KaskadskyjKozak

We're talking about crustaceans, not bovines.

Upon what do you base this comment? Are you stating that the research project was funded by conservatives or undertaken by them? Or that the news release itself was issued by conservatives? I know when I think "Norway", I always think "hard right idealogues".

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/02/15/lobster.pain.ap/index.html

Supersize it! The American way...

Rum and coke - Bacardi Black. Must be in the exact proportions: strong, but not too strong. Not too sweet either. Err on the side of higher alcohol content.

Jaegermeister is like that too. Another good one: "Dead Nazi" a.k.a. "Sledgehammer": 1 jigger Jaegermeister 1 jigger Rumpleminze (100 proof peppermint Schnapps) Serve ice cold.

top-shelf marguerita: Cuervo 1800 Cointreau lime juice

A red eye is plus spreading butt cheeks...

I thought a depth charge was dropping a shot of tequila into a beer...

He was asked about that. Basically his answer seemed reasonable and had two parts: 1) the proposed wind farm would be built in a national park (Nantucket?). This would ruin a pristine environment, and on the east coast, there are fewer national parks than in the West, so this would deprive local residents from a true wilderness experience close to home. 2) the wind farm could be built further up the shore. It would be more expensive to build there, but it would be just as effective at producing energy.

From time to time, there are some decent points from all sides...

Listen Richard, I have not bought anything I am told without question, that should be evident even to a dolt as yourself. We must ask questions, then formulate a position. Is it acceptable if N. Korea has nukes? What would the potential consequences be? What should our policy be? You prove my point in my comments to Squid. You are just a sniper with no ideas of your own, just like the majority of your politically-like-minded ilk. As long as you have no ideas, then don't be surprised when someone else makes the decisions for you.

1) email or internet discussion forums are flawed in their inability to provide the 'back and forth' of a conversation. And there are no visual clues, voice inflections, and so on. 2) this site is replete with 'caricatures' of the right, Christians, conservatives, etc. To criticize me for supposedly engaging in this is rather ironic. Whenever I attempt a serious give and take with someone, it always seems to lead to the same old cliches: "Bush sucks", "Iraq is a quagmire", "blood for oil". blah blah. 3) I don't know what you are referring to with straw man comments, but if it is the post to which you directly replied, then let me clarify. Bush's detractors continually harp on how shitty his policies are, but never espouse any of their own. It is way too easy and convenient to snipe and engage in monday morning quarterbacking. I want to see if anyone has any constructive policy suggestions regarding Iran and N. Korea. So far, there are none. The left is waiting for Bush to "fail" and then attack his policy, whatever it was. I don't see any thought about the issues facing us up front, yet alone how to address them. This is Iraq allover again - what do we do this time? As for the original topic of this thread, you can be damn sure, that the "blame America first crowd", including professors like Churchill, and that seditious lawyer, will be spewing all kinds of rhetoric about how we are to blame for Iran and N. Korea - we made them build the bomb, we made them kill people, we deserve what we get. All of us are, after all, "little Eichmans"...

What if N. Korea invades S. Korea again? What if they launch a nuke at S. Korea? What if a dirty bomb goes off in the US, and there is strong evidence (but doubt enough for the ACLU types to wring their hands over) that the source was the N. Korea nuclear weapons program? What if China says that if we retaliate against N. Korea that they will retaliate against us? The pretense for war in Iraq was: WMD + dictator who might use it + imminent threat (weapons could wind up in terrorists' hands). Unless N. Korea is lying, two out of three of these points are certainly TRUE in N. Korea - no debate about this. What should be done about this now, especially if N. Korea attempts nuclear blackmail, or continues in their irrational intransigence? Those are the questions that should be discussed, but instead the Bush-haters continue to spout off about the folly of the "axis of evil speech", and devise ridiculous conspiracy theories - like how he wants to invade Iran and convert the Muslims.

If you're looking for a true madman, you'd better pay attention to Kim Jong Il (or however that human Chia-Pet spells his name).

I remember hearing reports during the first few days of the movie "Independence Day" that the movie audiences cheered when the aliens blew up the capital building... Samuel Clemens has some classic quotes that come to mind regarding our leaders: click here

Yes, I am using the rhetorical "you". And I am not trying to argue the case for (or against) military intervention in Iraq or Kosovo, but point out where most people (maybe not YOU the person) exhibit profound hypocrisy in their rationalizations for the (lack of) support of various policies. There has so far been no military intervention in either N. Korea or Iran. There are security risks in both countries (- or are there?). I'd like to hope people can start to formulate their positions w/r/t what should be done in those two situations irrespective of who is currently the president. What should we do now? When would military action be justified? Last time I checked there is no oil in N. Korea, but plenty of human suffering. Ulterior motives? Devil's advocate, out...

Was flipping through talk radio stations last night and listened to that idiot O'Reilly for a few minutes. He had (I believe) R. Kennedy Jr. on as a guest. He claimed that the US could eliminate dependence on mideast oil and reduce emissions significantly by raising gas mileage 7 or 8 m.p.g. Seems doable, and a reasonable step in the right direction to me. Unfortunately, it is being blocked by *both* parties because of special interests.

Gee, you weren't "too keen". Isn't that special. You also weren't vociferously criticizing Clinton to the degree you do so w/r/t to Bush's policies, now were you? Seems the intensity of your indignation is directly proportional to partisan politics. Ah, but how often do we hear that there is "no threat from Iraq", implying "no national security" issue. One would conclude that this would be a litmus test for those making the argument w/r/t the necessary conditions for the use of military force. But you say there was "no ulterior motive" w/r/t Kosovo, just a "humanitarian mission". Meaning "no national security issue". That's the first point of hypocrisy. Then, when those who argue that the current mission in Iraq is a "humanitarian issue", that is shot down as a legitimate reason for our presence - "the Iraqis need to take care of their own problems". But, in Kosovo, a "humanitarian mission" was justification for the use of force. That's the second point of hypocrisy.

You miss the point. Think "political role reversal".

If she swallowed, we could've save a hell of a lot of time, money and energy! Ditto for doing laundry...

And you forgot to mention they were all ATHEISTS.

Bullshit. Kosovo

1) I took the remark as being a way to make an old man feel good, and nothing more. 2) The remark was extrapolated well beyond the "applauding audience". It was applied to ALL CONSERVATIVES in the US by the left-wing spin-meisters. If you refuse to acknowledge any demagoguery on "your side" than don't expect the "other side" to make similar acknowledgements.

The left does the same in it's characterizations of misstatements on the right, or individuals on the fringe. For the former, consider Trent Lott's statements on the occasion of Strom Thurmond's birthday. The left characterized these as "exposing how conservatives really think about race issues". It was questionable, in fact, whether the statements indict Lott specifically; extending them to everyone on the right was a despicable slandering of all conservatives in general.