idrankwhat
-
Content
4,211 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never -
Feedback
0%
Everything posted by idrankwhat
-
I heard/read the words. Mentioned it earlier. Sorry but ya gotta keep up. Was the question ignored or the answer
-
Good job. I hate those leashes. You should have asked if her kid had learned to sit or roll over yet. I hope she at least lets him sleep in the house and remembers to change the water frequently.
-
various answers: Idrankwhat - Pelosi and Reid, of course, they wrote the letter, Rush was just the middleman Oh damn, that hurts. Actually, I suppose the credit should go to the person who came up with the idea of listing it on ebay for the charity, be that Rush or one of his handlers.
-
Not trying to. Read my posts on this and all related threads. I thought the resolution was a waste of time. Fortunately something good came out of it, which is more than I can say about Kingston's resolution to commend Limbaugh.
-
You know you're just trying to be a pain don't you? Maybe I'll get Bill Frist to video diagnose a remedy for that pain. The only thing that might get in the way would be if Mitch McConnel wants to try again to appropriate $20 million for an Iraq Victory party.
-
Still kinda busy but how many hours did Congress debate the Clinton Christmas card list?
-
Nah, they're both spinning this. Rush was doing it to try to save face and Reid was doing it to either save face or because he just couldn't turn off his yackity yack implant on Friday. He bungled that one worse than a Dubya SCHIP veto justification.
-
Stoop? Are you kidding me? This is "par" Really? How about producing five examples of similarly trumped up nonsense use to attack a private citizen? Wow. Don't you think your task is a bit specifically designed to fit your agenda? Why not limit acceptable responses to people with the initials "R" and "L"? Man, it's amazing how defensive people can get when you poke at their deity. And just so ya, know, 'cause it you, if I didn't have a day job I might go look for examples. I'd leave you with a few emoticons but I can tell that holding Rush to the standards that he demands of others is a really touchy subject.
-
Heard about it on the way home Friday. Saw it on the front page side bar of the local paper Saturday. Just googled the news and see multiple links to major news papers. Next question.
-
Stoop? Are you kidding me? This is "par"
-
There's too much to list and I've got to step out to pick up my car. Maybe I'll put a little jiu jitsu masterstroking on another reply later. You're right about the money. He's got plenty of money and any publicity can be good publicity. I would have preferred that he bit the head off of a dove but I guess this will do.
-
Yep. No problem with Rush getting a taste of what he dishes out. I didn't hope for any of this but it sure is comical to see the spin machines in action. "Ok Rush, YOU WIN. Now pay up."
-
That's a "nice" summary? That article is nothing more than a full spin mental masturbation piece. It's a "masterstroke" allright, and probably the most expensive hand job I've ever heard about That aside, I really do think it's great. Rush makes a typical, arrogant, loudmouthed mistake, pays $2 mil for it and it goes to a good charity. It's all good!
-
I hate to point out the obvious, but when the bidding started going into seven digits I'm pretty sure that Reid wasn't the one who started stewing .
-
Probably not. But I was just answering your question on who was more likely to use the nukes. Looks like it's either the US or Israel. That said, I'm not sure where we, those nuke non-proliferation warriors, stand on the tactical nuke development. Apparently we cut the funding to the development back in 2005. Not sure what that actually meant for production. I also don't know how any tactical nukes that may be in Israel's arsenal might come into play.
-
Fixed it for you. Have you ever played poker? I'm not exactly sure what your point is. Yea, that's the whole quote. And saying that you'd like to solve it diplomatically does not change the fact that he left the nuclear option on the table. I think I also recall some talk of wanting to solve the Iraq issue diplomatically too.
-
Apparently, we get the leaders we deserve.
-
Silly? No. A little sad while watching someone run away from valid and even debatable information and be satisfied to embrace mockery as an argument? Yes.
-
It's really very simple. Look at what the document calls for. Look at who wrote it. Look at the PNAC letters and statements. Look at who signed them. Look at who worked for Bush's first term (the one that got us into the war). Look at Bush's foreign policy in the region both then and now. Cross reference, that's the easy part. Hell, they don't even deny that they're trying to transform the region. But you have to "look" and think. That part is up to you. Also, Bush's role in all this in the beginning was pretty much that of a tool. He didn't set the policy.
-
What Kallend said, follow the money. Look at his major donors and what they've received. Banks-bankruptcy laws changed. Energy-plenty of subsidies and fossil fuel friendly policies. Defense contractors-see above Wall Street-Bush came up short on that one when he couldn't get Wall Street brought into the bureaucracy managing Social Security. But again, that doesn't have much to do with the thread or the reasons for war. This does though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm
-
I've heard that story too, I just don't know many details about it, so I'm reluctant to draw a conclusion. I don't think Sen. Reid had as large a role in that as Sen. Clinton and perhaps a few "friends" in Hollywood. That reminds me. I never did get a chance to see that Reagan movie.
-
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/story.aspx?guid=A19C4E73B64D4C03B313A3A743078046&siteid=reut07 Yes, everyone is aware that defense companies make more money when there's a war... I'm speaking to the bullshit claims that the purpose of the war was to increase "war profits to his buddies". I wouldn't say it was Bush's purpose. It's just a predictable collateral benefit to the actual reasons for the war.
-
"Q Sir, when you talk about Iran, and you talk about how you have diplomatic efforts, you also say all options are on the table. Does that include the possibility of a nuclear strike? Is that something that your administration will plan for? THE PRESIDENT: All options are on the table......" http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060418-1.html Also, try some searches that involve the term "tactical nuke". Apparently we don't have a problem with using those any more.
-
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/story.aspx?guid=A19C4E73B64D4C03B313A3A743078046&siteid=reut07
-
I can't blame Israel for feeling threatened, either, when a nation that has vowed to wipe them from the face of the Earth is in the midst of developing nuclear weapons. Just noting, the point is made that Iran probably feels threatened because the US has invaded the surrounding countries. The counter point is made that Israel has reason to feel threatened. It's nice to see people acknowledging one of the primary reasons for our region building project.