Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Do you think he's a Democrat?

Maybe you read but you don't remember?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Ty, you divert responsibility from yourself and your false charges by claiming that President Bush and his closest aides have engaged in illegal conspiracies. It’s unfortunate that so many people take you seriously.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Ty, you divert responsibility from yourself and your false charges by claiming that President Bush and his closest aides have engaged in illegal conspiracies. It’s unfortunate that so many people take you seriously.

I "divert responsibility from myself and my false charges"? What does that mean?

Did I claim anywhere that President Bush has engaged in an illegal conspiracy? I can't think of one. I think he has a reckless disregard for the truth, but is that illegal?

And people take me seriously? This is news to me.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

And people take me seriously? This is news to me.

SHP, Sidd, Wonk, GGG are all human beings and forget taking you seriously, they all look up to you as a God. The fact that there are only 2 digits in their IQ scores does not mean they are not people- it just means they are dull normal.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
SHP, Sidd, Wonk, GGG are all human beings and forget taking you seriously, they all look up to you as a God. The fact that there are only 2 digits in their IQ scores does not mean they are not people- it just means they are dull normal.

I have had lunch with at least two of those people, and not only did they not avoid eye contact and prostate themselves in my presence, they didn't even pick up the tab. Actually, now that I think about it, I may owe wonk for lunch.

eta: The rest of you -- it is not necessary to sacrifice the virgin. I have spoken.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I have had lunch with at least two of those people, and not only did they not avoid eye contact and prostate themselves in my presence, they didn't even pick up the tab. Actually, now that I think about it, I may owe wonk for lunch.

eta: The rest of you -- it is not necessary to sacrifice the virgin. I have spoken.

ha ha ha. I know its easy to cheat these guys- wonk is 2nd dumbest as an example, but I wasn't trying to insult these guys. My point was that these guys aren't really that capable, and you shouldn't keep getting them riled up. but thanks for playin.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
ha ha ha. I know its easy to cheat these guys- wonk is 2nd dumbest as an example, but I wasn't trying to insult these guys. My point was that these guys aren't really that capable, and you shouldn't keep getting them riled up. but thanks for playin.

Always a pleasure.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


eta: The rest of you -- it is not necessary to sacrifice the virgin. I have spoken.

Fair enough, but I'll still buy the first beer.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


they didn't even pick up the tab.

Just like liberals... cheaparses. By comparison, when I dined with Flower, he picked up the tab (one word: expense account). Both times.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Maybe you read but you don't remember?

How much you want to bet this guy (and his boxed wine state of CA family) are Democrats?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Fair enough, but I'll still buy the first beer.

where, when?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
By comparison, when I dined with Flower, he picked up the tab (one word: expense account). Both times.

Typical conservative -- pretending to be generous but sticking someone else with the bill.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Typical conservative -- pretending to be generous but sticking someone else with the bill.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/28/1469/21819

• ABC docudrama will blame Clinton and Dems for 9/11
  
  The show is called "The Path to 9/11" and it is going to air Sunday, September 10, and Monday, September 11.
  
  Here's one conservative already drooling over it:
  
  
  
  Let me start by saying that "The Path to 9/11" is one of the best, most intelligent, most pro-American miniseries I've ever seen on TV, and conservatives should support it and promote it as vigorously as possible.
  
  
  
  
  theyrereal's diary :: ::
  And here is more of what we can expect from this show:
  
  
  
  This is the first Hollywood production I've seen that honestly depicts how the Clinton administration repeatedly bungled the capture of Osama Bin Laden. One astonishing sequence in "The Path to 9/11" shows the CIA and the Northern Alliance surrounding Bin Laden's house in Afghanistan. They're on the verge of capturing Bin Laden, but they need final approval from the Clinton administration in order to go ahead. They phone Clinton, but he and his senior staff refuse to give authorization for the capture of Bin Laden, for fear of political fall-out if the mission should go wrong and civilians are harmed. National Security Adviser Sandy Berger in essence tells the team in Afghanistan that if they want to capture Bin Laden, they'll have to go ahead and do it on their own without any official authorization. That way, their necks will be on the line - and not his. The astonished CIA agent on the ground in Afghanistan repeatedly asks Berger if this is really what the administration wants. Berger refuses to answer, and then finally just hangs up on the agent. The CIA team and the Northern Alliance, just a few feet from capturing Bin Laden, have to abandon the entire mission. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda shortly thereafter bomb the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, killing over 225 men, women, and children, and wounding over 4000. The episode is a perfect example of Clinton-era irresponsibility.

This should help remind voters of why they need to just pull the R lever (and we won't need to have people there to do it for them) this November. Ty, maybe you should send the producers whatever book you were saying we need to read?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski

• This is the first Hollywood production I've seen that honestly depicts how the Clinton administration repeatedly bungled the capture of Osama Bin Laden. One astonishing sequence in "The Path to 9/11" shows the CIA and the Northern Alliance surrounding Bin Laden's house in Afghanistan. They're on the verge of capturing Bin Laden, but they need final approval from the Clinton administration in order to go ahead. They phone Clinton, but he and his senior staff refuse to give authorization for the capture of Bin Laden, for fear of political fall-out if the mission should go wrong and civilians are harmed. National Security Adviser Sandy Berger in essence tells the team in Afghanistan that if they want to capture Bin Laden, they'll have to go ahead and do it on their own without any official authorization. That way, their necks will be on the line - and not his. The astonished CIA agent on the ground in Afghanistan repeatedly asks Berger if this is really what the administration wants. Berger refuses to answer, and then finally just hangs up on the agent. The CIA team and the Northern Alliance, just a few feet from capturing Bin Laden, have to abandon the entire mission. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda shortly thereafter bomb the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, killing over 225 men, women, and children, and wounding over 4000. The episode is a perfect example of Clinton-era irresponsibility.

This should help remind voters of why they need to just pull the R lever (and we won't need to have people there to do it for them) this November. Ty, maybe you should send the producers whatever book you were saying we need to read?

Is there some reason that you think that this book is more accurate than Ghost Wars, or do just like its story better?

Slave, what do you think? Does this sound more accurate than Steve Coll's account?

Hank, I notice that you link to Kos, and yet most of what you quoted is something from another cite quoted there. And yet you don't give the Kos writer's response: "We know this is simply bullshit. Yet ABC is airing this propaganda and will undoubtedly promote the hell out of it in the next two weeks."

Did you know that it's simply bullshit, or did you just not read that far?