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

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
"I'm worried about over committing our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use." -- 10/12/00

eta: Can I stop now? I have about as many of these as I do of the movie quotes.

Can I play?

"The level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline. I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." --05/20/2005

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Karl Rove uses 9/11 as a wedge:

• Rove, Bush's chief political adviser, said in a speech Wednesday that "liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." Conservatives, he told the New York state Conservative Party just a few miles north of Ground Zero, "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."

AP

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
"The level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline. I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." --05/20/2005

Scott McClellan being questioned at the gaggle on June 16:

• Q. Scott, is the insurgency in Iraq in its last throes?
  
  SCOTT McCLELLAN: Terry, you have a desperate group of terrorists in Iraq that are doing everything they can to try to derail the transition to democracy. The Iraqi people have made it clear that they want a free and democratic and peaceful future. And that's why we're doing everything we can, along with other countries, to support the Iraqi people as they move forward. The fact that they are making great progress on the political front is significant because that helps defeat the terrorists, because the terrorists don't want to see democracy take hold. They don't want lasting democratic institutions to be put in place. And that's why we are standing with the Iraqi people as they move forward on the political front.
  
  We're also standing with the Iraqi people as they move forward on -- to address the security situation. We are working side by side with Iraqi forces now to defeat those terrorists and regime elements who want to derail the transition to democracy. And every day we move forward on democracy and training Iraqi security forces is every day closer that we are to succeeding in Iraq.
  
  Q. But the insurgency is in its last throes?
  
  MR. McCLELLAN: The Vice President talked about that the other day -- you have a desperate group of terrorists who recognize how high the stakes are in Iraq. A free Iraq will be a significant blow to their ambitions.
  
  Q. But they're killing more Americans, they're killing more Iraqis. That's the last throes?
  
  MR. McCLELLAN: Innocent -- I say innocent civilians. And it doesn't take a lot of people to cause mass damage when you're willing to strap a bomb onto yourself, get in a car and go and attack innocent civilians. That's the kind of people that we're dealing with. That's what I say when we're talking about a determined enemy.
  
  Q. Right. What is the evidence that the insurgency is in its last throes?
  
  MR. McCLELLAN: I think I just explained to you the desperation of terrorists and their tactics.
  
  Q. What's the evidence on the ground that it's being extinguished?
  
  MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, we're making great progress to defeat the terrorist and regime elements. You're seeing Iraqis now playing more of a role in addressing the security threats that they face. They're working side by side with our coalition forces. They're working on their own. There are a lot of special forces in Iraq that are taking the battle to the enemy in Iraq. And so this is a period when they are in a desperate mode.
  
  Q. Well, I'm just wondering what the metric is for measuring the defeat of the insurgency.
  
  MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you can go back and look at the Vice President's remarks. I think he talked about it.
  
  Q. Yes. Is there any idea how long a last throe lasts for?
  
  MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Steve.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Karl Rove uses 9/11 as a wedge:

• Rove, Bush's chief political adviser, said in a speech Wednesday that "liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." Conservatives, he told the New York state Conservative Party just a few miles north of Ground Zero, "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."

AP

Truth hurts.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Truth hurts.

Fuck you. And fuck Karl Rove.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Fuck you. And fuck Karl Rove.

2.

If the truth hurt, you guys could stick to it instead of this Reid/Rove crap.

[SlaveNoMore]

"liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."

Michael Moore on 9/12:

"In just 8 months, Bush gets the whole world back to hating us again. He withdraws from the Kyoto agreement, walks us out of the Durban conference on racism, insists on restarting the arms race -- you name it, and Baby Bush has blown it all. . . . .

Many families have been devastated tonight. This just is not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes’ destination of California -- these were places that voted AGAINST Bush! Why kill them? Why kill anyone? Such insanity…Let’s mourn, let’s grieve, and when it’s appropriate let’s examine our contribution to the unsafe world we live in."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Michael Moore on 9/12:

"In just 8 months, Bush gets the whole world back to hating us again. He withdraws from the Kyoto agreement, walks us out of the Durban conference on racism, insists on restarting the arms race -- you name it, and Baby Bush has blown it all. . . . .

Many families have been devastated tonight. This just is not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes’ destination of California -- these were places that voted AGAINST Bush! Why kill them? Why kill anyone? Such insanity…Let’s mourn, let’s grieve, and when it’s appropriate let’s examine our contribution to the unsafe world we live in."

Don't be a jackass. Justifying what Rove said by pointing to Michael Moore is like calling the Republican Party a bunch of racists by pointing to David Duke.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Don't be a jackass. Justifying what Rove said by pointing to Michael Moore is like calling the Republican Party a bunch of racists by pointing to David Duke.

How many times has mike been on Air America?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
How many times has mike been on Air America?

You people are such fucking non-substantive, bullshit, misattribution* assholes that you are ruining my faith in humankind.

I'm going to go buy some flowers.

*In the sense of attributing one person's sentiments to an entire huge enormous group

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Karl Rove uses 9/11 as a wedge:

• Rove, Bush's chief political adviser, said in a speech Wednesday that "liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." Conservatives, he told the New York state Conservative Party just a few miles north of Ground Zero, "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."

AP

I agree with this. I won't be happy be until we liberate the whole of the middle east, from Lahore in the far east end to Paris in the west.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
How many times has mike been on Air America?

I wouldn't know. How many Republicans voted for David Duke in the primary?

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Don't be a jackass. Justifying what Rove said by pointing to Michael Moore is like calling the Republican Party a bunch of racists by pointing to David Duke.

David Duke wasn't given a seat of honor next to a former President at a party convention.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Well, doesn't much matter what the constitution says anyway, these days.

The Supreme Court rules that"cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue."

From Kennedy's concurrence:

• The trial court concluded, based on these findings, that benefiting Pfizer was not "the primary motivation or effect of this development plan"; instead, "the primary motivation for [respondents] was to take advantage of Pfizer's presence." Id., at 276. Likewise, the trial court concluded that "[t]here is nothing in the record to indicate that ... [respondents] were motivated by a desire to aid [other] particular private entities." Id., at 278. See also ante, at 7-8. Even the dissenting justices on the Connecticut Supreme Court agreed that respondents' development plan was intended to revitalize the local economy, not to serve the interests of Pfizer, Corcoran Jennison, or any other private party. 268 Conn. 1, 159, 843 A. 2d 500, 595 (2004) (Zarella, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). This case, then, survives the meaningful rational basis review that in my view is required under the Public Use Clause.
  
  Petitioners and their amici argue that any taking justified by the promotion of economic development must be treated by the courts as per se invalid, or at least presumptively invalid. Petitioners overstate the need for such a rule, however, by making the incorrect assumption that review under Berman and Midkiff imposes no meaningful judicial limits on the government's power to condemn any property it likes. A broad per se rule or a strong presumption of invalidity, furthermore, would prohibit a large number of government takings that have the purpose and expected effect of conferring substantial benefits on the public at large and so do not offend the Public Use Clause.
  
  My agreement with the Court that a presumption of invalidity is not warranted for economic development takings in general, or for the particular takings at issue in this case, does not foreclose the possibility that a more stringent standard of review than that announced in Berman and Midkiff might be appropriate for a more narrowly drawn category of takings. There may be private transfers in which the risk of undetected impermissible favoritism of private parties is so acute that a presumption (rebuttable or otherwise) of invalidity is warranted under the Public Use Clause. Cf. Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel, 524 U. S. 498, 549-550 (1998) (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment and dissenting in part) (heightened scrutiny for retroactive legislation under the Due Process Clause). This demanding level of scrutiny, however, is not required simply because the purpose of the taking is economic development.
  
  This is not the occasion for conjecture as to what sort of cases might justify a more demanding standard, but it is appropriate to underscore aspects of the instant case that convince me no departure from Berman and Midkiff is appropriate here. This taking occurred in the context of a comprehensive development plan meant to address a serious city-wide depression, and the projected economic benefits of the project cannot be characterized as de minimus. The identity of most of the private beneficiaries were unknown at the time the city formulated its plans. The city complied with elaborate procedural requirements that facilitate review of the record and inquiry into the city's purposes. In sum, while there may be categories of cases in which the transfers are so suspicious, or the procedures employed so prone to abuse, or the purported benefits are so trivial or implausible, that courts should presume an impermissible private purpose, no such circumstances are present in this case.

Interesting.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
You people are such fucking non-substantive, bullshit, misattribution* assholes that you are ruining my faith in humankind.

I'm going to go buy some flowers.

*In the sense of attributing one person's sentiments to an entire huge enormous group

no fringey- Ty's point was stupid. David Duke didn't sit next to a former President at any Republican convention and he isn't a frequent guest on much that mainstream republican voters watch or listen to. mike is. I'm not saying that you or anyone here blames America for 9/11 but mike did and slave made a fair point. Ty's dodge misses.

if the Dems want to dodge the label they should drop Mike.