jfields

I served too. After my honorable discharge, I'm a civilian again. I disagree with many of our actions, but support some others. I did, and I can disagree with him. The "soldiers know what its like" line doesn't cut it, because there is no consensus among veterans. Military service does not make most people into slobbering but obedient dogs. We retain the ability to think, evaluate and come to our own conclusions, regardless of what our government tells us. We followed orders when we were in, but that doesn't equate to a lobotomy.

So the soldiers that have served are all in agreement and the wussies that didn't are the ones questioning America's actions? I hate to break the news to you, but that isn't so. Soldiers, more than average citizens, know the cost and peril of what we are doing. They are the ones that have put their lives on the line by serving their country. Some of them back our actions, and some don't.

Really? How are you certain of the intent and reasoning behind their actions? If they had been going for the maximum death count, they could have done the same action when the buildings were at full occupancy. The Pentagon didn't have the density of people many other targets would have. My take is that they were going for symbolism. Rather than killing the most Americans, they targeted the symbols of America, to terrorize and show our vulnerabilities. Of course, I don't know that for certain either, but it sure looks that way. Yes and no. To go further, we need mutually accepted definitions of "terrorist", "soldier" and "war". Then we can start to talk about what the differences are between people and situations.

You are a lawyer, aren't you? Change made. His opinion can be valid for him, without needing to be universal for everyone. That extra step of acknowledging that others can have their own valid opinions requires a level of tolerance, acceptance and maturity I often see lacking in fundamentalists of many varieties.

But, amazingly, the process of acclimating to the insane heat dessicates one so much that in a decent rainstorm, you just dissolve and wash away.

When religious fanatics stop calling their personal opinions "Universal Truth", there will be less for the rest of us to mock. It is fine to have your own opinions, however weird, but offensive to tell others their opinions are less valid.

LOL Nice. Amusing, for the mathematically inclined.

I especially like the part about tornados, floods and tropical storms being retributions from god for our follies. Hello. Time to take a meteorology class.

Kevin, Attention KMart Shopper! We are having a special on hypocritical lunatic psychopathic freaks on Aisle 2. What a bunch of total nutcases.

And how was our "shock & awe" display anything but a carefully planned measure to try to instill fear of our overwhelming firepower and terrorize them into submission? Sometimes the main difference seems to be the technology and cost of the methods, rather than the intent.

So we foster peace and love by going over there and killing them? Think about that logic for a minute. How does starting a war do anything other than perpetuate their hatred? If that is the reason, it is pathetic. The two aren't that connected at all. So why are we fighting Iraq? Other than being pissed off at the last time we attacked them, what have they done to us? I'm not saying I like them, or that their goverment was good, but what American civilians have they hurt? Al Qaeda has, but they have dropped from public awareness completely. What are we doing about that? Why are we diverting so much of our financial and military resources to a secondary target? Iraq is really a minor peripheral factor in a real "war on terror". That goes back to figuring out why we are really there. Side question: As far as intent to injure, what is the difference between dropping a smart bomb in a housing complex and blowing yourself up in a crowded market?

I've been busy at work. Anyway, Mikkey did a pretty good job on a lot of the points. I'll pick a few: And our war against them is different in what ways? God, justice and right have been tossed about in our "defensive" attack of a foriegn country that hasn't been linked to the terrorist acts against us. Like bashing Muslims, calling them towel heads, or bashing the French and serving "Freedom Fries". We have not only claimed Iraqi lives are less important than American ones, we've acted on it, unlike the despot we deposed. When did he attack America, other than verbally? Like giving weapons to rebels in Central Amerca, Iraq, Afghanistan, southeast Asia, etc.? Whoops. That was us. Our operations or theirs? What about Bush leveling with the American people about the real reasons we are over there? The solid evidence of the weapons we supposedly went there to get? The clear plan for the reconstruction of Iraq? No, that would be too honest. It is far easier to continue the charade and point fingers at France and Germany, for example. I think the administration's view is totally screwed up, but I agree that they are indeed poor communicators. So because they don't like us, we should dislike them too, and try to kill as many of them as possible using any means possible. Once again, please tell me how this differentiates us from them.

If he actually wrote that, then he is even more of an ass than I thought. It is short-sighted, hypocritical and misguided.

Hang in there, Lori. We're thinking about you and your family!

I have gained the amazing ability to make up verses to Elmo's Song in the car and sing them to my daughter. I'm not blue, but I could be a superhero.

Okay... Lummy, Given those two options, take the wireless and laptop. But what about those $80-100 gizmos that transmit wireless on 900mhz and connect a PC to the stereo? Decent, or total crap? Flyingferret, Could do that. Nothing. I just want to play MP3s from my PC to the stereo. Interesting, but I'm not a gamer. Got a dvd player. So probably not worth the effort. Dterrick, Ballpark price? Yup, just output. No other devices. Trust me on this one. You haven't seen the house. It really truly falls into the "not practical" category. Between the computer area and the stereo is about 30 feet. BUT... I can't easily run under carpet. Going around has me dealing with going around two doors, a stairwell and a crapload of paneling. The other direction has a fireplace. Ripping up enough of the ceiling to run wire isn't an option either. Whatever I do, whether ethernet or 900mhz audio, will have to be wireless.

Lummy.... Focus, grasshopper!

We don't have a crawlspace, so under the house would be entirely under the concrete foundation slab. Then I'd have the issue of drilling through the brick and concrete. That would be WAY more of an expensive hassle than putting in a wireless access point or something. There must be something out there that should do the trick fairly cheaply and easily. The 900mhz band transmitters seem the closest, follow by the ethernet devices on a wireless network as the next price bracket up.

Bottom floor. Carpet over top of something, over concrete. I could possibly run it around the baseboards, but following the room contours would end up with a really, really long run (60 ft), and I still wouldn't know about the sound quality from the computer's regular audio.

Kevin, Thought of that one too. I suppose it is an answer, but here I run into the aesthetics and space of storing a complete system in the living room. Although if I did it, at least I'd have music while I slept on the sofa. A cheapy laptop with a good sized hard drive would work, but I don't have one.

A cheap answer like that sounds good, except running 35-40 feet of exposed stereo cable over the top of the carpet is a definite no-go. I also don't know how good it would sound off my el-cheapo sound card.

Hey audio geeks.... I am looking for a good way to get my MP3 collection more usable. I have lots of music, and I like being able to shuffle through more than just 5 CDs in a changer. So, what are your suggestions? Here are the relevant details: Stereo in a separate room from computer (about 30-40 feet). Carpeted floor (so running cat5 would be a pain). Ethernet network, but no wireless. Price is important, as is sound quality (must be at least decent). Some of the things I've been looking at: http://www.slimdevices.com/ Pricey, would require network cable or wireless ethernet. Supposedly very good sound quality. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1131642,00.asp Much cheaper, but not as good quality due to 900mhz band broadcast. Other contenders? I'm leaning towards cheap. Thoughts?

No sweat. Get better, get off the meds, then I'll taunt you online later. I person, yes, the agreed upon boobies, beer and chocolate milk.

I was more thinking of some duct tape and a cattle prod, but I suppose you can put me down for a pair of hip waders instead.

If he is, he will make out like a bandit on the lecture circuit and with the corporate donations he'll be able to receive once out of office. I won't weep at all if he becomes unemployed. But if I saw him homeless on the other side of Pennsylvania Avenue; and he asked nicely and apologized for being deceitful, I'd buy him a happy meal. PS I wouldn't get into politics with you, except you keep taunting me like that! When we meet, you'll have ease up on the wide open places for jabs.