likearock

It wasn't that no one cared Bill. No one knew about it. I watch the local and national news every night. Not a peep about it until lately. That's total bullshit - great revisionist history. There was plenty of discussion for quite some time - the only difference is that it used to be civil. Here's Laura Ingram on Fox News back last December telling Imam Feisal's wife, "I like what you're trying to do." But that was before all this ginned up fear and hatred got cooking in the blogosphere, isn't it?

No - it's similar to building a German community center in Jerusalem. What would be wrong with that? Actually . . . Catholic/Christian. Hitler was a Catholic. Source; http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm Good catch, Paul - that's really the relevant comparison if you want to bring the Nazis in - Hitler did his thing in the name of Catholicism just as al Qaeda did theirs in the name of Islam. Just as we reject Hitler's claim to represent all of Catholicism, we should equally reject al Qaeda's to represent all of Islam. Why the double standard?

No - it's similar to building a German community center in Jerusalem. What would be wrong with that?

So twist it the other way... Extremists recruit people under the notion that the west has declared war on Islam as a whole. We stand to benefit in the long run by spreading the word with specific examples like this mosque about how that notion is nonsense. Maybe the hell-bent extremists around today will think of it as a victory in their battle with the west, but we were planning on killing them anyway, so who cares? It's questionable that extremists will point to the establishment of this mosque as a victory in any case. Consider the person who is leading the effort (from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/opinion/17dalrymple.html): In fact, the jihadists feel so threatened by the peaceful message of this sect that it has been attacked numerous times. Here's one recent incident: No, the propaganda value for the radicals will be much greater if we block the GZ mosque than if we build it.

When George W. Bush addressed Congress 9 days after 9/11, he said: Strong words but smart ones since it is obvious to anyone that the vast majority of Muslims had nothing to do with 9/11 and were just as horrified by it as the rest of the world. But words are just words and actions will always speak louder, especially in situations where it's easy to pay lip service to a certain ideal. We say that we can separate Islamic terrorism from the religion at large but do our actions support that? We have been given a chance to act on those words by allowing a moderate Islamic mosque to open near Ground Zero. What a great opportunity for us to show the Islamic world that, in spite of the terrible aftermath of that day, we do not hold them accountable for it. To show we recognize that Osama bin Laden has not succeeded in "hijacking Islam itself". Instead, we hear our so-called "leaders" comparing the mosque to the Nazis putting signs next to the holocaust museum or the Japanese establishing memorials at Pearl Harbor. Those comparisons only make sense if we believe that Islam, not al Qaeda, attacked us on 9/11. In fact, those comparisons only feed the false narrative that Osama bin Laden has hijacked the rest of Islam. Don't think that OBL isn't closely watching this story develop and will pounce on it for his own ends. There's nothing he'd like better than to be able to tell the Muslim world, "Look at that - American blames Islam for 9/11." Make no mistake about it, if the mosque isn't built because we can't separate Islam from al Qaeda, that is a significant victory for al Qaeda.

That explains it - Holly Narcissist must be a porn star. I caught it shortly after I posted it Caught which one? Tittle or Holly?

That explains it - Holly Narcissist must be a porn star.

That is good advice regardless of jump numbers.

would you also agree had she advocated breast augmentation? nose jobs? Considering the salutary benefit of those procedures to both the female and male populations? You betcha! I decree that from this day forth, all SC denizens shall add a "" whenever they type "You betcha!". Please don't. To me "You betcha" will always remain the sole property of Frances McDormand in Fargo and not of that other personality so fond of the wink.

One thing you will have to decide is if you want to spend all your tunnel time working on flat flying or you want to play around with the dark side. In one respect, you can become skilled more quickly by concentrating on a single body orientation. But if you really want to be a freeflyer, you'll have to go through the progression (belly, back, sit, head).

It wasn't just his aides, it was him himself. I say that having just re-read, in its entirety, the article linked in the OP. He's been setting himself up for this by clashing too directly, and occasionally too publicly (either himself using the cover of his aides), and the crap in the article was the last straw. The worst of it came from his aides. I suppose it's possible that the general condoned making those statements but, as has been mentioned before, he is not a stupid man and would have known what the consequences could be. On the other hand, all it would take is one or two aides who were clueless in that respect.

yes. I figure he didn't want the job anymore and to quietly retire wouldn't make him any publicity for his speaking engagements. The guy is more left than right on politics so a Fox News guy? I don't think so. I think with McChrystal gone and General P in charge Obama has some more problems bc he is all about offense and I doubt the rules of engagement set forth by the adminsitration will sit well with General P. I think McChrystal knew exactly what he was doing. It wasn't what McChrystal did or said in an interview that created the problem, it was what his aides said. The simplest explanation is that he was betrayed by his aides. The alternative, that he orchestrated the whole thing by having his aides speak on his behalf and thereby was forced to resign in scandal, is much less likely.

Yeah! The thing I hate most about Obama is how he tried cover up the fact that Pat Tillman died from friendly fire. You remember Pat Tillman, right? He was a true American hero. And that friggin' anti-Christ Obama tarnished his memory by totally lying about the manner in which he died, even keeping the truth from Tillman's own family. That was truly despicable. What's that? It wasn't Obama who did that, it was... Oh right.

Apparently, there is one in Goiânia. Or at least there was one last year.

@ Skyventure New Hampshire

Coupled with the difficulties in doing anything in 5000ft of water, where pressure is 150 atmospheres. That would be among the issues. The other big one is the possibility of subsurface cracks associated with the well. In other words, you plug the hole and the pressure forces oil out cracks we don't even know about yet. This thing is fucked up beyond comprehension. You haven't even touched on the worst part of it. A good deal of the oil is very likely subsurface - it takes a while to ascend 5,000 feet, even for oil. So even after the hole is plugged or the relief wells stop the leak, the subsurface oil will continue to wash up for months to come.

Quite simply - Joe is the best, bar none. My only advice is to book him early and often. He'll handle the rest.

Hey! The Guner and Mindwarp have a hard forehead. The Echo from Paragear is another economical option http://www.boneheadcomposites.com/8.html Is there any functional difference between Guner and Mindwarp or is it just styling?

Can anyone recommend a good open-faced helmet (not for camera flying) that has decent forehead protection? So many of them just have fabric up there (Aviator, Gath).

Indeed. Those assholes are screwing with TCP in a way it was never intended to be used.

Not sure I follow this argument. It seems to me they are regulating how content is transported on the net not what content is permissible. Never underestimate the complete lack of linear thought coming out of Washington DC. Applying 1930s era tariff requirements to 21st century data transport standards is the first indicator of this. You still haven't explained how net neutrality will lead to controlling content. If anything, allowing the telcos to configure packet priorities allows them to under-prioritize any content they want to suppress. http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/05/06/fcc-officials-lay-out-third-way-of-regulation/?KEYWORDS=net+neutrality http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704370704575228503914251096.html?KEYWORDS=net+neutrality Understandable, and even arguably benevolent. The FCC, by madating, "You will not interfere with content" and piece-meal application of 70 year old regulations keeps the door open to do what those regulations do to voice: regulate prices, provisioning of services, which in turn, can affect what content gets carried. I don't see it. First of all, it doesn't necessarily follow that net neutrality means price regulation or provisioning. That may have happened in voice but there's no evidence that the neutrality part was the causal factor in the price regulation or provisioning part. From reading your articles, it sounds like the telcos are trying to push that logical leap in order to increase their bottom line. As I said, it's very clear how the lack of neutrality could act as a back door to suppressing unwanted content. You just configure the packets for the undesired content at the lowest priority.

Its not the city counsils job to research every request. The proposed business owner need to educate them. Try explaining, to a whuffo, how loud a tunnel would be. Most of them would think it would sound very loud. How tough would it be to show a video taken outside of an existing recirc to demonstrate tunnel noise relative to the spoken voice? It shouldn't be too hard to show how the sound drops off considerably as you get further from the tunnel.

Not sure I follow this argument. It seems to me they are regulating how content is transported on the net not what content is permissible. Never underestimate the complete lack of linear thought coming out of Washington DC. Applying 1930s era tariff requirements to 21st century data transport standards is the first indicator of this. You still haven't explained how net neutrality will lead to controlling content. If anything, allowing the telcos to configure packet priorities allows them to under-prioritize any content they want to suppress.

Not sure I follow this argument. It seems to me they are regulating how content is transported on the net not what content is permissible.

This forum should have a FB "Like" button for posts like this.