selkirk

Can you repost the article or the important part? Other wise we've all got to register with the Washington Post. Thanks

Shouldn't Martlett, and Gotterdamerung be weighing in on this? Did they finally get offended?

Good point. The next question is can we get a monkey on the ballot in those states, and if so, who would said monkey's running mate be?

Limecat Says "Between Bush and Monkey, the monkey has my vote any day of the week, and twice on sundays!"

How about the Black Diamond Stone or Speed packs?

I'm looking for something light for a summit/day climb pack. Has anyone tried the the Serratus Genie, Mountainsmith Phantom, or the North Face Exocet. Would love to hear any other suggestions as well.

Hobbes is only right if we let him be right. It was also political structure, socialization, etc that formed those men into individuals capable of that. If were going to in, we need to do it right or else it was a waste of lives. We need to not only track those buggers down and lock them up for the rest of their lives but we need to do it in a manner that avoids dropping down to their level. And then we need to deal with the underlying issues that created a culture capable of raising them, and their brethren. Let's just hope we can pull it off, because were knee deep in it, and enforcing peace doesn't even come close to finishing the job. Later everyone.

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, Moonbats with steaksauce. Oh,Wait a minute, I don't know how i'd taste with Steaksauce.

i.e. The former Yugoslavia..... It worked really well.

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, housecat with steaksauce, mmmmmmmmmmmm

If O'Neil was the only disgruntled employee who after they were fired/left came out and said "Bush's is screwing things up" I'd probably by the disgruntled employee spewing lies line. But they're kind of stacking up. Hell Clarke served under, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr. It's not like democrat out to get the republicans... the number of testimony's are just becoming a little overwhelming to discount all of them. So Sadam had WMD? Really? Are you sure? The UN inspectors didn't think so? I didn't particularly think so? Are you sure no one denied this? He supported terrorists? Are you sure? I'd love to see your sources, I thoroughly remember him being declared a rogue dictator. I don't remember any clear ties to terrorism, besides against his own people. So all he had to do was comply to UN resolutions? Then why didn't the UN go in instead of the US unilaterally going in? To my knowledge the only restriction we can be sure he broke is that some of his missiles had a longer range then allowed (Something like 200 miles). So Bush had the balls to act? That i'll agree with and that's not the question. The question is whether he was right to? And your right, we'll see the long term effects. Any bets on how long were going to have to keep a military presence there to keep it from degenerating into anarchy and civil war? Has it done more bad than good? I would guess that very much depends on who you talk to. And again, we've established that just because he was a cruel dictator isn't enough justification to go in. It's ancillary. There are lots of places we could get rid of dictators.... That doesn't give us the right to. (remember, you said were not the World Police) Justifying it by saying the outcome was good is an easy way out, and doesn't mean a thing. And to say the outcome has been good is marginal at best. My blind irrational hatred for Bush? Let me tell you what I think of Bush. I think he's a fundamentally good, god fearing christian man who's doing what he honestly believes is best. He doesn't strike me as smart enough, or having enough force of will to make decisions for himself. He's relied too much on his cabinet to make decisions for him, and hasn't been good about gathering information himself and analyzing the consequences of his actions. We didn't elect his cabinet, we elected him, and it seems an awful lot like he's turned it over to his cabinet. I've heard it said Clinton had problems because he micromanaged, he wanted to know everything. I'd say Bush is on the far other end, he doesn't make sure he knows enough of what's going on, and doesn't spend enough time thinking about the consequences. He even said he doesn't have much difficulty making decisions as a president. And that spooks the hell out of me. In national and world politics there are simply too many factors, for decisions to be straighforward and easy. I think he's probably a very good, very honest man. I just don't think he's a good leader or a good president.

Don't you know the Lumberjack Song? and it's ok. I'm a professed Moonbat myself.

I'm a Moonbat and I'm ok, I work all night and I sleep all Day. I cut down trees I skip and jump, I go the Lavatory. On Wednesday's I go shopping, and have buttered Scones for tee.... Chorus everyone!

Last I saw the TDI's run around 45-50 mpg, diesel. It also looks like the contaminant levels on diesel are going to come down thanks the EPA as well. Really a pretty good idea.

Oh Martlet, please come out and play. We didn't mean to hurt your feelings.

No Retort for me Martlet?

So where's the original?

Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's a little insulting to the intelligence of the country to say that were going after Sadam because he's a bad guy (not enough, there are lots of those) and because he has WMD (which, while it was believed he did in the past, inspections right up to the start of the war said, we haven't found anything), and because he's a supporter of Al Qaida (again, kind of been shot down). If were going to go in, at least lets be honest and say were going in because he pissed us off with his posturing and we'd like to establish a foothold. That's a least honest. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I disagree. If your going to disagree at least be clear why. Otherwise it's just a personal opinion and those really don't count for much in convincing anyone. We've also rather established that while Sadam was a bad dude, he wasn't a terrorist, he wasn't hatching plots to get us, and wasn't involved in the ones that did? So remind me again how terrorism applies to the War in Iraq? Other than in Bush's overly broad "war on terrorism?" So remind me why again we ran out of time and were forced to invade a country that wasn't a threat? Also, as I understand it the war planning was never a contingency, it wasn't let's get ready in case we need to.... it was how do we go in and justify it? Take a look at Paul O' Neils statements about it. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-01-11-oneill-iraq_x.htm so.. back to square one.... Why did we go in again? Oh that's right, we thought they were a terrorist threat. How many terrorist do you think we've killed in Iraq? How many suicide bombers do you think we've created in the surrounding countries. And as Israel has learned, suicide bombers area also awfully difficult to prevent. Also, what will we have really changed? Unless we leave a permenant millitary force in control there, do you really think we'll be able to supress civil war and another dictatorship? Take a look at all the the governments that were enforced in central africa and Yugoslavia. As soon as the military power enforcing peace left it evolved back into civil war and tribal bloodshed. Do you honestly think Iraq is any different? And finally, aren't we playing into the Terrorist manifesto's plan? By becoming a hostile power were loosing the support of our allies around the world. By cracking down in Iraq, were becoming progressively less "liberator" and progressively more "Oppressor". By cracking down in this country by increasing the surveillance of our population through use of the patriot act (which I know just allows the use of the same tactics we've used in the drug war, phone taps, surveillance etc to be applied to terrorism, however it lacks the critical oversight to keep it in check and prevent abuse of it by well meaning but overzealous prosecutors) our government is alienating us. The democrats and moonbats are worried about the government infringing on our civil rights. and I have friends who used to be moderate republicans who feel so betrayed and threatened that they've shifted further right and are now libertarians, and are bandying talk about civil war and bringing down the government in order to replace it with a democracy more to their liking. If you look at the fundamental tenents of terrorist groups, this is what they hope to accomplish. Make the government so oppressive, so akin to 1984's big brother that the populace itself revolts. So remind me again what were accomplishing?

Are you really that bored Sal?

Woohooo, now i'm a Dork and self proclaimed Moonbat. Actually if were going to be Precise i'm an Enginerd. But that's kind of the Enginerds to you! On the upside we have lot's of societies. They just don't involve paddling to get into.

I don't think anyone will disagree with you that Dictators are bad Martlet, Castro, Saddam, whoever. The question is what mechanism should we use to deal with them? And let's be upfront about the ones we choose to deal with. There are lot's of petty dictators who kill there people, lot's of area's where genocide and mass murder are occuring. However Is it our job to be the world police and install democracies everywhere? (this just rings of cold war tactics to fight communism, and has just as many issues. It rare you can force to warring factions to get along. You can just supress the fighting. i.e. yugoslavia, prior to the dissolution of the soviet union. The fighting between the various factions had stopped but only under the threat of immediate execution of anyone involved. As soon as the Authoritarian communist government broke down it started up again, and has yet to really completely conclude. There are several examples of this. So you can't really enforce a democracy on an unstable area unless your willing to leave a standing military presence. You can remove the dictator but that's a temporary fix.) Also, if we are going to go after dictators because they're bad, we've got a whole list... It's a little insulting to the intelligence of the country to say that were going after Sadam because he's a bad guy (not enough, there are lots of those) and because he has WMD (which, while it was believed he did in the past, inspections right up to the start of the war said, we haven't found anything), and because he's a supporter of Al Qaida (again, kind of been shot down). If were going to go in, at least lets be honest and say were going in because he pissed us off with his posturing and we'd like to establish a foothold. That's a least honest. It also bothers me that we didn't wait for an international consesus and support and took unilateral action when they weren't a dire and imminent threat to our safety. What really makes this all interesting is that the war plan was initiated almost immediately after Bush took office. The intent to invade Iraq was pre 9-11, (and hence prior to the war on terror) prior to the scuttlebut about uranium purchasing. The decision was made before any of this had come to light. So tell me if he was a big enough threat to plan for war in Winter 2000, why did we wait til mid 2003 to actually invade? So.... if we don't support dictators, they persist, if we remove them, we only remove a symptom of the underlying socio-political issues in the region. If were going to remove let's be honest about why.

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/02/bush.dui/ Knock yourself out. It's not the arrest record, but is his admission.

Get invited? Do you really believe that everyone wanted to be secretly in a frat?

Great, that's what I was hoping to hear.

No, never had the desire to even apply. Hazing, rigamarole, drunken orgies.... just never appealed to me. As for getting naked.... women are just much more fun and co-ed dorms are great for that.