NUKE_CLEVELAND

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 20, 2006 -> 12:47 PM) Its not alright. It must be since few people seem to care or pay attention when minorities make racist comments. Again, if a white person makes racist comments you'd think the world was about to end for all the reaction to it.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Dec 20, 2006 -> 12:30 PM) Uh, outside of his trip to Iran with the Holocaust deniers, I haven't seen or heard much of him in the news. A simple Google search of the news shows that the only other (outside of the story that he was going to Iran) was a David Duke story from 2004. He was on CNN being interviewed as a part of that story of his trip to Iran. I do believe he was interviewed in Tehran too if I remember correctly. Should he be in obscurity? Yes. So should McKinney? Yes. Is a lazy media going to pick up on a non-issue because it has something to do with race and shove it down our throats until we can't stand it (a la the non issue of Michael Richards and his usage of a word) because it creates a cheap buzz, gets people talking -- outraged that it is even being covered and otherwise -- ? Absolutely. It's a non-issue for both Duke and McKinney. Who cares what their outgoing views are? They're not in any frame of power any more and are just getting used to create fake wedge issues when there are plenty of real ones. This issue has a lot more to do with just McKinney and I only bring it up as an example. My overall question is why is it alright for blacks to make racist remarks and not whites? Recall that when the Seinfeld guy ( I forgot his name already ) made his famous rant against blacks it was preceeded by those 2 poor victims of his racist bile calling him a cracker and insulting him? How do people like Al Sharpton get away with calling Jewish people "evil interlopers" and still be revered by many as a crusader for civil rights? ( I cant keep a straight face when trying to put that name in the same sentence as anything positive ) Why is it alright to refer to white people as crackers and honkeys but if white people use racial slurs against blacks they are the personification of evil?

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Dec 20, 2006 -> 12:25 PM) I agree with you on both counts. And I think that with Rumsfield gone we are starting to see those two separate issues unbundled as they should have been. Temporary fixes like extending tours, Stop Loss orders, and Individual Ready Reserve recalls were presented as answers to meeting worldwide troop needs without having to actually increase troop levels – because according to the Bush 2004 campaign doing that would have made us "less safe." Increasing troop levels was presented as being antithetical to Rumsfeld's strategy for restructuring the military into a more modern force. You and I know these were separate issues, and now the White House is conceeding the point as well. I see your point now. You were against the way the idea was presented to us but not the idea itself. Fair enough. Like I said before, I didn't exactly think too highly of the President when he and Rummy said more troops were not necessary and in that respect we totally agree and increasing force size was one of the select few issues I agreed with Kerry on back then.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 20, 2006 -> 12:13 PM) Reading the comments that went along with the story, said it all. Sad, just really sad. Hopefully the kid will recover and get to live his dreams out... somewhere other than that town. If I were that kids family I would be already looking for new digs someplace else. Not because of fear from ignorant assholes but from disgust at those same people.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Dec 20, 2006 -> 12:08 PM) But they were NOT presented as separate issues when the administration dismissed the Kerry proposal, nor when it defended it's position on keeping the troop strength at sattus quo back in June: Translation: We don't need to increase troop numbers because Rummy's restructuring of the military makes current levels sufficient for our needs. I have my issues plenty straight. It's the administration that has bundled them together. Did I not just say that and do you not agree that reforms which would enable the military to get more capability from the same number of soldiers is a good thing. Its called efficiency. Mind you that the plan to transform the military predates Iraq by a couple of years. The 2 issues are not related. You can debate till the sun goes down ( and I agree with you ) whether or not to increase the number of troops is a good idea or not but the need for reform was evident. I find it ironic that someone with a leftward persuasion would deride a plan that reduces bloat in the military.

What the hell is wrong with people anyway??

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Dec 20, 2006 -> 11:49 AM) What, then, has changed in two years that made increasing armed forces by 40K something that "would us less safe" if it was a Kerry idea, but now increasing them by 50K or more is the right idea? A key part of the Administration's earlier opposition (voiced just 6 months ago) was that "increases in minimum active Army and Marine Corps end strengths in Title IV. . . could require DoD to maintain a higher personnel level than is needed." It was the wrong strategy before, but now it's the way to go? The Administration voted against the troop increase before they voted for it? We all know full well who is fraught with ignorance. And we have to suffer through two more years of it. Im not talking about whether increasing overall troop strength or not is a bad idea and when it was a good idea or not. Rummy's plan to transform the military was a necessary and vital reform which you ridiculed and described as "punting". I was in favor of increased troop strength when Kerry first proposed it and was incredulous that Bush was against it back in 2004, especially in light of all these commitments worldwide. Transforming the military and haggling over what is an appropriate troop strength are seperate issues and you should get them straight before voicing your opinion.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Dec 20, 2006 -> 11:22 AM) Now that Rummy's lean and efficiant "modern military" apparently isn't the answer, it's time to punt in another direction. This remark is fraught with ignorance. Rummy's idea of a "modern military" was a lighter and more agile force that had less administrative fat and with equipment that was easier to deploy. The Cold War era force structure that existed before was too heavy and too slow to react to modern conflicts ( think of the 1991 Gulf War where it took 6 months to build up the necessary forces ). Nowhere was it implied that we were going to reduce troop levels. The idea was to contract out some support and administrative jobs and free up those slots within the authorized end strength for more "trigger pullers". This has been done and as a result, there are a greater number of brigades available in the order of battle for deployment. This idea was outstanding in every respect, especially when you consider that the next time we go to war we may not have the months of prep time that we have in the past.

Christmas shopping is such an effortless thing for me. Everything is done online at home. I go through and order everything I want to buy for whoever and in such a way that it arrives already wrapped and tagged. Once it arrives, just arrange everything and set it aside. No crowds, no fuss, no running around in bad weather.........none of it. Thank god for the internet.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Dec 20, 2006 -> 10:43 AM) He was on CNN last week spouting off about something, and the reporter made sure to mention 'Republican' by his name every chance he got. Obligatory.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/..._uppity_slur?45 How do black people get away with this sort of thing anyway? If this had been a white politician that said something like this he'd face universal condemnation and probably have to resign. This scumbag runs off at the mouth and nothing happens. Why?

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Dec 18, 2006 -> 01:22 PM) Doug keeps forgetting the chat rules, what happens in chat, stays in chat. Good to see you around Josh, try not to be such a stranger. There are no rules in chat..........except have a good time and no whining. But then you know that dontcha?

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Dec 18, 2006 -> 04:14 PM) No glove, no love. Oh trust me there'd be no "love" involved there. That would be a straight grudge f***, then pick up and leave her there.

QUOTE(Damen @ Dec 18, 2006 -> 02:44 PM) I don't see how keeping our military to support an Iranian-aligned fundamentalist Islamic government when most Iraqi's no longer want us there accomplishes anything for our country. If you believe in risking your life to support whatever goal it is we've got, then good for you. I don't. The goal is a stable democratic government and I believe it to be a laudable one. The biggest problem we have over there right now is Iran and Syria engaging us in a proxy war by stirring up sectarian violence. I agree that its time for us to step back into a training and backup role and let the Iraqi's pacify their own country but for us to up and leave now would be foolish.

QUOTE(Damen @ Dec 18, 2006 -> 02:38 PM) There is no military solution. I'd rather we face the obvious rather than keep sacrificing more lives and more money just to save some egos. 17? What exactly is the obvious? Is it that our current strategy is not working? I agree with that, it is not. What is your solution then aside from turning tail and running?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 18, 2006 -> 02:33 PM) Sounds easy, right? Except, Nuke, I'm sure you know how some of these things go. For one, if the warrant squad (or whatever the military calls it) wasn't informed that someone on premises was an informant, then they would just take everyone and stick them in a cell until everyone settled down a bit. Second, again if no one informed the military of this (and I am so not surprised that there was a communication breakdown between the FBI and the military), then they would have assumed he was a co-conspirator. The point of the article, to me, is two-fold - to see from an American's perspective what the prisons are like over there, and further, to illustrate how piss-poor the management and inter-agency communication is in Iraq, particularly in the justice apparatus. If this guy was who he says he was then it should have been a small matter for him to produce ID and have his story corroborated after invoking the name of his contact. This story stinks of bulls*** to me.

QUOTE(Damen @ Dec 18, 2006 -> 02:33 PM) I hope you'll soon be enlisting in this war you still believe so much in so my friends don't have to go back for their third and fourth tours. I agree with Kaps viewpoints and Ive already fought in this war and am preparing to go back for a second go around. Any questions?

QUOTE(Damen @ Dec 18, 2006 -> 02:30 PM) At least we classified the number of attacks in Iraq. In the absence of any good news, just hide the bad news, and hope Rush convinces enough people this is all the media's fault.......................while we sit around and crow about violence over there and say "told ya so!" while offering no concrete solution other than run away. Fixed for ya.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 18, 2006 -> 02:16 PM) Going to Iraq as a security contractor = giving up all your rights and working with terrorists? My question is how hard is it for a guy to identify himself as a contractor and produce ID to avoid that whole mess?

QUOTE(Texsox @ Dec 17, 2006 -> 11:51 PM) And say what you will about Carter, but he has lived a very noble life. I believe he has walked the talk for many decades. Could you imagine Reagan building homes for poor people? Traveling the world to monitor elections. I am far prouder of Carter than anyone that followed him. QUOTE(Texsox @ Dec 17, 2006 -> 11:51 PM) Reagan after leaving office went and gave a little speech in Japan for US$3,000,000. Carter went and built homes and championed for human rights around the globe. I am forgetting, and it's late, what did Carter earn a Nobel prize for? I guess that broght disrespect to the office. Bush would kill her in a debate, so why would he be afraid? Why would he be chicken? YASNY, worse in your lifetime? Worse than Ford? Nixon? You wanted Reagan to go around building homes?! He was old, frail and was in the early stages of Alzheimers for chrissakes, its not as though he was in good enough shape for construction work. Ronald Reagan destroyed the Soviet Union and in so doing did more to advance the cause of human rights than Carter could ever hope to. The most Carter, in typical liberal fashion, ever did was talk about and pay lip service to the cause of human freedom. Reagan's actions as President freed hundreds of millions of people from the grip of Soviet Communism and he is reviled by the left as an evil warmonger. Freekin spare me. As for Reagan's post presidency activities, I think its alright for him to score a few bucks doing speeches, he put his time in.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 18, 2006 -> 12:00 PM) Not sure whether this one belongs here or not, but it's sorta on topic. Long piece from the NYTimes. Much more at the article. Oh, and does anyone realize the absurdity of the Pentagon saying in their defense that the people didn't complain about their treatment when they were locked in Solitary confinement?

This is a direct symptom of Ameninawhosits constant blustering and trash talk. I believe the Iranian people are afraid that if this guy keeps talking about wiping out Isreal and keeps developing nukes that eventually the US and others are going to bring the hammer down and they dont want to take the fall.

QUOTE(3E8 @ Dec 17, 2006 -> 10:58 PM) Well put. In the same vein: SOLID: My Chemical Romance - Welcome To The Black Parade I cant get that title track out of my head. I love that song.........and several others on that album as well.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Dec 17, 2006 -> 08:47 PM) Nuke, when a foreign national commits a crime on US soil, they do receive all the rights of a US citizen. They receive a a fair trial, They are allowed an attorney, we basically have always had one set of rules for anyone in our courts. Just as Americans who are held in foreign jails are usually treated like citizens of that country not of the US. So while all your caps and outrage is kind of funny, it isn't really a factor. It is outrageous that we either arrested non-military people and are charging then with crimes committed on foreign soil and want to try them in military courts. Or we captured enemy soldiers and don't want to give them the Geneva protection we agreed to. When you find a passage in the Geneva Convention that applies to terrorists and others who are not part of a standing army or an arm of a legitimate government then let me know.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Dec 17, 2006 -> 02:24 PM) Sorry, but Carter isn't even close. Carter is defenitely top 5 all time. I dont think he's the absolute worst though. QUOTE(CrimsonWeltall @ Dec 17, 2006 -> 03:11 PM) That may be true in a written debate, but in oral debates, *sounding* good is far more important than being correct. Alan Dershowitz is an accomplished lawyer, so he's a persuasive speaker. Jimmy Carter doesn't come across as being all that great of a speaker to me. You're right. Dershowitz is an accomplished lawyer..........Carter is not only a poor speaker but he's an accomplished pussy. Alan would eat him alive.