NCclimber

Here it is. And the follow up: Reply: Asked again: Reply: I ask yet again: Kallend - again: Please note my second reply above. My next reply Kallend: This did not show proof that the NYT was blocked from doing so by the NSC., WHICH WAS WHAT I ASKED ABOUT, INITIALLY!!!

That's Barrak Hussein Obama (sp).... a great candidate. Why is he a great candidate? Because he looks good and speaks well?

Oh, the irony.

So? Got a link and a quote to back up your claim? Or is this gonna be another game of semantics dodgeball? Then again, you could just admit you were wrong. Just because YOU can't find something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Before calling bullshit on people, do your own homework. If you always want others to do your homework for you, you'll never get any better at finding information. It's there, you just have to look. There are none so blind as those that will not see. Sematics dodgeball it is. How unsurprising. It goes to character. From New York Times, 12/19/2006 Among the publications approved, he said, was a 32-page paper published two weeks ago by the Century Foundation, “Dealing With Teheran,” urging a new diplomatic approach to Iran. After its publication, Mr. Leverett said, he spoke with Op-Ed editors of The Times about writing with his wife a short article based on the longer document. The Op-Ed editor, David J. Shipley, confirmed that he had planned to publish the article last Thursday and that he still hoped to publish it. The Publications Review Board reviewed the longer paper on its own, but this time the C.I.A. passed the shorter article to the National Security Council for review. Council reviewers informed the agency on Wednesday that they had found classified information in the article, and the publication was blocked. EXACTLY what I wrote in the post you have been calling BS. See bold above. I asked you three times about a specific claim you made. The excerpt you provided does not support that claim.

LOL

Funny how Bush was elected while the Clinton/Gore White House was enjoying (arguably) the biggest bull market of all time.... and then he was re-elected after showing the country who he was for four years. How are you going to explain that to your grandchildren?

So? Got a link and a quote to back up your claim? Or is this gonna be another game of semantics dodgeball? Then again, you could just admit you were wrong. Just because YOU can't find something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Before calling bullshit on people, do your own homework. If you always want others to do your homework for you, you'll never get any better at finding information. It's there, you just have to look. There are none so blind as those that will not see. Sematics dodgeball it is. How unsurprising. It goes to character.

I'm aware that the NYT wrote about this issue. What I'm calling bullshit on is your assertion that they were blocked by the NSC. I thought this would have been obvious from my post So? Got a link and a quote to back up your claim? Or is this gonna be another game of semantics dodgeball? Then again, you could just admit you were wrong.

It only took them five days to report on it. That's what I call jumping. Even though they are reporting on this, I missed where they, the New York Times, were blocked by the NSC. How about a link??? I'm sure you can look it up for yourself, just like I did. I did look it up and found nothing about the NYT being blocked by the NSC. That's why I asked for a link. In other words, I'm calling bullshit on your claim of the NYT being blocked by the NSC. And I'm still waiting to see something about "hundreds of thousands of unemployed that the right predicted" as a result of Florida's minimum wage increase. Maybe I'll keep an add-on post for all the unsubstantiated claims I've called you on, but you never followed up on.

High school students who didn't know how many cards are in a deck? That's just fucking stupid!!!

You'll put your eye out, kid!

What if they called you an "incoherent, blathering idiot"? Hypothetically speaking, of course.

It only took them five days to report on it. That's what I call jumping. Even though they are reporting on this, I missed where they, the New York Times, were blocked by the NSC. How about a link???

And then there are those others who deride people who don't subscribe to a particular level of immorality. And there are those who excuse hypocrisy. And then there are those who make factual claims but when pressed for confirmation they become silent.

And then there are those others who deride people who don't subscribe to a particular level of immorality.

It would be politically incorrect to attempt to define it. It's hypersensitivity to all "allegedly" underclass or marginalized groups.

Are you saying that all prejudices are irrational and unreasonable?

As has been previously stated, perhaps NYT does not yet have the story, and are awaiting the author to obtain clearance for it before he can sell it. I think he's talking about the White House censoring the story, not the story itself.

Your credibility just went up 0.01%. But don't get cocky. Gloating is overrated.

Here is what he wrote. IMO it looks like it's the White House, not the NYT, that is applying pressure.

Got a link to support your claim that the right predicted "hundreds of thousands" would be unemployed" if minimum wage were raised? HEY KALLEND!!!! How about a link?

This sure does seem like a lot of pomp and circumstance for becoming Speaker of the House. I've never heard of galas like this for incoming House leaders. Is this a common practice?

Ummmm - it was the English Channel and Stalin's USSR that stopped Hitler. By 7th December 1941 Hitler's Germany had already failed in its invasion attempt on Britain, and was in process of failing in its attempt to take Moscow. The Eastern Front is what destroyed the Wehrmacht. How unsuprising that you would chime in to discount the US contribution to WWII in Europe. For those who discount Truman, his Truman Doctrine puts him in the history books for the ages. Bush and Co. should have read up on this a little more, before charging into Iraq. My top two are Jefferson and Washington. Jefferson, for all the obvious reasons. Washington- for his contribution before taking office, as a general and as a statesman at the Constitutional Convention. He set the tone for how this country was founded.

Kinda off the subject? The texas death penatly law is Pretty darn prehistoric and it is only because of conservitism that it remains in place. did you ever watch the life of david gail? The case of the GWB adminstration should be seen in the Hague as it is obvious that He/they created the 'Said' war on terrorism for personal gain. I it competly different to somone being fried for killin anothe man with his/her own hands. but IMHO what GWB has created and destroyed is Moraly unforgivable and he deserves the chair more than most of those that have recieved it! he already had access to a fortune too large to spend in a lifetime but greed was the motive to condem so many lives(U.S. & foreign) to misery and death. this man continues to talk shit to your country and your country continues to lap it up. when will it end? i believe very soon. Fry that bastard!!!!! He's still got two more years in office. Maybe he'll bomb the crap out of New Zealand on '07.

Why? Because most people only take offense at PCness when it defends something they think is stupid. Whenever it gives their pet causes "taboo/this is off limits" status, they are all for it. It seems like the same people who preach about tolerance and "embracing diversity" are pretty intolerant and unaccepting of conservative causes. I read something recently that said the modern PC concept of tolerance doesn't hold water. Instead, we should strive to adhere to a more traditional form of tolerance, which was summed up with: "Be egalitarian regarding persons. Be elitist regarding ideas." To put it another way - Be civil and respectful to everyone, but vigorously defend your beliefs.