Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I am not saying any investigation found them, just that none conclusively proved that they did not exist.

I'll take that as a TKO instead of a KO, then.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Which investigation found the WMD? Are you thinking about mobile biological laboratories that turned out to be ice cream trucks or the nuclear missiles that turned out to be sewage pipes?

I'd almost forgotten about the Trailers of Mass Destruction.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'll take that as a TKO instead of a KO, then.

No its more like a standing 8 count situation........we just need to see if the referee from Syria can count up to 8 before I get up.

[Penske_Account]

patriot american:

Dear liberals:

And what should be the proper response to the attacks of terrorists against America and her allies?


leading light of demo-liberalism:

"Go the negotiating table, not the battlefield."

Now, THAT'S what Rove was talkin' bout!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
No its more like a standing 8 count situation........we just need to see if the referee from Syria can count up to 8 before I get up.

You're not up yet, though. I think the referee went to get ice cream, or something.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You're not up yet, though. I think the referee went to get ice cream, or something.

I'm not up, I'm not out, that's my point. Open issue.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Do they interpret "except as provided [above]" differently in the Tax Code?

This could explain my "C" in Tax.

So -- the rule says "this doesn't authorize use of the military" (I'm paraphrasing).

And you read the exception to mean "except for ... well, an invasion, a few hundred billion dollars, a few hundred thousand troops, and an indefinite occupation."

So what use of the military does the rule not authorize?

When, under your interpretation of a statute, the exception swallows the rule, chances are the interpretation is wrong.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
So -- the rule says "this doesn't authorize use of the military" (I'm paraphrasing).

And you read the exception to mean "except for ... well, an invasion, a few hundred billion dollars, a few hundred thousand troops, and an indefinite occupation."

So what use of the military does the rule not authorize?

My read is that, implicitly, "doing the lynndie" is probably proscribed, which explains all the problems surrounding that rogue issue.

[Penske_Account]

Wow, looks like Bush hit a homerun.

The terrorists believe that free societies are essentially corrupt and decadent, and with a few hard blows they can force us to retreat. They are mistaken [ except for the retreating liberals]. After September 11, I made a commitment to the American people: This nation will not wait to be attacked again. We will defend our freedom. We will take the fight to the enemy.

Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war. Many terrorists who kill innocent men, women and children on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of our citizens in New York, in Washington and Pennsylvania. There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home

After September 11, 2001, I told the American people that the road ahead would be difficult and that we would prevail. Well, it has been difficult. And we are prevailing.

[Nut Case, Sensitive]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
My read is that, implicitly, "doing the lynndie" is probably proscribed, which explains all the problems surrounding that rogue issue.

Nuts?

[Nut Sack, Sensitive]

Originally posted by Nut Case, Sensitive
Nuts?

Nuts?

More like Torture!!!

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I want Sup Ct. justices who are Federalists. What is so hard to understand?

So do I. Ain't going to happen. The GOP claims to want federalists on the bench, until the states' rights sought to be protected offend the moral agenda of their right wing jackass brigade. In those cases, the GOP suddenly becomes the party of Big Fed Govt.

Some stupid cunt* in last week's National Review actually wrote a fucking piece on why its ok for the GOP to be utterly inconsistent and totally self indulgent in its policies. His premise was that hypocrisy was good. He went as far as to say that being a fucking chickenhawk should not be subject to scrutiny.

That a magazine of that caliber has fallen to the depth where it'd publish hackery like that indicates how heavily the kool aid is flowing in some sectors of the GOP. The level of wilful ignorance and outright horseshit doublespeak in the party is just aamazing. Its gone past scary straight into funny.

* Used in the British non-sexist sense (I've run out of insults for these vermin).

[SlaveNoMore]

sebastian_dangerfield
Some stupid cunt* in last week's National Review actually wrote a fucking piece on why its ok for the GOP to be utterly inconsistent and totally self indulgent in its policies. His premise was that hypocrisy was good. He went as far as to say that being a fucking chickenhawk should not be subject to scrutiny.

That a magazine of that caliber has fallen to the depth where it'd publish hackery like that indicates how heavily the kool aid is flowing in some sectors of the GOP. The level of wilful ignorance and outright horseshit doublespeak in the party is just aamazing. Its gone past scary straight into funny.

Cite please.*

*That being said, the NR/NRO has in the last ten years really fractured along the Federalist/Conservative wing and the Catholic/Conservative (i.e. pragmatic social conservative wing). Buckley and O'Sullivan exemplified both, keeping the far former primary over the latter. I'd like to see the actual author rather than your filtered read on it.

(I've run out of insults for these vermin).

Ran out? Ran out!!!!

Go to moveon.com, Answer.org, or petterthottam.com. They'll give you the Glenngary Leads. I hear they're gold

[SlaveNoMore]

Typical crap from the MSM:

Associated Press reporter Asif Shahzad reporting:

17 former Guantanamo inmates freed in Pakistan; 6 claim Qur'an was desecrated

LAHORE, Pakistan (AP) - Pakistanis freed from Guantanamo Bay claimed Monday they saw American interrogators throw, tear and stand on copies of Islam's holy book, and one former detainee said naked women sat on prisoners' chests during questioning

• That's the lede. Here are the final three grafs:
  
  Tahir Ashrafi, a religious affairs adviser for Punjab province, said the 17 men had been cleared by Pakistani intelligence agencies after thorough interrogation and "have not been found to be involved in any kind of terrorist activity."
  
  He said all the men signed statements saying they wouldn't join any anti-state activity.
  
  However, one of the freed men, Khalil-ur Rahman, 21, from the eastern town of Gujrat, said he wouldn't hesitate to fight again. "If I get a chance to fight jihad again, I will definitely go. I will not miss it," he said.
  
  This is a good example of a news story constructed exactly backward with the wrong headline. The correct headline for this story is:
  
  Detainee Freed From Guantanamo Bay Vows to Kill Again
  
  Miss a chance to whip up more Anti-American hatred with a Koran desecration story? As If.

link

[SlaveNoMore]

sebastian_dangerfield
So do I. Ain't going to happen. The GOP claims to want federalists on the bench, until the states' rights sought to be protected offend the moral agenda of their right wing jackass brigade. In those cases, the GOP suddenly becomes the party of Big Fed Govt.

The one [and only] area where our "big tent" HAS been united is on appointed state' rights/federalist jurists. The putrid decisions [possibly] expanding the Takings Clause and the nonsensical jibberish involving the Establishment Clause will only further embolden the federalist side to insist on new Justices not beholden to Hollywood, George Soros, Babs and the PC police.

People on th right want both Kennedy and O'Connor dead after this term. A bit extreme, I think. But their opinions boggle the mind.

Within the next 6 months, expect the following:

1) Thomas (unfortunately, not Scalia) tapped for CJ after Rehnquist resigns;

2) The Reps to go "nuclear" on the Dems illegal fillibuster tactics, especially after they broke the "compromise" less than 28 hours later by refusing a vote on Bolton;

3) Bush taps - and gets tapped - 2 new SCOTUS Judges by 2007;

4) Stevens and/or Ginsberg both retire due to illness/death right before the 2008 election; It becomes the decisive POTUS issue (more so than Iraq, a nuclear North Korea, renegade China, or the resurgent Soviet Union of non-elected Putin)

FWIW - I hope I'm wrong on #4