KaskadskyjKozak

Well, he does live in Tacoma. Wow, both an elitist and a racist. You're a typical leftie. typical tacoma apologist Yup. Instead of debating the issue, he resorts to ad hominem attack. How 'bout it, KK? What do you think about TACOMA? Fuck off. I'm sick of people like Hugh Cocksucker throwing out the bullshit accusations that R's are racists, while spewing out epithets and elitists comments unchallenged. What do I think about Tacoma? A lot of working class folks live there. You know, the kind that all you lefties are supposedly "looking out for" and trying to protect from those eeeevil rich Republicans.

Anyone have this rope? Would you recommend it to others?

Well, he does live in Tacoma. Wow, both an elitist and a racist. You're a typical leftie.

you sure are quick to drop the racial epithets. says a lot about YOU.

to anwser your question; the reason the us and sadia arabia wanted the Iraqi oil was not to drill it and increase supply that wouldn't make sence cause then the oil they own and pump out is worth less, the resaon for Bush's invasion.. stop suply. the iraqis were practically giveing oil to the seria, not counting what they sold to us and other nations, the more oil availible, ie the higher the suply, the less each barrel is worth. you think there is any corraltion with the fact that this is the Bush admin last little drain before there out in 6 mounths? ya summers ussaly brings and increase in price due to an increase in demand, but what other than the lack of supply and or increase in demand brings up the price of a product? so simple attck iraq, saction and "protect" their oil fields so no one gets any. there by increaseing the price of whats available. and as a side note its not to hard to blame those with the most to gain from this action, especally when they are in a position to make it happen. Load of extreme bullshit above. piss off you merly proved my point that suply and demand are the reason for price increase. so the lack of suply from iraq along with the increase in demand from china and else where equals, higher price. and who still benifits from iraqi oil being controled and for the most part off the market. maybe i was wrong in the claim that the recent price was due to the Bush admin wanting to go out with a bang, but i really dought that it isn't atleast part of the reason. so before you call it a load of bullshit maybe you use your "superior" intelct to prove it wrong rather than giveing the asertion more ground on which to stand. So much for the thesis that "FAR right" posters have a monopoly on shitty spelling and grammar.

all that matters is the impact on those expensive international vacations.

and you thought only evangelicals made these kinds of statements? guess again

Not an elaborate "baroque" conspiracy, just another (well-executed) sell job. I don't think they knew that there were no WMD's, but I don't think they were really that worried about them either. I do agree with Rove or whomever said it that McClellan's stuff sounds right out of a liberal blog. That quote above could have come from me! That's a much more credible summary of what happened, IMO. I'd agree that the decision to go to war revolved around strategic an political considerations that were more extensive than WMD alone. I'd disagree about them not being worried about what would happen if the central argument for the invasion turned out to be based on false information, but you can have a reasonable discussion about that, that's at least tethered to reality. I agree. WMD was the "marketing" to sell the war, and they grasped for straws to build up that "case", but it was not the motivation for the war.

I've camped up the little (overgrown) road on the side of the Colchuck lake TH.

I can't articulate quite as well as you can, Jay, but it is my opinion that they knew that they were lying, but that they thought they were right (if that makes any sense.) Sort of like the cop who plants evidence because he's convinced the guy is a drug dealer anyway, but just too smooth to get caught honestly.... Well - that's an interesting way to look at it. Just for the sake of argument, if we carry this analogy forward a bit more, wouldn't the "cop" in question also have to realize that he'll be found out and accept the inevitable consequences of such an outcome? And the "judge" in this case evaluating the admissability of the evidence was congress, who authorized the use of force?

That WOULD be refresshing, KK, but in this case it would be idiotic if by that you mean we shouldn't question their motives or methods in selling the war. I'm willing to cede that they probably thought they were doing what was best for the country, but the history is very clear that they decided to attak Iraq first and made up a justification second. link Look up "aluminum tubes." Try AlQueda in Prague. Niger Uranium purchase. In all three of these specific cases the administration presented "evidence" that they knew was at least questionnable if not downright incorrect. Remember how Condi Rice told us we'd see a mushroom cloud in Manhattan, when the only people who had actually been in Iraq and knew about Saddam's program said he had none? I'm willing to concede that Bush and company probably thought they were making a good decision, but you'd be an idiot if you didn't conclude they lied about it and some kind of blind idealogue if you now argue that it is "right" for them to have lied about it. Whatever dude. The more you talk like this, the quicker I tune you out.

Neither is it necessary nor desirable to constantly impugn the motives of those making the decisions, demonizing them and assuming and positing all the worst about them. It would be refreshing for once for more folks to assume those in power with whom they disagree politically are equally as desirous for what is best for the nation as those withm whom they agree politically.

Just do it Kirk. Ping me, I might be up for it.

Fuck the marketplace.

At least the truth comes out. Fuck the race. Climb. Then when the weather starts sucking in October, let's watch the debates and vote for or against one of the fucknuts.

Everything will not be "going GREAT" under the next president either. There will always be major problems. That's life.

I went to the same prep school as Ross' son. My parents got to know Ross Sr. through the school parent's organization. They thought well of him personally and were a bit taken aback by some of the positions he eventually took up. I was referring to his stunt of pulling out of the election when he was on the verge of winning, claiming his family had been "threatened" by the R's, and then jump back when he was sure to lose but still spoil the race.

From your perspective, what's the problem with $4/gallon gas, and what would you like the government to do to reduce the price? Yeah, $4 is great news for the libtards. We need HIGHER gas prices to save the planet.

"Bush's alcohol induced brain damage results in a frat-boy day flashback"

Is this the best approach to Dome? I ahven't checked a map, but for some reason Trinity/Buck Pass comes to mind...

I have never voted FOR a presidential candidate. And my vote has never mattered anyways, living in "blue" states. Except in '88. The first time I ever voted was in a presidential election a month after I turned 18. I voted *for* a candidate. I was so proud, voting for the first time and all, and I believed in him, and so on. God Bless America, greatest country on earth, the Constitution, liberty, blah blah blah. Boy what a sucker I was. I was very excited to vote for Perot in '92 early in his campaign. Then I realized he was a fucking nut. I've never been excited for any candidate since. Although I did like Jesse "the Body" Ventura's little run. I respect a guy that can piss off both parties and say what he means, even if I disagree with half of it.

Sorry, but that's a lame analysis. Obama is claiming to change our policies in significant ways - foreign and domestic, and claiming he will do more to change these policies than the other two would. It may be pure sloganeering, or he may mean it. In the case of the latter you could attack the changes he proposes (Iraq, Health Care) or claim he will be unable or unwilling to actually institute them (naivete, reality check).

Does Busey's wife in the film lay eggs?