Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I feel we need a military. Maybe you disagree.

Traditionally, militaries have given medals to guys who have done special things. there are many reasons for this, but one might be so that the awardee's countrymen can recognize the guy did something for them that was, you know, special.

There are estimates that of the people claiming to have been Navy Seals, actually 50% are frauds. the same is true for Medal of Honor winners. maybe the frauds use the lie for somewhat innocent purposes, getting laid maybe, but some have fooled their hometowns and use the status to get free things, to get honored status, etc.

I think letting them get away with that takes away from the actual guys who did the special things. You seem like you don't mind people lying to gain some unwarrented status. I bet you think it's okay when Flower or Thurgreed lie about their height on the internet. I think that detracts from the actually tall.

And this law has been passed by Congress. Maybe you think it shouldn't have been, but that isn't the same as being unconstitutional.

Once again, right on all counts. They should extend the law to also cover those who claim to have performed national guard service without having actually done so. These people are lower than low, and the idea that we have people in government, dealing with military issues, who have shamed themselves by such valor theft needs to be dealt with, quickly and harshly.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Once again, right on all counts. They should extend the law to also cover those who claim to have performed national guard service without having actually done so. These people are lower than low, and the idea that we have people in government, dealing with military issues, who have shamed themselves by such valor theft needs to be dealt with, quickly and harshly.

How about if you mock up some memos to prove your point, and we'll get right on it.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
so what?
and I just went and searched "McNulty" and none of you have ever mentioned him before. Did some blog tell you this was important or are you taking a shot in the dark that maybe it meant something?

You should try reading the news some time.

[Diane_Keaton]

Objection: Relevance!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
You should try reading the news some time.

i do. just not the gossip columns or other mean spirited nonsense.

[Shape Shifter]

HILLARY CLINTON

Pro: Known commodity; strong fundraiser.

Con: Polarizing; unlikely to woo those already opposed to her.


BARACK OBAMA

Pro: Articulate; resembles foxy actor Blair Underwood.

Con: L.A. Law was kind of overrated now that you think about it.


JOHN EDWARDS

Pro: Has strong appeal to working-class voters.

Con: As a resident of two Americas, he must raise twice as much money and spend twice as much time campaigning.


JOE BIDEN

Pro: Technically still running for president.

Con: Dude. Come on


DICK CHENEY
IN AN ELABORATE LATEX DISGUISE
THAT TAKES FIVE HOURS TO APPLY

Pro: Trojan horse, my friend. Trojan fucking horse.

Con: Ruse would be so exciting that he would surely drop dead of a massive stroke about a month before Iowa.


OPTIMUS PRIME

Pro: Size; power; ability to emit short-range optic blasts.

Con: Potential attack ad: "Sometimes Optimus Prime is a robot, other times a truck. Which is it, Mr. Prime? America deserves a leader that doesn't transform whenever it's convenient."


ALLEN IVERSON

Pro: Instant offense.

Con: Selfish with the ball; may have lost a step.


More at: http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2007/4/18moe.html

[Shape Shifter]

RUDY GIULIANI

Pro: Unifying force after 9/11; articulate speaker.

Con: The whole "pro-choice, pro-gun-control, New Yorker, used to live with gay dudes, adultery" thing might hurt him with conservatives. A bit.


JOHN MCCAIN

Pro: Comforting resemblance to character actor Gavin MacLeod.

Con: Murray from The Mary Tyler Moore Show lacked leadership qualities and Captain Stubing from Love Boat got a little goofy whenever Charo was a guest star, leaving executive branch vulnerable to Charo impersonators who are actually Al Qaeda operatives.


MITT ROMNEY

Pro: Named after Mittens, the family cat, later shortening name to "Mitt." People love cats.

Con: Religious beliefs could create problems, as many Americans may not be ready to accept worshiper of ancient Egyptian god Ra.


ZOMBIE RONALD REAGAN

Pro: Probably the most Reaganesque candidate available; if stoked with the brains of the living, should operate in an acceptable fashion.

Con: Long-dead eyes lack that magic twinkle; inhuman groans negatively impact "Great Communicator" status.


NEWT GINGRICH

Pro: Well known.

Con: See above.


EDDIE VAN HALEN

Pro: I tell you what, he would bring the nations of the world together through ROCK! He'd be all deedly-deedly-deedly-DEE-DEE-DEE! on his guitar and the bosses of the other countries would be all, "Whoa! Let's stop fighting and start rocking!"

Con: Drunken wretched mess.


A WOMAN OF SOME SORT

Pro: Could win support of other women.

Con: Women are not allowed to join the Republican Party.


More at: http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2007/5/2moe.html

[bi-partisanship fairy]

Greetings,

In my request for the maximization of my bi-partisanal PoV, I am taking a seminar in "Alternative Political Realities" at the local university.

Our current general topic of discussion is based on the hypothetical universe in which the South staved off the North's war of aggression in the Civil War, ultimately fighting to a stalemate and perpetuating the existence of the CSA and USA as distinct and unrelatedly autonomous state actors, which dual existence, in the hypothetical universe continues to this day.

Now, more specifically, the discussion topic for this week's seminar is, assuming the hypothetical above, and the additional context of an uneasy but diplomatically polite co-existence between the two nations in question (sort of like an estranged version of our relationship with Mexico, without NAFTA), in the War on Terror, which side would the CSA weigh in on and to what consequence.

discuss amongst yourselves, in the spirit of bi-partisanship.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
OK -- a competing value judgment leading to a different policy decision.

I say we should punish them both severely under your Administration, and have the cops yelling "Its Taxwonk time" during their restroom interrogations. Zero tolerance, bitches.

S_A_M

Under my Administration, restroom interrogations will be severely discouraged. Zero tolerance, bitch.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Under my Administration, restroom interrogations will be severely discouraged. Zero tolerance, bitch.

Nobody's perfect.

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

This is wild stuff. Skip to page 9, and read to about page 22.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Nobody's perfect.

S_A_M

So the imperfect like to say.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This is wild stuff. Skip to page 9, and read to about page 22.

Oh, if only I could bring myself to care.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This is wild stuff. Skip to page 9, and read to about page 22.

When is he being impeached?

eta: Ty, you really should stop relying on gossip columns or other mean spirited nonsense for news.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
so what?
and I just went and searched "McNulty" and none of you have ever mentioned him before. Did some blog tell you this was important or are you taking a shot in the dark that maybe it meant something?

• "I think the resignation of Mr. McNulty is another significant step and evidence that a department really cannot function with the continued leadership or lack of leadership of Attorney General Gonzales," [PA Republican Senator Arlen] Specter said.

Gossip column link.