idrankwhat

Does this stuff just come to you or do you have to work at it?

"Shhhhhh"

Did he also say "these aren't the droids you're looking for" while waving his hand in a side to side motion? One of his advisers needs to tell him that his midichlorian level is much too low to pull this one off.

I guess whoever is paying for the abortion. Unfunded mandate? What are you talking about? The same thing you're talking about, gov't intervention in personal medical matters where the gov't gets the final say instead of the Dr. or patient That will happen shortly the Bush regime declares martial law and takes away most, if not all, of our civil rights. The question, as well as the one after it that you also didn't address, is still there if you want to answer it.

Who's going to pay the bill for the mandatory medical procedure? Taxpayers? That aside, I find it interesting that small, unintrusive gov't types would think that government should be allowed to intervene between a Dr and his/her patient. I wonder if that will change when government decides that there are too many people here and that abortions should be mandatory. Hey, what's your take on forcing Americans to look at these pictures before they vote? edit: or gas up their cars? http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_page1.htm

Yea, in Q2-"What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?", he does bitch about what he perceives as our immorality and other aspects of our life that he doesn't approve of. But those aren't the reasons that he gives for attacking us which are addressed in Q1, "Why are we fighting and opposing you?". But you're right. That message is there. And it's another example of how the Bush administration cherry picks and misrepresents subtexts to bolster their argument while ignoring the obvious and clearly stated rationale that they don't want Americans to even consider bringing in to the national discourse. For those others who haven't read it: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html

Okay, I have a whole bunch of why questions now (on a tangent)...Why, after what you certainly know what he did, do you care about anything bin Laden has to say? Why is it so important to expend that much energy to put any measure of care to it? Why would you NOT want to know why someone attacked you?!?!?!?!?! Ignoring the source of the problem does nothing to solve it (even though addressing it will get you kicked out of the Presidential race. Ask Ron Paul). If flies keep bugging you what's the best way to deal with them? Just keep swatting at them and killing them or get off your ass, look around and then remove the dead carcass that's lying right behind you? (Of course if you've built your shelter out of dead carcasses then you really can't bitch when flies start bugging you.) Why do you allow mere political inconveniences to discard what your nation's leadership has to say so easily? I'm not in the military and I haven't sworn to obey orders from the Military's commander in chief. So I have the liberty to question what he says when it fails any semblance of a logic test. Saying that they attacked us because "they hate freedom" is just plain stupid. And I always question my leadership, especially when they have a recorded history of agenda and deceit. Back on track: Why do you think dishonoring the Memorials of fallen soldiers is the same as setting an SUV on fire? One statement is pretty clear, the other is not, therefore your desire to know why supersedes your sense of "good manners"? Both are political statements made symbolically in a manner that ultimately backfires. And for each, if I had the chance I would ask both parties, "what the hell were you thinking" as I turned them in to the police, volunteered to testify against them, and applauded when they were convicted. I don't know if you think you're being pragmatic about it, but you're not. In essence, your desire to know why could be drawn as a desire to see more of this crap. That makes as much sense as "they attacked us because they hate freedom". I know that you're pissed off at them for the desecration of the military grave sites but simply because I propose a potential rationale for the actions doesn't mean that I condone them. "Oh look, they did it again! I wonder what they're still trying to convey?" The "why" is not usually considered in a crime. If a Pro-Lifer kills a doctor, society does not care why. Society cares more about, who, what, where, when and how. The why is irrelevant. The "why" is never irrelevant (unless you're taking orders from a superior officer). If you ignore the "why" then you're destined to treat symptoms instead of fixing the problem. Admittedly, in many cases, the "why" won't have any effect on the outcome but it's still important to understand.

Hey Jakee - did you see this one? Yep. And I am genuinely surprised. I would say though that while I completely disagree with the statement I don't think idrankwhat was actually trying to defend the vandals. I know if I was trying to defend someone I wouldn't compare them to pro-life murderers. (I can never get over the irony of that) Nope, I wasn't trying to defend them in the slightest. It was a f'd up thing to do, as is burning an SUV to protect the environment or killing a Dr. or dropping cluster bombs while wearing a "Life is Sacred" T-shirt. But I guess I should have recalled that many in this forum often limit themselves to binary thought. You know, black/white, with us/against us....hell....you can grow up to be a radio talk show host or even President thinking like that so maybe I'm the one with the flawed thinking. I mean, why ask "why" when it's so much easier to have my sound byte handed to me so I'll know what to think? I was originally thinking that it's quite possible that the original thought may have centered around the idea of the US being turned into a fascist entity through the actions of this administration. There's an argument to be made there (although it's not a black and white one). Putting the swastika on a bunch of flags may be a way for someone to try to make that point, not necessarily meaning to attack the soldier in the grave but simply using the recently placed and convenient banner. Then again, the caveat that I placed at the end of the post was there because I realize that it's also possible that my assumption was completely wrong and that it was the work of a seriously screwed up person. Sorry, maybe it's too "liberal" of me but I have a tendency to ask "why" when I hear about extreme actions. Sometimes I'm wrong but it's a habit that makes me do things like go read bin Laden's open letter to the US instead of just listening and agreeing with my President when he says dumb shit like "they attacked us because they hate freedom".

I don't have the time right now but I may follow this up in a day or two, unless someone else does it. Anyone else want to dig up the nature of the pork in the previous defense spending bills? I'll bet the beneficiaries aren't considered "working poor". My guess is "lobbying wealthy". And no, it doesn't make me wonder anymore. Psst...higher wages equals a net gain in payroll taxes... Damn it. There they go again, paying for things. Don't they know that "spend, borrow and spend some more" is the path to fiscal responsibility?

My only guess is that it was the result of a well intentioned political statement that was totally f'd up in execution. It's not much different than eco terrorists who burn suvs or PETA or anti abortionists who kill Dr's or blow up clinics. I could be wrong though, it might just be some really f'd up people. We have those 'round here.

I don't have the time right now but I may follow this up in a day or two, unless someone else does it. Anyone else want to dig up the nature of the pork in the previous defense spending bills? I'll bet the beneficiaries aren't considered "working poor". My guess is "lobbying wealthy". And no, it doesn't make me wonder anymore.

You don't think there are AQ cells in New Jersey right now? Do you think the war in Iraq is making it any more difficult for AQ cells to operate in New Jersey? Some people have a hard time grasping concepts that they don't want to accept, such as the reality that the 9/11 terrorists trained here in the US but not in Iraq. Or that al-Qaeda was not welcome in Iraq until we let them in. Or that we're currently sending $millions/month in aid to a country who harbors the terrorists who attacked us and was until recently a significant nuclear technology proliferator. Must just be too much truthiness for some people to handle. Unsubstantial chest thumping sound bytes must be easier to remember.

I would have loved to see a provision written in that stated "you can have all the money you're asking for in this umpteenth EMERGENCY request if you show us precisely how the funds going to the Pentagon are going to be allocated. I'd like to see how much is "for the troops" and how much is going to KBR et al. so they can burn up brand new computers and blow up tanker trucks so they can buy a new one instead of changing a tire. That's the kind of crap that needs immediate de-funding.

You need to warn me 'cause you made me shoot diet coke out of my nose on that one. Right wingers bitching about pork......yea....pull the other one What's the matter, didn't they add enough?

The troops will get their money. Everyone has already stated that. Military payroll is probably one of the lesser expenses. Everyone else is getting their money, and then some.

By that logic, let's follow examples of other former presidents. Andrew Jackson regularly engaged in duels, and killed a man for casting slurs upon Jackson's wife. I suspect our cowardly president wouldn't partake. We know it for a fact. Don't you remember this: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/10/03/iraq.bush.duel/ Sure would have saved a bunch of lives and money. $0.02

Gee, and here I thought that we were arguing over "money for the troops". I knew it was bad but blowing up a truck and buying a new one so you don't have to change the tire is pretty f'd up. This is so wrong on so many levels I really wouldn't know from which angle to approach a discussion. Edited to add: HOLY CRAP! How do these people get elected? This idiot from GA thinks that this is simple capitalism at its finest and that this is a case of hollywood types just doing a little profit bashing. Unfreakin'real! http://youtube.com/watch?v=LsNM5zbe4Pk&watch_response

There it is again. The old "Clinton did it" excuse Actually, between the Queen's visit (and that "Dick" VP) last week, and Captain Popularity's visit this weekend, I'm getting sick and tired of Monarchs.

When will this plague of a Presidency go away? I mean, you can (almost) debate the validity of his war. You can debate the merits of his economic strategy. You can debate his ideas on Social issues. But there's no debate about this one!! Screwing with skydivers on a sunny spring Sunday morning is simply UNACCEPTABLE!! " Flight training, practice instrument approaches, aerobatic flight, glider operations, parachute operations, ultralight, hang gliding, balloon operations, agriculture/crop dusting, animal population control flight operations, and banner towing operations are not authorized. http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_7_1065.html

Congratulations! But realize that you are the exception, not the norm. If you didn't check out Nightingale's post above, you should. Even their own VP's admit the problem. Admittedly though, if MS is working for you without any problem then I wouldn't change a thing.

That shit'll kill you quicker than "natural causes"! 1 out of 83,500 people each year succumb to it. I heard they were going to ban it but Congress caved to the bath tub lobby.

That seems reasonable from a biomass mass balance standpoint but what's missing is the amount of fuel that it takes to produce the grain for the raising of the cattle. This is from the National Geographic article that came to mind when I started reading the thread. "Weighing in at 1,250 pounds (567 kilograms), Marina Wilson's champion steer Grandview Rebel is ready for auction at a county fair in Maryland. Raising this steer has taken an agricultural investment equal to 283 gallons (1,071 liters) of oil, represented here by the red drums. That includes everything from fertilizers on cornfields to the diesel that runs machinery on the farm. Overall, it takes three-quarters of a gallon of oil to produce a pound of beef." http://green.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/end-cheap-oil.html

Wouldn't that figure depend on the diet of that human? Considering trophic efficiency is poor, ~10%, and that most of our grillable protein sources are fed grain instead of grasses, wouldn't that make the average carnivorous American much less than carbon neutral? Also, won't the trend be away from CFL's and towards LED's in the near future? If I'm not mistaken I believe that LED's are brighter and dimmable as well as efficient.

Gettin' kinda lonely at the top. It must suck to be the leader of a country full of spineless, appeasing, treasonist cut-and-runners who want nothing more than to embarrass the President and embolden our enemies.