something goes right and than forget that the country is in complete havoc and thousands and thousands of people are dead. Nope. but you shouldn't be despondent when good news, however slight, shows up, just because you chose to ride with the Nutroots.

The whole point is just as Kap summarized, that good news in any form is bad news for the Dems, since they are hanging thier hat out with the nutroots.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7073001380.html Heaven forbid that there MIGHT be good news. He almost sounds distraught that there may be good news.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jul 30, 2007 -> 11:43 AM) We're talking during the Clinton years, 98, not now. I think at that time he'd have been interrogated and all that then sent over to Fitzgerald who had a warrant out for him. Who knows, though. At that time, you might want him quiet and dead. Back then, quiet and dead would have probably been the best thing. However, if you got him now, you bet your ass it would be broadcast everywhere, and he would probably get better healthcare than the Pres.

This was a good thing.

I guess those commercials with Wade didn't pay so well.

Yes, I will agree that it was poorly written. My intent was to show that due to the way it is written, they make an attempt to put the CIA's unwillingness to promise no torture as Georgie's fault. Half the people who read newspapers as their main source of info tend to believe whatever they read, and often don't get past the first few paragraphs. So Joe London reads this and blames Bush for not having the British cooperate in getting rid of Osama, when in fact, bush had nothing to do with it. The only logic involved is BDS, you know it. Oh, and the policy of rendition was also started by Clinton. I guess georgie just made it famous.

I think the Trump one looks much better. Different, yet also fits in with the surroundings.

If that would have been AJ it would have started an international incident.

Too bad it happened while CLINTON was President. But yet, somehow the Guardian manages to turn that into Bush's problem, even though he was still governor of Texas at the time. I wonder how come that isn't mentioned? http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2136651,00.html UK wanted US to rule out Bin Laden torture Richard Norton-Taylor Saturday July 28, 2007 The Guardian Ministers insisted that British secret agents would only be allowed to pass intelligence to the CIA to help it capture Osama bin Laden if the agency promised he would not be tortured, it has emerged. MI6 believed it was close to finding the al-Qaida leader in Afghanistan in 1998, and again the next year. The plan was for MI6 to hand the CIA vital information about Bin Laden. Ministers including Robin Cook, the then foreign secretary, gave their approval on condition that the CIA gave assurances he would be treated humanely. The plot is revealed in a 75-page report by parliament's intelligence and security committee on rendition, the practice of flying detainees to places where they may be tortured. The report criticises the Bush administration's approval of practices which would be illegal if carried out by British agents. It shows that in 1998, the year Bin Laden was indicted in the US, Britain insisted that the policy of treating prisoners humanely should include him. But the CIA never gave the assurances."In 1998, SIS [MI6] believed that it might be able to obtain actionable intelligence that might enable the CIA to capture Osama bin Laden," the committee says in its report. It adds: "Given that this might have resulted in him being rendered from Afghanistan to the US, SIS sought ministerial approval. This was given provided that the CIA gave assurances regarding humane treatment." British intelligence made a similar request in 1999, and obtained the same response from Whitehall, but in the event MI6 did not provide the information. But 1998 and 1999 were not the only times Britain had Bin Laden in its sights. In January 1996 the Home Office wrote to him when he was in Sudan. The letter, seen by the Guardian, advised him that Michael Howard, then home secretary, had "given his personal direction that you be excluded from the United Kingdom on the grounds that your presence...would not be conducive to the public good." mods, since my typing sucks, can someone fix the name in the title please.