TypicalFish

Not true. We have also already demonstrated that an insurgency movement can be ongoing and successful. Point being is that I think they will be more willing to take action against those that they consider "oppressors". That would be us, by the way. "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

This is a good point, and one that is typically missed by people when they are supporting (any) President. "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

Mmmmmmmmmmm... Annnne Coulllter... "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

From the looks of it, I think that is a uniformed secret service agent. They are the ones who provide security (manning the metal detectors, etc.) at the Capitol, White House, etc. "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

I am always surprised at how tenuous our grip on life really is; one minute, you are walking along on your way to a family vacation that you have probably been looking forward to for weeks, the next; CRUNCH. I guess you just never know. Paris Airport Collapse "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

Correct. They have a corporate image for "wholesome" entertainment without a lot of sex, violence or one-sided political overtones. They have a right to maintain that image as they see fit. If they don't want to be associated with Michael Moore's production, that's their right. Except it wasn't Disney who were to directly distribute Michael Moore's film but Miramax, a subdivision of Disney. Now would you describe films such as: Pulp Fiction Scream Scary Movie 2 Kill Bill Vol. 1 Kill Bill Vol. 2 As "wholesome" entertainment? I'm not knocking these films, I'm just mentioning them as examples of high level violence and drug use distributed by Miramax. (source of film titles: http://www.imdb.com/List?distributors=miramax&&substrings=on) True, but I think you have to agree that their decision was probably based on the one sided political statement that Moore was purported to be making, not violence or drug issues. Plus, I don't think you will find the makers of those films making jackasses out of themselves at awards shows and screaming shrilly at every opportunity. I think they just didn't want the backlash and headache. Funny part is, I agree with alot of the guy's attitudes; it is too bad he dilutes his messages by being such a flaming a@#@#$e talking head. Not that Al Franken, the new darling of the liberal media, is that much better. "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

Been there; no words to adequately describe how much it hurts. Sorry to hear that, man. I said a prayer for you and your friend. Matt "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

You know, I am curious as to how this post was offensive to anybody. The reason that I ask (genuinely) is that I want to understand, so that I do not cross some line into an area where I am unintentionally insulting someone in my OWN posts. Can somebody help me out? My interpretation below: Am I missing something here? I am not being sarcastic, I am being serious. "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

I do tend to agree with you here. What makes me question the context it was written in and how applicable it is to today is that the last time this law was invoked was 1890... Also, it raises the question of why they had to go that far back to find something to charge them with. "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

From today's LA Times... Sorry for the length; site is password protected so I couldn't just post a link. Have to use EVERY legislative weapon at your disposal to keep those tree-hugging b@#$%#ds at Greenpeace down... Ashcroft Fishes Out 1872 Law in a Bid to Scuttle Protester Rights By Bill McKibben, Bill McKibben, a scholar in residence at Middlebury College In April of 2002, a cargo ship, the Jade, was steaming toward Miami carrying a cargo of mahogany illegally cut from the Brazilian Amazon. Two Greenpeace activists tried to clamber aboard the ship and hang a banner that read "President Bush: Stop Illegal Logging." None of which is unusual. The trees of the Amazon are logged day after day, year after year, despite a host of treaties and laws and despite the fact that scientists agree that an intact rain forest is essential for everything from conserving species to protecting the climate. And Greenpeace, day after day, tries to call attention to such crimes. It pesters rich, powerful interests about toxic dumping and outlaw whaling and a hundred other topics that those interests would rather not be pestered about. The Miami activists were arrested, spent a weekend in jail, pleaded guilty and were sentenced to time served. All in a day's work. But here's where it starts getting weird: More than a year after the ship boarding, the Justice Department indicted Greenpeace itself. According to the group's attorneys, it's the first time an organization has been prosecuted for "the speech-related activities of its supporters." How far did the government have to stretch to make its case? The law it cited against boarding ships about to enter ports was passed in 1872 and aimed at the proprietors of boardinghouses who used liquor and prostitutes to lure crews to their establishments. The last prosecution under the "sailor-mongering" act took place in 1890. The new case could be like something straight out of "Master and Commander." The matter goes to trial next week in a federal district court in Miami, and if Greenpeace loses, the organization could be fined $20,000 and placed on probation. The money's no big deal; outraged supporters would probably turn such a verdict into a fundraising bonanza. But the probation would be. The group might well be prevented from engaging in any acts of civil disobedience for years to come. If it crossed the line, the group's officers might be jailed and its assets seized. Since civil disobedience is what Greenpeace does best, the Justice Department might in effect be shutting the group down. That would be too bad, and not just for Greenpeace. The potential precedent here — that the government can choke off protest by shutting down those who organize it — undermines one of the most important safety valves of our political life. During the civil rights era, Southern sheriffs used every law they could think of to jail protesters — loitering was a favorite charge. Imagine some group being put on probation because it had helped organize sit-ins. But even J. Edgar Hoover didn't try to criminalize the NAACP. As the veteran civil rights campaigner Julian Bond said recently, "If John Ashcroft had done this in the 1960s, black Americans would not be voting today, eating at formerly all-white lunch counters, or sitting on bus front seats." As is the norm, this attack on political liberties is excused by the need for "port safety" in the wake of 9/11. But I've watched Greenpeace for years, and its members are the furthest thing from terrorists; according to the group, "no Greenpeace activist has ever harmed another individual," despite a record of direct action dating to its founding. in 1971. If port safety truly were the issue, the federal government would have made far more progress toward inspecting cargo arriving by sea. Confidence in the vigor of governmental scrutiny was not enhanced when it managed not to find the Jade's illegal mahogany and let it sail on from Miami. Two days later it unloaded 70 tons of the wood in Charleston, S.C. The real threat Greenpeace represents is that its members tell the truth, and do it obnoxiously, out in public, where it can't be missed. The Bush administration knows its environmental record is poor, and it knows that hanging banners matters. (That's why the White House printed up the "Mission Accomplished" flag for the president's May 1, 2003, aircraft carrier photo op). To spare itself embarrassment, the administration is willing to endanger core political freedoms that go back to the very founding of the republic. How far back? Dec. 16, 1773, at least, when a crew of patriots disguised as Mohawks illegally boarded three ships in Boston Harbor and dumped overboard all the cargo of tea. As the raiders paraded away from the docks, British Adm. John Montague shouted: "Well, boys, you have had a fine pleasant evening for your Indian caper, haven't you. But mind, you have got to pay the fiddler yet." Now 230 years later, it's Atty. Gen. Ashcroft playing the part of the British officer, and the words are just as chilling. "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

All I was saying. I stay out of the war debate for the most part for fear of being called: A Ignorant Puppet Of A Corrupt Administration A Liberal Bleeding Heart DemoKKKrat Raghead Or some other "label via viewpoint" that really has nothing to do with what my attitudes are. "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

Fair enough, though from an objective standpoint (as in whether you believe in the validity of the war or not) I think anyone would have to admit that to publicly tout WMD's as the primary reason for engaging in the conflict was a serious miscue. Truly, might have been better off public opinion-wise with "Saddam and his sons are BAD dudes and need to go." "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

One of the DJs apologized on his Web site, posting a statement that read, "I have become so numb to the horrific things that happen in this world that I sometimes forget there are still people who feel. I in no way meant to be insensitive to anyone. My comments on this were inapropriate (sic)." Yeah, that whole "DJ" gig is terribly taxing emotionally, I am sure. Give me a f%$#ing break. "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

But as CIC and President of our country; doesn't the "going to war" buck stop there? If he is skeptical; shouldn't he HOLD OFF ON TAKING OUR NATION INTO WAR until he feels comfortable with the facts? "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

I don't think I'm making excuses. These are things that are happening, or have happened. I think it's amusing to see how some people can't accept that. GWB said there would be a tax-cut: There was. GWB said there would be prescription drug coverage: There is. GWB said that standards would be implemented for education: They have. GWB said the war on terror (and any other way you want to phrase it) would be long, tough and we must stay the course: It has not been "long" and it has been tough and we are staying the course. GWB said that our troops have performed in a manner that brings honor to the uniform and our country: They have (with possible exception to about a dozen facing charges otherwise). GWB said there was be job growth (yes he did say 2M+): There has been job growth, he was wrong in the estimation. Still, over half-million in the first four months this year. GWB said the deficit would be short lived: Jury's still out, and he may be wrong. I am willing to do my part for us to endure it. Don't you ever get fed up with slinging sh*t on our President? True all of the above. Does that mean he is universally correct? GWB also said he was POSITIVE that Iraq had WMD's and that Saddam Hussein was an immediate threat, enough so to send Americans there to risk their lives and die. Not true, by his own admission and his administration's. Does that mean he is universally wrongheaded? What KILLS me about just about every thread I read on these subjects is that they always go back to the same common denominator: "Bush is our Saviour". or Bush is the Anti-Christ". "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

I forgot to insert my [sarcasm] and [/sarcasm] tags... "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

Well, I can say I was mistaken then. Not really, quite frankly. I guess we will have to see what happens. I mean, what ELSE is he going to say? "Naw, if they ask us to leave we are staying anyways." That's one of the great things about this administration (and most of the others, as well), they recognize that it is just words and sound bites; it's not like you actually have to DO what you say. "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

I HATE it when I invest a hundred and fifty dollars in something and get screwed. That's like what; 8 cases of beer? "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4978361/ "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

My turn to say it to YOU, Darius. Excellent post. Cutting through the rhetorical b#$%&@!t; I have never heard so many people "justifying" near-racism, bigotry, and xenophobia. Rock on. "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/05/13/private.space.ship/index.html I give it up to these guys for setting their sights on an almost unattainable dream and pulling it off. TOO COOL. "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

Think about it though, would you put all of your resources in an area over-run with enemy troops? I think you will find they are somewhere else on the map... "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

QUOTE: WASHINGTON (AP) -- Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will cost more than $50 billion next year, a top Defense Department official told Congress Thursday in the Bush administration's clearest description yet of the conflicts' price tags. To me, Iraq and Afghanistan hardly constitute the whole Middle East. I think the opposite case could be made that the war in Iraq has diverted much needed funds and resources away from homeland security and operations in other nations that have closer ties to terrorism than Iraq. Yes, the money will need to be spent because we are already there; but I think to connect it to stopping terrorism is a tenuous leap at best. "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

Interesting article, and I think a good read no matter where you fall on the issue. I think you are going to have a hard time finding anyone to say that Iraq is not better off with Hussein gone; or to argue the basic concepts of freedom vs. tyranny. Or, quite frankly, even to effectively argue that we do not need to continue to be involved now that we are there. I read most of the political/war threads on the board, and the underlying tone that I get from them is not so much a disagreement that the Iraqis are better off, but a disgust with the way that we ended up there. "It's all about WMD's" "Oops, none there" "It's all about the war terrorism" "Oops, the connection between Hussien and AQ is more tenuous than we thought" "Well, it's all about human rights violations" "Photos at 10:00, stay tuned". (The last one was said somewhat tongue in cheek). It seems that the justification for the war has become a moving target, and I think that is frustrating for alot of people and makes them question the integrity of the original effort. That seems to be where (again, just in my opinion) most of the debate seems to lie. "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/ "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET