Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

While Hank drags a lawyer through the mud because of his client (are we sure Hank is a lawyer?) and Slave attacks the Republican's favorite pseudo-Democratic rag, I offer you a reminder of what your Republican elected officials are up to.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Like all of the milbloggers that were, or are currently, over there?

Or even like Like Malkin, who although not in combat, actually went over there to report things accurately?

Pretending to be a ostrich doesn't suit you.

Talk about good sources and accurate reporting!

Feh.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
While Hank drags a lawyer through the mud because of his client (are we sure Hank is a lawyer?) and Slave attacks the Republican's favorite pseudo-Democratic rag, I offer you a reminder of what your Republican elected officials are up to.

Lawyers are them what's good at readin stuff, huh?

I never criticized the man's choice in clients. Much like Vito Corleone, I don't judge how a man earns his living. I merely noted that the client choice may prove problematic come the election when the dems ability to deal, in real world terms, with the Jihadis comes up.

oh, and what is weird, and highlighted by 2 of you just today, for all your liberal holy than thou attitudes, you still see homosexual behavior as something to mock and deride. The guy offered to engage in consensual gay sex. what do you feel is wrong with that? earlier Ty made fun of someone by noting he was a gay porn star.

could you clarify whether you support basic rights for homosexuals, oppose them, or whether the thought of gay men having sex makes your tummy feel funny.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I merely noted that the client choice may prove problematic come the election when the dems ability to deal, in real world terms, with the Jihadis comes up.

I agree, poor choice by the DNC to continue to use, as GC, a lawyer who also reps CAIR. It's a softball for swift-boating the Dems.

Would you agree that Fred has a similar, but closer to home, problem that will arise w/r/t the (many) hardcore pro-life/anti-choicers who usually vote in Republican primaries (and may stay home in the general, if they feel neither candidate supports their position)?

[Cletus Miller]

Serious, non-rhetorical, question: Can someone (preferably Repub) explain what the problem with saying "If we find him/them, we'll go get/kill OBL/Zawahiri if Musharaff won't help us" is?

Don't say that it's a proposal to "invade" an ally--it's not. Don't say it's hypocritical--that's a cop out answer (and untrue).

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
Serious, non-rhetorical, question: Can someone (preferably Repub) explain what the problem with saying "If we find him/them, we'll go get/kill OBL/Zawahiri if Musharaff won't help us" is?

Don't say that it's a proposal to "invade" an ally--it's not. Don't say it's hypocritical--that's a cop out answer (and untrue).

Nevermind.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Like all of the milbloggers that were, or are currently, over there?

Or even like Like Malkin, who although not in combat, actually went over there to report things accurately?

Pretending to be a ostrich doesn't suit you.

"most" means "most," not "all"

And I'm surprised that you would equate Malkin's brief reporting escapade to actually serving there in combat.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
earlier Ty made fun of someone by noting he was a gay porn star.

I don't recall making fun of him, although there is some latent humour in the fact that Ann Coulter was photographed with him shortly after calling John Edwards a "faggot."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
Serious, non-rhetorical, question: Can someone (preferably Repub) explain what the problem with saying "If we find him/them, we'll go get/kill OBL/Zawahiri if Musharaff won't help us" is?

Don't say that it's a proposal to "invade" an ally--it's not. Don't say it's hypocritical--that's a cop out answer (and untrue).

Why answer a hypothetical that may never come up, when the result is to cause potential unrest? Pakistan has nuclear bombs and is quite unstable as it is. In the past few years we have had some strikes at suspected high level gatherings. If what he means is he will start pregular patrols into Pakistan, I think he risks toppling a friendly government. OTOH, maybe it is becoming time to run the risk of at least turning up the heat.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't recall making fun of him, although there is some latent humour in the fact that Ann Coulter was photographed with him shortly after calling John Edwards a "faggot."

but you included the word, which implies you thought it conveyed more than just "porn star." the purpose of mentioning his is a porn star was to degrade the value of his opinion, correct? why the additional adjective?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
but you included the word, which implies you thought it conveyed more than just "porn star." the purpose of mentioning his is a porn star was to degrade the value of his opinion, correct? why the additional adjective?

Ty was just looking out for me. Without that qualifier, I might've spent time trying to use it to discern the differences among the 8 different Jenna Jameson offerings on LodgeNet.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Ty was just looking out for me. Without that qualifier, I might've spent time trying to use it to discern the differences among the 8 different Jenna Jameson offerings on LodgeNet.

thank god you're okay. were you on the 405 today?

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Why answer a hypothetical that may never come up, when the result is to cause potential unrest?

Then why not similar reax to suggestions that we invade Iran?

If what he means is he will start pregular patrols into Pakistan, I think he risks toppling a friendly government.

Agreed, but that isn't what he said. Actionable intelligence need not come from US troops on the ground. The action taken need not involve troops on the ground.

OTOH, maybe it is becoming time to run the risk of at least turning up the heat.

Agreed, maybe, maybe not. It's a legitmate question and I think that taking out OBL/Zawahiri is a key part of the WoT/GSVE/whatever-you-call-it. Much more important than Saddam.

Besides Obama hardly suggested bombing Mecca (as Tancredo suggested) a non-military site in a well-controlled (for lack of a better word) part of another (titular) ally. He suggested taking out public enemy #1, located in a virtual breakaway region, controlled by Qaeda and its sympathizers, IF Musharref first refused to act. The problem with that formulation is tipping off OBL's friendlies in the ISI by asking Mushareff first.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
but you included the word, which implies you thought it conveyed more than just "porn star." the purpose of mentioning his is a porn star was to degrade the value of his opinion, correct? why the additional adjective?

I believed he had been discussed here before.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I believed he had been discussed here before.

and FWIW I can't see any anti-gay bias in anything you post here, but the word choice did seem odd. GGG on the other hand clearly has issues, but we all knew that.