GTAVercetti

They had a quote on The Daily Show last night...but tim russert was interviewing Nagin and asking why he did order a MANDATORY evacuation not use the buses that we all saw in the picture. His response (before they cut it off)? "That will be debated for sometime." Jon's response: "Yes, probably by whoever defeats him in the next election." And for me, I found it pathetic that he was asked DIRECTLY why HE did not use them and responds with "that will be debated" What? His ideas on the matter? Is he going to debate himself? He said they did not have enough drivers. That they barely had enough to get to the Superdome on Sunday. So he is saying that even though they had enough(barely enough is still enough) to get to the Dome on Sunday, there were LESS that were willing to get out of the entire area on Friday? Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

here are two good shows: Prison Break - silly concept but interestingly done Veronica Mars - seriously, check this one out...EXCELLENT Oh, and I will second or third or whatever that Scrubs is awesome. Too bad NBC gives it the shaft so much. Such a funny show and yet always gets a good serious message in at the end. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

rehmwa - thanks. Yes, a good fiscal party would be nice. If the libertarians would stop touting their weed agenda and just being silly, they might actually have that potential. Oh well. I would say splinter group, but I think they are small enough already.

Oh I pay attention. I just see through the trees. Sure, the immediate goals differ, but both sides want and do the same thing: The other side MUST be wrong To show they are right they will say how evil the other side is They both want controlling power They both would like to see the other gone Compromise is a last resort You partyline is more important than actual thinking And the kicker: both are tearing the country apart. Now, to me at least, you have proven to me you are not pay attention. One side continually condems what the other is doing while never offering any solutions. The other side is offering solutions and then defending themselves from the attacks. Obviously, you don't, or refuse, to see the difference For some reason you seem to think that telling me what is wrong with Democrats will convince me that Republicans are wonderful. It will not. You are absolutely correct, they offer very little in the way of strong solutions to a problem. However, I don't find Republicans to be doing all that great either. Giving solutions that do not work well is not a good solution. you can ask me, 'what is 2 +2?" all day, but if I yell out every number save for four, I am still wrong. The Republicans now are not about small government and less instrusiveness. They may offer more ideas, but I don't like most of them. To me, the only thing conservative about them is their morality. And just to reiterate this one more time: Just because I don't like republicans does not mean I love democrats. Try to see it from more than a binary method. Giving examples of how the opposite side of your coin is bad is not going to convince me that the other side is good when I don't like either. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Oh I pay attention. I just see through the trees. Sure, the immediate goals differ, but both sides want and do the same thing: The other side MUST be wrong To show they are right they will say how evil the other side is They both want controlling power They both would like to see the other gone Compromise is a last resort You partyline is more important than actual thinking And the kicker: both are tearing the country apart. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

And they say the same thing about cons. Right and left are two sides of the same silly coin Whew, at least I have never said that, but then I am not a liberal (at least not what I presume is your definition anyway). I just like to point out inconsistencies. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Well, the title would certainly explain the repeat of this link. oh well. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

The Daily Show is doing an "Evolution Schmevolution" series this week. Last night (I watch today), they went to Dayton, TN, site of Scopes Monkey Trial. The whole set up was how the town was just like Williamsburg and its reenactments. So they are talking to a lady who said evolution destroys faith and creates economics which are contrary to american life. I had to give some background to get to the punchline when Ed helms is talking about the town: "But don't worry, cause its all fake. If it weren't, it'd be fucking TERRIFYING" Anyway, check it out this week.

You must have faith in that things will eventually turn out the way they should and according to God’s plan. We weren’t given all the answers on purpose. In that, we must have faith. I don’t believe faith has as much to do with the historical accuracy or reliability of the Bible, though. There’s a lot of evidence in support of that. Let’s not make silly comparisons as with the fictional Harry Potter. We’re dealing with “real” people, places, and events here. I’ve found the following information interesting on the subject. I have much more detailed info in a .pdf file but it would take me some time to locate and post. Can we trust the New Testament as a historical document? Wasn't the New Testament written hundreds of years after Christ? Hasn't the Bible been rewritten so many times that we can't trust it anymore? Since the New Testament writers were biased, can we trust their testimony? One problem with your sources. They are from ONE site and it is Christian. I do not want to have this argument again so I am not going to voice my opinion on the content itself. But please, if you are going to show proof, find proof from somewhere that does not have a vested interest in the Bible being correct. For your own arguments sake. Just some advice.

That is not the point though. Bill has said, in plain words, that KJV is the ONLY true word of God. I am glad you don't think so, but he does. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

I am very glad to see him actaully saying something was his fault. Everyone errs in life. Its the person who does not admit it that I a skeptical of. Which is why I have been so skeptical of bush before. This is a good step. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Ok John... show me the proof, or admit you're just bashing. Show me a direct, verifyable quote that says "We will be out of Iraq in "x" weeks, or "x" months". I agree,, the administration never said we would be out quickly...but they certainly did imply that it would be a walk in the park. Look, just go read that interview on Meet the Press. I will even give you the link: http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/866526/posts There is a part there where Cheney says that we will be there till a government is established. so that is indeed accurate. But he also states that we will not need alot of soldiers to do it. There is NOTHING to imply that he thinks is will be the protracted mess that it is. Of course there is no direct quote. No politician would give an exact time period. But, read that transcript...or better yet, watch it, and tell me that the cheney does not mean "it will be easy". He mentions how little fighting will be done, etc. How can you read that and say that Cheney believed we would still be fighting a war (and yes, it IS still a war) to this day? The only way you can is if you have blinders on. Not everything in the world is always in black and white quotes. If it was, things would be alot easier, wouldn't it? I didn't think it would be quick or easy from the start. I don't think anyone did. I do take issue with the dishonesty of misquoting someone to make it sound like the exact opposite. Sort of a "are you still beating your wife" question. really, read the transcript and tell me that you don't think Cheney thought it would be simple. Not cost-free (he does say that), but simpler than it is. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Ok John... show me the proof, or admit you're just bashing. Show me a direct, verifyable quote that says "We will be out of Iraq in "x" weeks, or "x" months". I agree,, the administration never said we would be out quickly...but they certainly did imply that it would be a walk in the park. Look, just go read that interview on Meet the Press. I will even give you the link: http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/866526/posts There is a part there where Cheney says that we will be there till a government is established. so that is indeed accurate. But he also states that we will not need alot of soldiers to do it. There is NOTHING to imply that he thinks is will be the protracted mess that it is. Of course there is no direct quote. No politician would give an exact time period. But, read that transcript...or better yet, watch it, and tell me that the cheney does not mean "it will be easy". He mentions how little fighting will be done, etc. How can you read that and say that Cheney believed we would still be fighting a war (and yes, it IS still a war) to this day? The only way you can is if you have blinders on. Not everything in the world is always in black and white quotes. If it was, things would be alot easier, wouldn't it? Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Which is also stupid. Stop comparing the two at every turn. I do not understand why people can never look at the way a person does something on their own merit. With bush, it is always, "well, Clinton fucked up too here, here, and here.' Big fucking deal. Does that make it okay that because Clinton did a lazy job, Bush can be incompetent too? Now, if someone here says, "Clinton did this great and then Bush ruined it" that is one thing. Then bringing up Clinton makes sense. But to bring him up whenever someone mentions a dislike for Bush is a crutch. It weakens the argument and is a profoundly idiotic method of debate. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

His original word was in English? Ah, I'm missing something here... Yes, don't you get it? No one got it right until English came along. Everyone else was wrong..mostly because they could not understand what God was saying in English. What with them speaking Herbrew or Aramaic or whatever. So essentially, everyone following a Bible BEFORE KJ has gone to Hell because they were following the wrong word. Even though it did not exist and no one told them otherwise. Sorry, lets get back to the evolution arguement instead of a Bible arguement...that is what windcatcher's thread is for! Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Sometimes its easier to just ignore when someone points out your inconsistencies. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Feb. 7, 2003: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." March 11, 2003: Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars: "The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about. Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator." March 16, 2003: Vice President Cheney, on NBC's Meet the Press: "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months." Those quotes have been said before...And while I an certain that they did not think things would be going this badly, those quotes are referring to the initial regime toppling, not to the aftermath. From where do you get that idea? The Iraqis were supposed to be showering our troops with flowers, remember? And it's all irrelevant to the families of the troops KIA after the "six months" was up. Yeah, you are right. I thought I remembered a quote where Cheney said something to that effect (of what I just said), but I cannot find it. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Feb. 7, 2003: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." March 11, 2003: Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars: "The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about. Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator." March 16, 2003: Vice President Cheney, on NBC's Meet the Press: "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months." Those quotes have been said before...And while I an certain that they did not think things would be going this badly, those quotes are referring to the initial regime toppling, not to the aftermath. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Hey are there two people typing for you? One who is saying one thing and another saying something else? Is one of them unable to read perhaps? First you say, Bush is not to blame. Then you say that you never said he was at no fault. Then you say he is not to blame again. I really don't care what side you take, but it would be just awesome if you could stick to one and not say the opposite just to refute a point of argument. I said that I think there was failure on ALL government levels. I never said it was Bush's total failure. I have NO IDEA how you concluded that I said it was all Bush's fault from this sentence: And just so we are clear: I think failure occurred on all levels, not just Federal. You seem to see only what you want to see. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Now you are saying two differnt things....earlier in this thread you said Bush isn't at fault at all. Which one is it, no fault at all, or maybe a little fault? Nice try Bring up the line where I post Bush has no responsibility I will help him out: It is on the same page man. I mean really. I guess you could argue that the semantics of blame and responsibility, but in the case, I am thinking responsibility means he is RESPONSIBLE (or to blame) for the cluster fuck going on. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05254/568876.stm Chew chew chew......... That has NOTHING to do with the purpose of my post. I was simply pointing out how you contradicted yourself. That is all. And an opinion piece is just that. I will wait to see commission reports. And just so we are clear: I think failure occurred on all levels, not just Federal. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Now you are saying two differnt things....earlier in this thread you said Bush isn't at fault at all. Which one is it, no fault at all, or maybe a little fault? Nice try Bring up the line where I post Bush has no responsibility I will help him out: It is on the same page man. I mean really. . Thanks for saving me the trouble.

Now you are saying two differnt things....earlier in this thread you said Bush isn't at fault at all. Which one is it, no fault at all, or maybe a little fault? Nice try Bring up the line where I post Bush has no responsibility I will help him out: It is on the same page man. I mean really. I guess you could argue that the semantics of blame and responsibility, but in the case, I am thinking responsibility means he is RESPONSIBLE (or to blame) for the cluster fuck going on. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

And how many times have you responded to an opinion different than your with some derogotory remark about the Left? Granted, it may not have involved blow jobs but please do not try to say you are enlightened and willing to listen to the other side. I have seen few of your post that would indicate such a view. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

I assume that is FOX news. Yeah, they NEVER post inaccurate information. 24 hour news NEVER jumps the gun (this includes ALL 24 hour news) And I went to the REd Cross website. They said they are not allowed in because they want to get people OUT, not treat them in sewage water so they can stay in filth. That does not have anything to do with a State of Emergency being declared. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Oh yes. I was there. I swear. I have never seen someone so worried about getting pied in my life. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.