idrankwhat

Outlook bad. Mozilla Thunderbird good. Internet Explorer bad. Mozilla Firefox good.

I liked this one: http://movies.apple.com/movies/us/apple/getamac/apple-getamac-security_480x376.mov

Sorry, it's part of my genetic BIOS. The one in Mad Magazine is crap. Works just as well as those x-ray glasses that I bought.

I got to thinking and had to come back. The highlighted portion shows your arrogance. I am only going the right direction if I agree with you huh If it's considered arrogant to want people to keep reading past the headlines and keep digging for additional information from numerous sources as opposed to reciting sound bytes, then yes. I'm one arrogant mofo.

OH NO3S!!!1! NOT TEH B3LLY SLAPZ!!!! I don't think what has happened is right - but equating psychological stressor techniques to acid pits, rape rooms and wood chippers is asinine, as well. I'm not equating. But I hate the fact that countries like China are now lecturing the US on human rights issues. You're supposed to lead by example. Not lead by "yea, well, we're still not as bad as......"

I never left 2000Pro, and I can't think of a reason to. I used to enjoy geeking out on the computer and I've built all of my machines. But I don't like being forced to geek on things that Microsloth should have figured out already. My next move may be towards a Mac. I've got too many friends who use both but only bitch about their Windoze machines. Windows security is an oxymoron.

It makes perfect sense. If you manipulate or exploit people for your personal benefit then you should understand that they will probably get upset and resist and try to retaliate. And if you read the links that you posted yesterday on the PFAW site it should be quite obvious. Keep reading, you are/were heading in the right direction.

Are you talking about the old, quaint torture definition or the new and improved Gonzalez version?

I had an interesting idea on the way in to work today when I saw a Prius blow by me doing over 80mph. I don't want to get into government mandating issues but what if every car had a large MPG meter displayed. I'd be willing to bet that when people started actually seeing how their driving habits influence the efficiency that people would change their habits in relatively short order. That action alone would save quite a bit of petrol.

The link you provided did a nice job of pointing out a number of important issues. First of which in my opinion is reevaluating our relationship with Israel. Our Congress and our media need to stand up to the pro-Israel lobby. I'm not talking about being antagonistic or inflammatory. All I want is for the US media to broadcast what is actually going on in Israel and Palestine. Fair and balanced (the real stuff, not the misnomer) reporting is all I ask. The rest would sort itself out.

I generally find it helpful to ask one question when something happens. "Why?" Then I usually try to find out but the sad thing is that you have to actively go get the information. What you get from the media is typically the repetition of a talking point, such as "they hate freedom". Usually those replies don't pass the "does that make any sense" test. Going outside the headlines and looking at the other point of view from a different source is helpful before you decide how you feel about an issue. OBL's "Open Letter to America" has been posted on the web for years. Sadly, most of America hasn't read it. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html As for the debate that this is likely to kindle, my cynical side predicts that it start out with a pro Israel talking point defense and probably not elevate beyond that. Hopefully, I'm wrong.

Very nice summary. Too make it worse, the Dems now need this war to fail. They have based thier power and credibility on it. The Dems also use history selectivly or re-write it all together. They just do not go back as far to do it as they used to. I just don't know what to say. I've started this reply about six different ways and have decided that it's a complete waste of time. But I'll go ahead and ask again. Define winning. What would be considered acceptable losses? How should we pay for it, increase taxes or dump it on our grandchildren? Should we have a draft in order to maintain our military strength? How do you attack and contain an ideology of hate/revenge/resistance to oppression/perceived justice? Can you do it with force or is that counter productive? Would you be willing to change your lifestyle at all to help solve the problem? Or is this discussion simply for the purpose of mental masturbation?

Considering all the damage caused by the W administration doing ill-conceived things, I'm thinking a cat that does nothing would be a marked improvement.

Maybe even a Sec of State too. I mean what's with Condi and this fraternizing with the enemy crap? I wonder what Cheney thinks about her antics. I'm sure that he's as steadfast on appeasing the enemy as he is on gay marriage.

Lousy leaders lead as well. Looking at your posts it appears that you think that a great leader...: A) Holds to his convictions, no matter how ill conceived, and won't stray from them under any circumstances no matter how obvious and dreadful the outcome. B) Pisses off the left. That about right? I'm guessing here, but it's not necessarily in that order is it?

Possibly, but it's more likely that they're not interested in building any new refineries. Here's a link pertaining to the last time this was in the national discussion. http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/pr/?postId=5110

Ok, here's the deal. First of all we ALL know that this exchange really has little to do with the subject matter and has more to do with the obvious personal issues of the posters. That said, when Kallend says that it's simple math it really is pretty simple. There are numerous voices, ex-administration and otherwise who have stated that the intelligence was being fixed around the policy. And there is ample evidence to show that that was the case. The policy was/is laid out on the PNAC website. Many of those members went to work for the administration. Members of the Administration asked for intelligence to link AQ and Saddam. Members of the intelligence community have stated that they knew what the White House and Pentagon wanted. Intelligence that ran counter to the stated goal was thrown out but ANYTHING that bolstered the argument for war, no matter how questionable the source, was laundered through the office of special plans and/or leaked to the press. Rummy called for a war plan for Iraq ON 9/11. Within two weeks of 9/11 Cheney stated at a luncheon that "it's not a matter of if but when" with regard to attacking Iraq. They wanted to do it. They said they wanted to do it. 9/11 provided the sense of nationalism that was necessary to "sell" the war (after August, because everyone knows you don't introduce a new product in August). They chose their misleading sales pitch language precisely. They attacked when it looked like the opportunity might be slipping away because of the inability to back up their claims. It really is simple math and all of the information that bolstered the now vindicated anti-war argument was available and quoted at the time. You just had to look for it a little.

When was the last time THAT happened?

If we're looking for liars, look no further The relevant clip is about midway through the video. The rest of it is just some nice, precise, related non-journalism from NC's favorite non-journalist http://video.lisarein.com/dailyshow/june2004/06-21-04-shrub-lies.mov

Yep. The bill was just a feel good to the public for electing them into office because of opposition to the Iraq war. Business as usual on Capitol Hill. You'll ( the troops) will get their funding. A day late and a dollar short I'm afraid. Sure, there's political posturing on both sides here. But Bush deserves the challenge and I think that the legislative leadership is right to remind him that there are three equal branches (supposedly) in our government. The war will get the money, that was never in question, and it won't be late considering that they won't start "running out" until July. That said, I'm surprised that no one has brought up the issue of this bill being an "emergency" spending bill for the war. This money should have been included in the President's proposed budget. I wouldn't call funding for a four year old war an "emergency".

He did just what they wanted him to do, and he's got a medal to prove it. I wonder where he keeps that little trinket.

There's no saying how he'd do. He'd probably hate it because the "schtick" is his thing and he probably has no interest, at least at this time, to do any "real" reporting. But the problem with the "real McCoys" is that they don't often do much more than repeat what's been given them. "Reporting" like that is what Moyer's program is about. Case in point: BILL MOYERS: Quoting anonymous administration officials, the TIMES reported that Saddam Hussein had launched a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb using specially designed aluminimum tubes... And there on MEET THE PRESS that same morning was Vice President Cheney. DICK CHENEY (MEET THE PRESS NBC 9/8/02): There's a story in the NEW YORK TIMES this morning, this is-- and I want to attribute this to the TIMES -- I don't want to talk about obviously specific intelligence sources, but-- JONATHAN LANDAY: Now, ordinarily information-- like the aluminum tubes would-- wouldn't appear-it was top secret intelligence, and the Vice President and the National Security Advisor would not be allowed to talk about this on the Sunday talk shows. But, it appeared that morning in the NEW YORK TIMES and, therefore, they were able to talk about it. DICK CHENEY (MEET THE PRESS NBC 9/8/02): It's now public that in fact he has been seeking to acquire and we have been able to intercept to prevent him from acquiring through this particular channel the kinds of tubes that are necessary to build a centrifuge and the centrifuge is required to take low grade uranium and enhance it into highly enriched uranium which is what you have to have in order to build a bomb." BILL MOYERS: Did you see that performance? BOB SIMON: I did. BILL MOYERS: What did you think? BOB SIMON: I thought it was remarkable. BILL MOYERS: Why? BOB SIMON: Remarkable. You leak a story, and then you quote the story. I mean, that's a remarkable thing to do. BILL MOYERS: And that's only part of it. Using the identical language of the anonymous sources quoted in the TIMES, top officials were now invoking the ultimate spectre of nuclear war -- the smoking gun as mushroom cloud. CONDOLEEZA RICE (CNN 9/8/02): There will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire a nuclear weapon. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." ERIC BOEHLERT: Those sorts of stories when they-- appear on the front page of the so called liberal NEW YORK TIMES. It absolutely comes with a stamp of approval. I mean if the NEW YORK TIMES thinks Saddam is on the precipice of-- some mushroom clouds. Then, there's really no debate. BOB SCHEIFFER: (FACE THE NATION, CBS 9/8/02) We read in the NEW YORK TIMES today a story that says that Saddam Hussein is closer to acquiring nuclear weaponsÂ… Does he have nuclear weapons, is there a smoking gun here? DONALD RUMSFELD: The smoking gun is an interesting phrase. COLIN POWELL: Then as we saw in reporting just this morningÂ… TIM RUSSERT: What specifically has he obtained that you believe will enhance his nuclear development program. BILL MOYERS: Was it just a coincidence in your mind that Cheney came on your show and others went on the other Sunday shows, the very morning that that story appeared? TIM RUSSERT: I don't know. The NEW YORK TIMES is a better judge of that than I am. BILL MOYERS: No one tipped you that it was going to happen? TIM RUSSERT: No, no. I mean- BILL MOYERS: The-- the Cheney-- office didn't make any-- didn't leak to you that there's gonna be a big story? TIM RUSSERT: No. No. I mean, I don't-- I don't have the-- this is, you know, on MEET THE PRESS, people come on and there are no ground rules. We can ask any question we want. I did not know about the aluminum-tube story until I read it in the NEW YORK TIMES. BILL MOYERS: Critics point to September eight, 2002 and to your show in particular, as the classic case of how the press and the government became inseparable. Someone in the administration plants a dramatic story in the NEW YORK TIMES And then the Vice President comes on your show and points to the NEW YORK TIMES. It's a circular, self-confirming leak. TIM RUSSERT: I don't know how Judith Miller and Michael Gordon reported that story, who their sources were. It was a front-page story of the NEW YORK TIMES. When Secretary Rice and Vice President Cheney and others came up that Sunday morning on all the Sunday shows, they did exactly that. TIM RUSSERT: What my concern was, is that there were concerns expressed by other government officials. And to this day, I wish my phone had rung, or I had access to them. BILL MOYERS: Bob Simon didn't wait for the phone to ring. BILL MOYERS: When you said a moment ago when we started talking to people who knew about aluminum tubes. What people-who were you talking to? BOB SIMON: We were talking to people - to scientists - to scientists and to researchers and to people who had been investigating Iraq from the start. BILL MOYERS: Would these people have been available to any reporter who called or were they exclusive sources for 60 minutes? BOB SIMON: No, I think that many of them would have been available to any reporter who called. BILL MOYERS: And you just picked up the phone? BOB SIMON: Just picked up the phone. BILL MOYERS: Talked to them? BOB SIMON: Talked to them and then went down with the cameras. BILL MOYERS: Few journalists followed suit. And throughout the fall of 2002 high officials were repeating apocaplyptic warnings with virtually no demand from the establishment press for evidence.