Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
he main point is that we are fixing a runway, and that is proof we are staying forever. the rest is churned nonsense. bullshit hold together at least.

"Bush doesn't care enough for the troops to get them adequate armor!"

"Bush is trying to make the runways safe which proves he won't pull out of Iraq ever!"

JFC.

me main point is that nitpicking over detail is way to avoid address larger point in piece of writing, tonto.

KFC

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ironweed
me main point is that nitpicking over detail is way to avoid address larger point in piece of writing, tonto.

KFC

calling me out for typos is like calling someone else Hitler. you lose.

310-21

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ironweed
me main point is that nitpicking over detail is way to avoid address larger point in piece of writing, tonto.

Hank would prefer to argue about shit that he's made up and put in quotes, rather than nitpick over detail.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Hank would prefer to argue about shit that he's made up and put in quotes, rather than nitpick over detail.

I'm geared up to have a friday flame war with flower. you lot should keep your heads down. Shock and awe!!!

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by ironweed
me main point is that nitpicking over detail is way to avoid address larger point in piece of writing, tonto.

KFC

Fried chicken??????

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
calling me out for typos is like calling someone else Hitler. you lose.

310-21

He wasn't calling you out over a typo.

JFC


KFC


Stare at them both for a few minutes. It should come to you if you think hard enough.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Fried chicken??????

See, Hank? This sort of thing is what keeps Fringe out of your league.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ironweed
me main point is that nitpicking over detail is way to avoid address larger point in piece of writing, tonto.

Actually, I think that's called debating these days. Or maybe there's another term for what all those stuffed shirts have been doing for the past few weeks.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I'm geared up to have a friday flame war with flower. you lot should keep your heads down. Shock and awe!!!

If reading and quoting from Newsweek was the price I had to pay to bring that kind of life to the board, so be it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The hematoma doesn't sound like fun.

His book on why we ought to have more censorship is fascinating. I had a near unstoppable urge to wipe my as with it. Then I say the Barnes & Noble security warning.

I'm rooting for the hematoma. Unfortunately, WikiDoctor tells me it's rarely fatal.

Bork should be boiled in oil for filing that suit. And fuck Gibson Dunn. Those hard ons pimp Federalist douches like Olsen into public sphere and then have the nerve to play ambulance chaser for a man who'd just as easily die falling in his bathtub and clearly assumed the risk?

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by ironweed
It's a good thing you stopped reading, because I think the writer's point was that Bush doesn't really have a plan to end the war, which we all know is bullshit.

I need someone who thinks that Heathrow is the busiest airport in the world, who works for a magazine that allows such an obvious (albeit minor) error to be published, to fill me in on the blindingly obvious? Of course Bush doesn't have an exit strategy--that is not newsworthy. Further circumstantial evidence that Bush intends to keep the US in Iraq for an extended period? I want to hear about circumstantial evidence that anyone in this administration has the least fucking clue what to do about Iraq in the short or long term.

Fixing a runway to maintain operational safety--even if it's a billion dollar job--seems like what I would want my base commander taking care of if I were a pilot flying in Iraq. Whatever the cost, it's a rounding error on the whole endeavour--the last thing I want is people dying because of a poorly maintained runway (that is, because of something completely w/in our control as of today). Everyone directly involved with deciding to fix it cannot avoid criticism--if they don't make it safe, they don't care about the troops, if they do make it safe, we're staying forever.

Aside from that, isn't the US trying (or, at least, shouldn't it be trying) to fix a few things in Iraq? Which would include making the principal military air base safe enough to continue to use, no? We broke it, we should fix it, among other things. And, even if the ground troops pull out, it's not likely that we're giving up Iraqi air bases--how else do we adequately fulfill our nation's destiny and bomb Iran?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
I need someone who thinks that Heathrow is the busiest airport in the world, who works for a magazine that allows such an obvious (albeit minor) error to be published, to fill me in on the blindingly obvious?

Heathrow apparently has the most international travelers, if not the most passengers total. Hub maybe implies that it has a lot of people stopping there en route to other places; the busier airports may have people actually wanting to stay in the location they land.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
I need someone who thinks that Heathrow is the busiest airport in the world, who works for a magazine that allows such an obvious (albeit minor) error to be published, to fill me in on the blindingly obvious? Of course Bush doesn't have an exit strategy--that is not newsworthy. Further circumstantial evidence that Bush intends to keep the US in Iraq for an extended period? I want to hear about circumstantial evidence that anyone in this administration has the least fucking clue what to do about Iraq in the short or long term.

Fixing a runway to maintain operational safety--even if it's a billion dollar job--seems like what I would want my base commander taking care of if I were a pilot flying in Iraq. Whatever the cost, it's a rounding error on the whole endeavour--the last thing I want is people dying because of a poorly maintained runway (that is, because of something completely w/in our control as of today). Everyone directly involved with deciding to fix it cannot avoid criticism--if they don't make it safe, they don't care about the troops, if they do make it safe, we're staying forever.

Aside from that, isn't the US trying (or, at least, shouldn't it be trying) to fix a few things in Iraq? Which would include making the principal military air base safe enough to continue to use, no? We broke it, we should fix it, among other things. And, even if the ground troops pull out, it's not likely that we're giving up Iraqi air bases--how else do we adequately fulfill our nation's destiny and bomb Iran?

I think you're jumping to the conclusion that cracks in the runway pose a short-term safety problem. I read that article and infer that the cracks pose no short-term problem, and that the decision to fix them speaks to planning for the long-term.

But maybe I'm all wet.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Announcement here

The count by law school:

Connecticut 1
Yale 1
Texas 1
Penn 1
Georgetown 2
Harvard 2
Columbia 1

Curiously, none from Regent.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think you're jumping to the conclusion that cracks in the runway pose a short-term safety problem. I read that article and infer that the cracks pose no short-term problem, and that the decision to fix them speaks to planning for the long-term.

But maybe I'm all wet.

runway repair is an ongoing project. not only cracks but cleaning. wheel rubber is skid-depositied and needs to be removed. we know the article inferred they are not a problem- that is part of the reason Cletus says he quit reading- the article was poorly researched and full of shit.

On all these things you keep digging yourself into a hole much like you claim bush is doing. If flower were here I would ask him if that is ironic.