Politics: J'accuse!

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Yeah, but the avatars are at the edges of the computer. It just seems the eye is now used to expecting "stuff" to be at the right and left margins of the computer screen through no fault of the computer user (ads, and such). Same goes for pop-ups. Aint my fault. Unless of course you keep getting lewd pop-ups because you spent the day downloading gay male porn (NTTAWWT). Most people when looking from a distance will not think much of stuff in the margins.

so it is your fault if I am getting lewd popups from downloading gay male porn? (I download at night.)

Anyway, my point to NM was that she could have a moving avatar, apparently, unless Ty and TM were just grandfathered or whatever.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
so it is your fault if I am getting lewd popups

for at least 10 more years. you're the causes of most "popups" you see. believe me.....


fringe this is a compliment

[Ty, Nee Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
By my count, I have 3 days. You will miss me when I am gone. Even more so perhaps now that Ty has been deleted.

I prefer "defenestrated."

[Ty, Nee Slothrop]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Re: the animation, TM's avatar moves, and Ty's did.

As Apu once said, the South shall come again.

Keep hope alive.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
or maybe I'm just feeling guilty because I'm starting to feel attracted to cartoons... what next..regular BM's?

Sad to say, the immoderate obsession with Abrahamic religious traditions precedes the regular BMs. The top minds at Yale Div are working on whether it's a cause/effect relationship.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Ty, Nee Slothrop

Aaaah!! WTF is that?!?!? Bring back the cute green dragon!!!

[Ty, Nee Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
Aaaah!! WTF is that?!?!? Bring back the cute green dragon!!!

We'll see what we can do. Isn't that awful?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Ty, Nee Slothrop
Isn't that awful?

Yes. Make it go away.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
From Dave Pell's electablog:

the amazing thing is, this well-stocked boat had no tube of Bactine. if only there was some topical antibiotic, JFK wouldn't have needed to leave the boat at all for treatment of his combat wounds. with the extra time, he could have advanced our penetration up the Mekong, or maybe just slaughtered some more innocents......

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Handy safety tip for common thieves at loose ends in Palestine: Don't try to rob shifty-eyed men headed to the Israeli border.

Beyond getting blown up for their rather obvious strategic error, these numbnuts then get condemned by Hamas as collaborators of the Zionist scourge.

Ol' Mom in Ramallah must be so proud.

Gattigap

from the article...:
Hamas said the bomber was on his way to try to infiltrate into Israel, accompanied by another Hamas member and a guide, when they were stopped by the armed men.

so there are guides to help you get to where you'll do your martyrdom.
Jihadi ettiquette question...do you have to tip your guide? say offer him one or two of your heaven-virgins?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Handy safety tip for common thieves at loose ends in Palestine: Don't try to rob shifty-eyed men headed to the Israeli border.

Beyond getting blown up for their rather obvious strategic error, these numbnuts then get condemned by Hamas as collaborators of the Zionist scourge.

Ol' Mom in Ramallah must be so proud.

Speaking of the situation in the territories, has anyone else noticed the "letter of assurance" that the Bush administration has provided to the Sharon government regarding Israel's planned withdrawal from Gaza?

It's my understanding that in this letter, the U.S. has promised to lead an international effort to ensure the development of responsible governing structures in Gaza after the Israeli withdrawal, so that the area does not become a "failed state" of a haven for terrorists attacking Israel.

Martin Indyk had a piece in the WaPo Opinion section last Sunday on this issue -- in which he noted the magnitude of this commitment, and the prospect that this would leave the U.S. holding the bag, and in the _best_ case scenario, working with a Gaza governmental coalition that includes representatives of Hamas. Do we want to be involved in that peace-keeping force? This could be a very big deal that no one is talking about.

Israeli papers are also saying that Bush has asked Sharon to wait on the Gaza withdrawal until after the November elections -- so that this isn't an issue in our elections. Perhaps after the elections, the administration will also seek that supplemental appropriation for the U.S. military, or put some budget figure out there for Afghanistan and Iraq in 2005.

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Speaking of the situation in the territories, has anyone else noticed the "letter of assurance" that the Bush administration has provided to the Sharon government regarding Israel's planned withdrawal from Gaza?

It's my understanding that in this letter, the U.S. has promised to lead an international effort to ensure the development of responsible governing structures in Gaza after the Israeli withdrawal, so that the area does not become a "failed state" of a haven for terrorists attacking Israel.

Martin Indyk had a piece in the WaPo Opinion section last Sunday on this issue -- in which he noted the magnitude of this commitment, and the prospect that this would leave the U.S. holding the bag, and in the _best_ case scenario, working with a Gaza governmental coalition that includes representatives of Hamas. Do we want to be involved in that peace-keeping force? This could be a very big deal that no one is talking about.

Israeli papers are also saying that Bush has asked Sharon to wait on the Gaza withdrawal until after the November elections -- so that this isn't an issue in our elections. Perhaps after the elections, the administration will also seek that supplemental appropriation for the U.S. military, or put some budget figure out there for Afghanistan and Iraq in 2005.

S_A_M

This is really a non-biased question, because I'm not up to speed on all this...

Isn't sharon's promise a pretty brave and dramatic attempt to break a deadlocked nightmere. And if it took a Bush promise that we'd try and work "internationally" to avoid Gaza turning into a tiny little Afghanistan to get the promise, isn't that a worthwhile promise? I mean ultimately so much of the problems in the world flow from the arid bit of land. Doing something that is at least step in the direction of a solution seems laudable.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Speaking of the situation in the territories, has anyone else noticed the "letter of assurance" that the Bush administration has provided to the Sharon government regarding Israel's planned withdrawal from Gaza?

It's my understanding that in this letter, the U.S. has promised to lead an international effort to ensure the development of responsible governing structures in Gaza after the Israeli withdrawal, so that the area does not become a "failed state" of a haven for terrorists attacking Israel.

Martin Indyk had a piece in the WaPo Opinion section last Sunday on this issue -- in which he noted the magnitude of this commitment, and the prospect that this would leave the U.S. holding the bag, and in the _best_ case scenario, working with a Gaza governmental coalition that includes representatives of Hamas. Do we want to be involved in that peace-keeping force? This could be a very big deal that no one is talking about.

Israeli papers are also saying that Bush has asked Sharon to wait on the Gaza withdrawal until after the November elections -- so that this isn't an issue in our elections. Perhaps after the elections, the administration will also seek that supplemental appropriation for the U.S. military, or put some budget figure out there for Afghanistan and Iraq in 2005.

S_A_M

First, just to keep our new green sloth happy (is that a sloth, or a fat llama, or what?), I need to address Indyk. He has, for years, been a consistent anti-Israel voice. (I note that the WaPo is running this piece that I think Indyk wrote for the Palestinian Times.) In spite of having been the Israeli ambassador twice (I think), he is fairly roundly despised over there, as one who sees no difference between putting up a fence and sending kiddies with bombs into restaurants.

Second, I think he reads far too much into what the letter of assurance says and means, just so that he can push the point he wants to push (which is, primarily, that anything Sharon does is evil.) It is, he says, a "hidden meaning", and it is so well hidden that no one but him apparently sees it.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
the amazing thing is, this well-stocked boat had no tube of Bactine. if only there was some topical antibiotic, JFK wouldn't have needed to leave the boat at all for treatment of his combat wounds.

Don't forgot the band-aid.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
The Village Voice, that bulwark of conservative thought, calls for the Democratic Party to drop Kerry as the nominee.

Impossible. Democrats never, ever criticize Democrats.