idrankwhat

I would ask him if he could answer the questions you posted but from the standpoint of a retired General. I'm not asking him to retire, just to be as candid, honest and open as possible. “The last thing that America wants, the last thing that you want, is for currently serving general officers to stand up against our political leadership” ........... “I think once you are retired, you have a responsibility to the nation, to your oath, to the country, to state your opinion” Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez (ret).

I agree but that would never make it in our media. Sensationalism sells. The "McNeil/Lehrer" approach would be more informative but the "Bill O'Reilly" version will make the headlines. Hmmm....maybe this sort of approach might be just the ticket. http://britneyspears.ac/lasers.htm

Perhaps, however it's best to make sure that voicing opposition to Israeli foreign policy doesn't get labeled as "anti-semitism". I've seen that happen a time or two, even here in SC if you can believe that!

Deal? I'll go first. See attachments.

You're the same person who usually argues about things that are not fair or legal. And I typically agree with you, but I use less "colorful" language. So when McCain posts a massive win in only the counties with Diebold machines, that "fair" in your book? It was a simple question, just like the one I asked about the 4th Geneva Convention. And yes, I can and will "bellyache" and I'm pretty sure that you didn't answer because you, once again, aren't interested in both sides of the story. If you would really like to discuss the topic, I'd love to do that. We can even make it a game if you like. I'll provide examples of how each side in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict violates international law and hinders the peace process if you'll do enough research to return the gesture.

Lets all remember this one when there is further bellyaching about the downtrodden poor Palistinians who get killed because their "freedon fighters" want to hide behind them. Yes indeed, using human shields are war crimes. Do you agree?

You mean like by maybe having our DoD contractors, at the very least, be able show us where they spent our money? A $1.2bn (£590m) contract for training Iraqi police was so badly managed that auditors do not know how the money was spent, the US state department says. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7057629.stm I'm pretty sure that the money for the "$1.8m X-ray scanner that was never used, and the $4m purchase of 20 VIP trailers and an Olympic-size swimming pool" could have bought a fair amount of armor.

Actually I thought that two 160 mph storms within a two week period last year fit in the severe column. Or do we only count storms that make landfall in the US?

If you've voted Republican or Democrat any time in the last decade and a half then you're most likely mistaken. Fixed that for you - they're ALL pigs at the trough. Sorry, I thought that was assumed. Thanks for the clarification. However, I will point out that since the changing of the guard the leak has slowed on earmarks.....errrrrr.... "congressionally directed spending".

If you've voted Republican any time in the last decade and a half then you're most likely mistaken.

It might make a nice freefly training tool!

Drive ins, the original "feel around" cinema. http://www.jibjab.com/view/196912

Guard number one is a senior on Klahn's mountain, and aspires to be a research chemist. Welcome, please, Hung Well! Guard number two is a real skating buff. A warm welcome for Long Wang! Traveling comes naturally to guard number three, as he's a licensed airplane pilot. Welcome, please, Enormous Genitals!

I sure hope so. The sad part is that whoever posted it won't likely get the reply. Flame on!

[middle finger]

The free market is a good thing. But as Nerdgirl pointed out an unchecked free market is not. A true free market is inherently destined to fall victim to greed which, like a cancer, will eventually end up killing its host. Free markets through deregulation or compromised regulation result in a lot of the problems that we see today with regard to our Federal government. We have a revolving door which allows lawyers, lobbyists and well heeled special interests to not only facilitate the election of the candidate of their choice but to also actually write the legislation that governs those special interests. Typically that results in legislation that hinders consumer protections while it uses taxpayer money to subsidize the industry via the Treasury. That's a double whammy against the taxpayer. See the Medicare drug program for a good example. Robert Reiche had a good editorial this morning that deals with my point about the type of government that an unchecked free market will provide. Robert Reich: Now let me get this straight: Some of the dollars I'm sending to Washington this time of year are being used to backstop Wall Street investment bankers, hedge fund and private equity managers, and anybody else associated with a borrower that's too big to fail. The reason they're too big to fail is they've borrowed so much from our pension funds and money-market funds that if they went bust, our savings would disappear. Even the danger of their going bust might make us so anxious we'd demand our money, which would close down the entire financial system. Now, the reason they've been able to borrow so much from us without putting up much of their own capital is they're unregulated, and don't have to put up their own money. The tax code also rewards them to treat the earnings they get on the investments they make with the money you and I lend them as capital gains rather than ordinary income. So many of them are paying taxes at a lower marginal tax rate than you and I are paying. Finally, when the risky investments they've made with our money go bad, we get a housing crisis, and the value of our homes -- our biggest assets -- plummets. And our pension funds get socked. Yet Wall Street executives continue to pull in whopping incomes. James Cayne, the former CEO of Bear Stearns, left the company with a $232 million pay package. That's because when they place risky bets that pay off, they get the windfall, and when their bets go bad, they're bailed out with our tax dollars. This just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. We want a tax system that rewards risk taking. But not any risks -- and not one where it's heads they win and tails we lose. And finally, (this is a lot longer winded than I intended) my last and most egregious example of corporate/government inbreeding was something I read about last night. John Snow, while he was running CSX presided over a period of aggressive cost cutting in infrastructure maintenance. During his tenure the railroad saved $2.4 billion. What it resulted in was a horrendous Amtrak accident that injured 77 people and killed 8. Most victims families settled quickly but one woman did not. She fought extremely hard (understatement) and was finally awarded a $56 million dollar settlement when CSX's policies of shoddy maintenance were exposed. So after it was all said and done, CSX paid out $0.04 in penalties for each dollar that they saved. And to top it off, CSX then pushed that meager cost off on Amtrack, which ultimately means that the money came out of our pockets. John Snow also bragged a few years ago at how he was able to run CSX and pay less than zero in taxes. So, how do we reward someone who runs a company in such a manner? We appoint him Secretary of the Treasury. It strikes me as odd the type of people who we hold up as role models for our society. Nuff said for now. Thanks for letting me vent.

Yes to both.

Constructionist!

Thanks for posting this. Now I don't have to. Wilder appears to be swiftboating the Koran. If you have any video of people beating babies we could put together a bible version? Psalm 137:9 (King James Version) Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. Edited to add: I wonder why Wilder isn't going after the Bible. Compare his first quote in his movie to Exodus 22:20. He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed. Throw in some "shock and awe" footage after that and your well on your way to being the next celebrity holy warrior!

1) Amazon. She's literally the fastest woman I know. 2) Billvon. I'd like to get him liquored up enough to take off the moderator hat and let loose. 3) Kallend. I owe him dinner for repeatedly using his safety presentation. 4) Wendy and Nerdgirl. They stimulate the brain, all the way down to the stem. 5) Simon. He's close by, level headed and always has some nifty movies to share. 6) Rehmwa. The party will need the occasional infusion of insightful cynicism. Besides, he's been too quiet lately. 7) Rushmc. I feel the need to meet the person I disagree with the most. But on one condition, we need to also do a jump together. Nothing like skydiving to elucidate what's really important. 8) Lawrocket.His posts are worth reading so his company is worth having. Besides, my kids want to play with lisamariewillbe. 10) Everyone else I didn't mention. 10 people is too few and you all would be welcome. edited to add: How Bonfire can you get? Bush sucks! There, that's better.

Domestically, the closest thing I can find to actual "news" is on NPR during the morning and evening commute, or McNeal/Lehrer. I rarely get to watch the latter any more. Everything else is pretty much "Entertainment Tonight". We can do "The Innuendo", we can dance and sing When it's said and done we haven't told you a thing. We all know that crap is king, give us dirty laundry.

Um...yes he is, http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/obama-to-clinto.html McCain is not doing as much as he could to take advantage of the democratic party imploding on itself. He's actually in a good spot. Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama are playing the media while Sen. McCain get's almost zero coverage... I don't know if McCain having it all wrapped up is a good thing or bad. Getting zero coverage is not necessarily good because he needs some energy going into the election. As Ozzy put it, any publicity is good publicity so McCain either needs to bite heads off of doves or do things like go on middle east tours on the government teet to stay in the headlines. Obama and Hillary going at it over issues that are driven by the right wing noise machine will help neither of those candidates. They're running a tough line between distinguishing themselves from the other and tearing down the other potential nominee. It's indeed a tightrope. However, you'll notice that this thread is doing precisely what the OP was talking about. We're not scrutinizing McCain's tax returns or his ties to support from loud mouthed, over zealous, cross wielding hate speakers as feverishly as we are those of his opponents. Again, a "liberal media" WOULD cry out so