Fairweather

I guess they can't produce the tape right now because it's being "edited"?? And exactly what are the new rules? Our guys have to take a bullet in the head before they're allowed to open fire? Get a life, stool.

Crux recently posted a little tantrum piece about me and my daughter - whom he has never met - that was quickly deleted by moderators. Fortunately, I managed to copy it before it went away and I now look forward to sending it to his DNC employers. It's only right that they should know the kind of little prick they're working with. Just try to ignore the little shit stain.

Unfortunately, Mr MattP is incapable of admitting his own misstatements of fact - despite any and all evidence to the contrary. Par for the course.

Care to retract that "falsehood", Matt? Did you really have any facts? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297745,00.html The New York Times acknowledged Sunday that a controversial advertisement attacking Gen. David Petraeus, the American commander in Iraq, was sold to a liberal activist group at a discount rate the organization was not entitled to receive, and that the paper violated its own advertising policies when it published the ad. In a column published Sunday entitled, "Betraying Its Own Best Interests," Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt wrote that after reviewing the Times' policies regarding the sale and content of advertisements and conducting his own investigation of the matter, "I think the ad violated the Times' own written standards, and the paper now says that the advertiser got a price break it was not entitled to." According to the column, MoveOn.org purchased the ad at a "standby" rate of $64,575 when it should have been charged $142,083. To receive standby rates, advertisers cannot be guaranteed a date when their ads will run, but the sales representative who sold the ad to MoveOn.org told the organization that the ad would run on Monday, Sept. 10—the day that Petraeus was to appear before Congress. Click here to read the full column at The New York Times.com. Hoyt wrote in the column that Catherine Mathis, vice president of corporate communications for the Times, told him that the price was "a mistake," and that "the advertising representative failed to make it clear that for that rate the Times could not guarantee the Monday placement but left MoveOn.org with the understanding that the ad would run then ... That was contrary to our policies." Hoyt said the content of the ad—a full-page advertisement that questioned Petraeus' truthfulness with the headline "Gen. Petraeus or Gen. Betray Us?" violated Times advertising policy. "The ad appears to fly in the face of an internal advertising acceptability manual that says, 'We do not accept opinion advertisements that are attacks of a personal nature,'" Hoyt wrote. He wrote that the Times director of advertising acceptability, Steph Jespersen, told him that while he did think the language of the Petraeus ad was "rough," he "regarded it as a comment on a public official's management of his office and therefore acceptable speech for the Times to print." Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., was not aware of the MoveOn.org ad until it appeared in the paper, Hoyt wrote. "If we're going to err, its better to err on the side of more political dialogue. ... Perhaps we did err in this case. If we did, we erred with the intent of giving greater voice to people," Sulzberger told Hoyt. Hoyt wrote in the column that he disagrees with the decisions made by the Times employees responsible for the ad being published. "For me, two values collided here: the right of free speech — even if its abusive speech — and a strong personal revulsion toward the name-calling and personal attacks that now pass for political dialogue, obscuring rather than illuminating important policy issues," Hoyt wrote. "For the Times, there is another value: the protection of its brand as a newspaper that sets a high standard for civility. Were I in Jespersen's shoes, I'd have demanded changes to eliminate Betray Us, a particularly low blow when aimed at a soldier."

You look different all cleaned up 'n shit. Cute girl - she looks way smarter than you. Congratulations. Celebrating our 22nd year next week. Can't beat it. Good luck.

...and in the very next breath: You been to Idaho lately, Buckaroo? I think you might be surprised to see most of the stereotypes to which you subscribe debunked. No matter. You are a fucking LOON who needs to pull the conspiracy hook out of his gums and put down the pipe. I'm not even sure why I'm responding to your rants. You're not really worthy.

Did you just get your report card again? Good job! You did much better this time. Now run along and go show your mom.

Looks like most of the senate agrees with.....me. Dems included. MooovOn.org crossed the line. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297498,00.html Should they be banished/banned? Hell no! Unlike brotha Matt, I think an informed public can decide for themselves.

Tvashtarketena, of course. Just ask him.

...and you are an expert on exactly what? Battery/transformer sales? Pot. Kettle. Black.

I hope she is the Dem nominee. She'll be easy to beat. Obama, slightly less so. IMO, the two front runners are the two softest candidates on the D-side. Man, do I love the primary system!

Is he having one of his basement readings again?

Did anyone watch that ABC special last night on how utterly horrible Canada's health care system is? And how illegal for-profit clinics are sprouting up all over the country? One of them owned and operated by Canada's own version of Surgeon General! Long waits and shitty care. Thank God Hillary Rhodam hyphen Clinton is unelectable.

Good answers all around. Unfortunately, neither the Washington State nor the United States Constitution allow it. Strange that none of the usual suspects here were upset enough to revisit the topic vis a vis Gregoire as endlessly as they do GWB 2000. Can you imagine what a campaign post-deadlock would look like? I think new lows would be established in short order.

Better stick to Sig Figs, Avogadro's, Dimensional Analysis, and Stoichiometry, Justin. Because, clearly, statistics are not your strong suit. Addendum: Does your hypothesis above apply the the Washington State Gubernatorial Election of 2004 as well?

Is "The Mountain Loop Conservancy" one of the groups that is trying to block the repair/reopening of Mountain Loop Road? If so, screw 'em. Also, many statements of fact in the letter that are just plain wrong. Is the area USFS? DNR? More "details" that seem none-too-important to this not-too-brilliant author.

Like those who "registered" under ACORN? http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/10-13-2004/0002275937&EDATE

Not too surprised he comes down hard on Bush. Even Republicans have accused GWB of spending like a "drunken sailor". I am surprised that he gives Clinton high marks. Maybe something worth reconsidering in that regard. But here's the deal: You cite Greenspan when it suits your political agenda - despite the fact that you claim to have none. Here is a quote from the same article summarizing the thrust of Greenspan's book. Let's see if you, Jim, Crux, still agree with Greenspan's genius: "His theme is the unequaled power of free-market capitalism..." I do.

Same root causes: Petty jealousy, perceived arrogance, wealth

I hear he likes peanut butter.

2K new...cheaper on Craigslist or EBay.

I hope no one was hurt!

Thinking about buying this as my personal FS closure unlimited access gate-buster pass: Just roll it off the back of the Toyota pickup and up the Middle Fork I go!