Next week in Damascus....and Teheran....and Paris
 

Nice gesture. Just remember to hold the bacon* and sausage.
And no deliveries during fasting.

Shalom.

*Save it to wrap this demon's corpse in:

http://freepers.zill.net/users/think...bi/arafat2.jpg

Yom Kippur War II: The Final Battle
 

Not to mention that they stole the next big thing and moved it to Rome.

Hello

Yom Kippur War II: The Final Battle
 

You are a fool and incredibly disrespectful. G-d created tomatoes and pizza dough as well as the Italians who make pizza so well, notwithstanding their misguided worship of a crazed rabble rouser. Eating their food is honouring G-d in all his gustatory glory!

Yom Kippur War II: The Final Battle
 

No, shredded/chopped beef originated with the Mongolian Tartars (thus, tartare), who also sacked Jerusalem twice.*

Mind you, there are probably very few food-exporting countries that have not done wrong to Jerusalem at some point --- this is one of the drawbacks to having a famously long historical memory and a 5,000 year old religion.

*If it qualifies as Chinese food, all serious argument regarding potential rejection by Jews ends entirely, of course.

Save Bilmore! Free Bilmore! Let Bilmore go!
 

More on the vast_left_wing_conspiracy we were just talking about?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/10/03/ch....ap/index.html

(Spree: One of the righteous ones gets nabbed in Minnesota)

Representative quote:
"The head of the Minnesota Republican Party has been indicted by a grand jury for an alleged improper corporate campaign contribution, his lawyer said.

Chairman [Bilmore?] was charged with four gross misdemeanor criminal counts, his lawyer, Bill Mauzy, said Thursday.

Mauzy said there was no basis for the indictment and that he would move immediately to have the charges dismissed. "There is no crime here," he said. "We have a runaway grand jury."

[Bilmore?] called the indictment "preposterous."

Hello

Yom Kippur War II: The Final Battle
 

Wrong. The freedom loving, G-d worshipping people of Israel should reject Chinese food as being the product of a nation of evil and Red commie devils. The Red Chinese communists are worse than Saddam Hussein or Osama bin laden or both together.

I ask all of the liberal socialist apologists out there, where is the outrage over the murderous religious persecution in China?
Where are the peacefreaks and “anti-war" sheeple on this issue??

My guess is that you are too busy eating dim sum while planning your next Pro-Castro and Pro-Al Qaeda rally.

Save Bilmore! Free Bilmore! Let Bilmore go!
 

This seems like a cheap shot at Republicans. I’m reminded of the old saying, a Republican is just a Democrat who has realized that she has been mugged, raped and robbed by the Socialist State.

Once someone has seen the evil of socialist style Democrat government close-up and realized it for the Marxist front it is, there can be no turning back.

In my mind anyone who lives in a city and sees the crumbling
infrastructure or lives in NYC and sees the gaping hole where the WTC once stood but for the democrats destruction of our defence and intelligence capabilities, or anyone who fills out there own tax return, and cannot see the evil that the liberals and secular humanists and moral relativists and arab apologists have wrought on our society is as blameworthy as the traitors and Al Qaeda cell members.

My sister-in-law, whom I love and respect dearly, is very very liberal. Pro-choice, pro-Clinton, Pro-Gray Davis and sadly, a self-proclaimed moral relativist who has turned her back on G-d. As a resident of San Francisco she is confronted by the same left wing evil I see in New York every day but has chosen the path of weakwilled sin and cowardice.

To me, it takes a lot of more courage to look at evil and say "This will not stand on my watch."

Which is what W has done with the terrorists. He may do some things that seem like failings but he has taken a bold stand on the world stage and stood up to the demons of Islamofascism. He has called them out as devils by name, and said "No mas."

I sometimes wonder if other women, like my sister-in-law, are more likely to be liberals than men because young women are too often emotionally and sexually victimized by the sexist male society and double standards (ala the Kennedys and Clintons). I hypothesise that as a consequence, these traumatized young ladies grow up to want to blame themselves first. Thankfully, my dad wanted a son and raised his girls to be tough like men.

Yom Kippur War II: The Final Battle
 

Why, right you are. It's Sunday. Sunday dim sum is kind of a tradition. Where else would we be?

Save Bilmore! Free Bilmore! Let Bilmore go!
 

Your raping of your mother tongue makes Lady Liberty weep. Have you accepted the false allure of the easy way out? Do your thoughts mean so little to you that you can post here without checking to make sure they are proudly error-free, that no Islamofascist liberal commie pinko traitors can rightly charge you as being grammatically deficient? Oh, the humanity.

Yom Kippur War II: The Final Battle
 

In a Synagogue for the start of Yom Kippur or Church for Chrisitian Services. Either one of those choices are infinitely better than cavorting with the Red Chinese and their subversive dumplings.

After sundown tomorrow, perhaps it is a different story.

Save Bilmore! Free Bilmore! Let Bilmore go!
 

The Islamofascists are illiterate in the English language. In fact, I recall reading that, in comparison with the rest of the world, for example that the Arab peoples translate very few English language texts into their demon language. Case in point, Spain with maybe 40MM people translates about 100,000 English language books per year into Spanish, while the combined Islamo-Arabic thug nations of about 300,000,000MM translate 300 English language books per year. And most of those are anti-Israeli screeds coming from faux-intellectual 5th Columnistic academic professors at US universities.

Yom Kippur War II: The Final Battle
 

Yeah, yeah, but was it served as two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions, on a sesame seed bun?

pretermitted(didn't think so)child

Save Bilmore! Free Bilmore! Let Bilmore go!
 

Perhaps the Arab peoples are multilingual, rendering translations unnecessary. How else could one explain their familiarity with CMCH teachings?

Save Bilmore! Free Bilmore! Let Bilmore go!
 

Also from the article:

I decry the loss of "runaway grand jury" as a meaningful term in our profession. I believe it's reserved for occasions in which a grand jury is so outraged by the AUSA's presentation that it indicts on charges that the prosecutor hasn't even presented (see, e.g., the "runaway" grand jury that indicted the S.F. police chief even though the D.A. swears he didn't even ask for it).

From all available data, it looks like the special prosecutor convened this grand jury, and no indication it exceeded the prosecutor's intent. The perp's --- uh, I mean, the target's --- lawyer hasn't even seen the indictment. His use of "runaway grand jury" under these circumstances debases the profession as being nothing but PR flaks.

Save Bilmore! Free Bilmore! Let Bilmore go!
 

Center for Maternal and Child Healthcare?

Come around to my way of thinkin
 

Don't you want to, want to get along?


Correction: "Offender's. "

Perpetrator is a TV word.

Offender, as in, "why ya runnin if you didn't do nuthin"?


Hello

Yom Kippur War II: The Final Battle
 

beg pardon, but I take it you haven't seen the video of my in-laws confronted by the options of shui mai, chicken feet or congee that has been circulated somewhat on the internet. puts a bit of a cloud on this theory.

Save Bilmore! Free Bilmore! Let Bilmore go!
 

if you get arrested for a bribe, you just aren't doing it right.

on the other hand, being in position to start competing for the released felon vote could be a big growth area for the reps. for too long we've just conceded this group to the dems. the time to get to them is before release, when they are a captive audience as it were. this guy could be well-positioned, right soon.

Yom Kippur War II: The Final Battle
 

and such small portions........

Save Bilmore! Free Bilmore! Let Bilmore go!
 

dbl post

Save Bilmore! Free Bilmore! Let Bilmore go!
 

[triple post

Honesty Dies! - News at Eleven!
 

Just for context:

Rep Guv and Dem AG feuding. Campaign contribution issue gets hashed out in the press - discussed in leg - no action, because nothing there.

AG hires friend - local small-time crim atty/party hack - to "prosecute". Takes case to bumfuck little county down on the iowa border - NO connection to case - none at all - but, coincidently, highest proportion of Dem voters in state - has five people testify for his case - Surprise! - he gets indictment.

This will die a diseased toad's death, but then the Dems will get to use the word "indicted" in their next campaign.

Sleazeballs, one and all.

board motto
 

we do need the board motto back, though. "creepy, misleading and undisciplined"
fringe and I created it together, its our bizarro love child sort of

There was no substnce to argue, and I went for a cheap shot, taking yet anothert chance to mock a media personality whom I have despised for 15+ yeears.

Your post was about the survey results on 'misperceptions' among people who report getting their news predominantly from one source -- grouped by that source. You said "maybe the misperceptions are on the part of NPR/PBS, et al." In context that tatement is meaningless, but I get your point -- that the results of the survey are only as good as the questions framed and what the survey -takers define as a 'misperception". I think that the question thta got most Fox viewers was the one on whether there were "substantial" links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. I'm sure that the 'correct" answer was "No" -- which seems to be the consensus of informed observers -- but it is a squishy question.

BTW -- On tht subject, "The Economist" has characterised the U.S. administration as having "wilfully overplayed the little evidence hey have."

Yes, but they also still support the war, don't they? Which raises a question in my mind that I've been meaning to ask you, Ty and the like. We've been debating this stuff for weeks, and I'm wondering if you are now of the opinion that the war was wrong. That is, if you knew then what you know now, would you have supported the war?

Novak Must be Mad
 

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/r...20031004.shtml

[Novak hit piece on the Wilsons]

[edited to correct punctuation]

No. Containment was working. The war was (is) too expensive, in lives, money and opportunity costs, and we haven't seen the end of it yet. Which is not to say that the war has had no benefits, just that they don't outweigh the costs.

So you are essentially doing a cost/benefit analysis, correct? If so, isn't to early to calculate the benefits? Meaning, aren't the costs coming up front with the benefits to be realized in the next 5, 10 or 30 years?

Unless we make dramatic progress really soon in finding a way to incubate democracy in Iraq, the long-term costs will exceed the long-term benefits. At least, that's my view (and I think it is a conservative one, in the Burkean sense).

Would your opinion in this regard be affected if you became convinced that we were presently making excellent progress in rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure, economy, and political institutions, and "winning the hearts and minds" of the Iraqis?

Absolutely. But I would hope that someone close to me would intervene and take away my fairy dust before I operated heavy machinery.

You and I have had this exchange before. I don't doubt that we are making some progress, but I think we're doing a better job with the infrastructure than we are with winning hearts and minds and rebuilding political institutions. Who really knows? It's a big country, and it's difficult for Western journalists to report this story. On this one, I'd much rather be wrong. I've posted links here of coverage that seemed particularly well-done, and you should, too.

No, I understand that we disagree on that point, but just wanted to nail down that that truly is your basis for thinking we shouldn't be there right now.

I'm thinking that the news that we start to hear over the next four or six months leans far more heavily towards the scenario I am positing than the negative one that seems prevelant now, but that's just my idea of an educated guess. Time will tell.

We can probably agree that some things will go well, and some things will go less well. Without regard to the specific facts on the ground in Iraq in 6 months, or 5 or 10 years, all else equal I think the war was a mistake because I think we have made the international system less stable. We have weakened international institutions, and encouraged other countries to see us as a threat. Also, the precedent that you can invade another country because it seems like a good idea is not a good one. The Treaty of Westphalia was not such a bad thing.

I guess I disagree with your first premise (loss of stability) and disagree that there is negative effect for us in #2.

I think, if anything, we have made the international system more stable. I say that because what we did was align the perception of placement in the world order with the reality. What we had prior to going in to Afghanistan, and then Iraq, was a perception that we were a weak superpower - i.e., we did indeed have the power, but no will to exercise it. The effect of that combination was to take us out of play as something to take into account when strategizing. Now, the world views us in a way that is much more accurate - and I think that the spread of an accurate information set vis-a-vis what a power will do, and how that power will react, is always a good thing. Now, we may have conflicts with which we can deal - but we have ended that period in which we were seen as a paper tiger that could be prodded and shot at at will. If anything, I think this enhances stability. It does not enhance the day-to-day gnat bites of the disaffected - but those would have always been there anyway. The stabilty comes from France, Libya, Syrai, Russia, China, and all the others now knowing that we can and will exercise what power we have. That can only help. Patronizing as it may sound, everybody tested the substitute teachers until we learned what they would do to enforce order. Then, the strong ones conducted class, and the weak ones tried to maintain some semblance of order.

As far as causing other countries to see us as a threat, I am quite sure that France, England, Bolivia, Mexico, and the like - those countries who wish us no active harm, and who do not seek to hurt us beyond words at times - do not see us as any more of a threat than they did before. We have done nothing that would make a reasonable representative of those countries worry in the least about our intentions towards them. We have caused worry in some countries, though - and I would argue that that is a good thing. Syria SHOULD worry. Iran SHOULD worry. Again, this is only allowing perception to catch up to reality. As Bush said, basically, if you wish us no harm, and do us no harm, we are not a threat to you. Do otherwise, and live (or not) with the results. I am quite comfortable with these changes to the world order.

On stability, what you say only makes sense if you forget (a) 9/11, (b) that we invaded Afghanistan, and (c) that Iraq had zippo to do with terrorism and wasn't threatening us. This notion that the rest of the world saw us as a pushover does fit well with my take on Bush's thinking, though, in that it projects insecurity that others will think you are weak unless you act like a tough guy. And like our President, your post is blind to the benefits of international agreements and institutions that we enjoyed for most of the 20th century.

And you're missing the point about threats entirely. I would hope Syria sees us as a threat. But so do a lot of countries that we're not going to invade.

I supported the war at the time, and the news hasn't changed that because I think that, on a macro level -- Hussein needed to go -- and (although this sound callous coming from a noncombatant observer) the price in lives (Iraqi and coalition) is in my view worth it to eliminate a truly evil, despotic and destabilizing regime.

I would disagree with those who argued to continue containment, because containment and sanctions disproportionately harmed the poorest and most vulnerable segments of Iraqi society, while not truly harming Hussein or his regime (except insofar as preventing them fom threatening their neighbors -- which it did do effectively-- is "harm"). Also, in my view the sanctions regime would have been lifted long before it forced compliance. France and Russia wanted it gone already -- and the sanctions would never have forced Hussein to comply-- it also was a festering wound on our image in the Arab world.

So -- in my view the war needed to happen. Unfortunately, we didn't do the pre-war diplomacy too well (telling everyone else thet their opinion didn't matter was moronic and for domestic political consumption), and we f-d up the immediate aftermath of reconstruction. I hope that all straightens out ( I think it can) and we'll have a stable, democratic and non-hostile Iraq. In that case, the benefits will exceed the cost.

However -- I desparately want Bush out next year (for domestic policy reasons) -- so the trouble in Iraq short-term presents the possibility of my best case scenario: Bush takes bold action to do what needs doing, it all works out, and he still takes it in the neck.

S_A_M

I keep waiting for someone to suggest that we invade Zimbabwe, but I haven't heard it yet.

If we spent half the effort and money on containment that we did on the war, Iraq would have been contained into Jenna Bush's second term. For some of that $87 billion, etc., I'm sure we could have found a way to get France and Russia on board. And containment is distinct from sanctions. The former is primarily military, the latter primarily economic, though they're obviously related.

And now we've traded that festering wound for a bigger gash that's bleeding profusely.

You mean those agreements and institutions that prevented WWI, WWII, North Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War, and the Gulf I?

So essentially you want Bush to do the things that require true leadership and balls and which the DEMS currently running probably wouldn't have done, but still can him? Is it primarily the economy and if so, would your vote change if it turns?

You're right -- things weren't perfect, so we should fuck them up more.