NUKE_CLEVELAND

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 11:24 PM) The papers told the exact strategy used and guess what -- It still worked and there were no "OMG! WE MUST STOP TEH MEDIA!11!!!1! ELEVENTY!" chants. OMG SOME OF US DONT REALIZE THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE ACCESS TO INSTANT COMMUNICATION IN THOSE DAYS AND THAT ACCOUNTS OF THE BATTLES WERENT AVAILABLE UNTIL WELL AFTER THE FACT. OMG WE MUST SAVE THE MEDIAS RIGHT TO PRINT CLASSIFIED WAR PLANS !11!!1!!11 ELEVENTY!!!!!

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 11:14 PM) It is amazing how we're supposed to give up our freedoms because of some guerillas. I think the Founders knew about guerilla fighting and the threat it could pose to a state. Why? BECAUSE THEY WERE GUERILLAS! Yet, these guys still came out with a Constitution the SCOTUS rules with and ruled in 1971 with the way they did. /Sit, Obey and Let the State Have Its Unquestioned, Unchecked Power And herein lies the disconnect between us. You simply have no clue whatsoever the consequenses of classified information reaching the wrong people. You simply have no idea what it is like to conduct a raid on a building and have the guys inside tipped off that you're coming. The NYT leaking this information to Al Qaeda is no different from some worm getting a sniff about an op we have laid on and telling the intended target about it. The price for such conduct is paid in blood.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 10:55 PM) It's impossible to prove a negative. The vast preponderance of evidence in the historical record shows that it was not some mass problem (since there's not one case of it being found in the record) The spitting was the vast exception (especially because there were no police reports, etc. in the historical record showing that it was some wide epidemic) And oh yes, Minors -- homecomings take place on military bases, so please explain to me how lines of hippies would gain access and be able to spit all over returning veterans without being arrested first (and wouldn't that make the news or at least a police report?) And minors, you never did respond to the fact that this "f***ing researcher" is a Vietnam veteran himself. How do you square your vitriol towards him with your demands that everybody love the military? The writer of the book I was sourcing is a VIETNAM VETERAN. So, that's what I was saying -- funny how your vitriol was okay for sliming some veterans but yet we're supposed to (at the same time since they defended our freedom) hold them up on a pedestal. Oh so now we've gone from "IT NEVER HAPPENED!!!" to "Well it might of happened but it wasn't a huge problem" LOL! The fact that it happened AT ALL is a testament to the utter disgrace that was the post-Vietnam era treatment of veterans. Just because he wore the uniform doesn't make him any less wrong for his lies and slander about his fellow soldiers. What this "man" is is a disgrace to everyone who ever wore that uniform.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 11:02 PM) Kap, that's a lame ass cop-out and we both know it. Endangering the freedoms we're fighting for by exercising them! Yay! If you listen closely, you can hear Jefferson doing barrel rolls in his coffin: "Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter." From Times vs US, Some members of the Court, notably Justice Potter Stewart, did believe in this notion of a citizen's right to know, and Stewart put forward the theory of the press serving as a surrogate for the people, ferreting out information for them and securing the material to which they had a right. Not all members of the Court endorsed this "functional" theory of the press, but Chief Justice Burger later commented that despite the split vote, the justices were "actually unanimous." In many ways, this was true. All of the justices did believe in the basic doctrine of no prior restraint, first set out in the Near case, and with the exception of Justices Black and Douglas, who took an absolutist stance against any government censorship of any issue at any time, the entire Court agreed that government should not censor the press, that no prior restraint was the rule except in very unusual circumstances. Im sorry LCR but nobody has any "right" to know anything about classified battle plans except those who came up with them and those responsible for executing them. If you want to bring Jefferson into this how about we rewind to the Revolutionary War and have Ye Olde New York Times print a leaked copy of the Franco/American battle plans at Yorktown or Saratoga. Methinks Jefferson would not be quite so sympathetic to your opinions. QUOTE(minors @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 11:05 PM) You are so far out of the realm it isn't funny. You think it OK to spill secrets to the terrorists I am just tired of all these liberals trying to defend these thugs. We didn't declare war on Vietnam either so that means 58,000 people weren't killed either? I think when someone attacks you on the homeland they declared war on you. I also think you would be in the verrry slim majority of people thinking we are not in a war. Its also worthy to note that the threat we face is not confined to any national boundary. If it was as cut and dried as Japan attacking us then yes, a declaration of war is appropriate. However since our enemy know no national boundaries what are we to do? Have Congress declare war on a person or an ideology or a group of people? People who wave the "you gotta declare war" card fail to realize this ( or just leave it out as a matter of convienience )

The Pentagon papers gave a history of what had already happened to a point. What the NYT is engaged in right now is actively divulging current battle plans to the enemy. This is the same effect as if they had got wind that a raid was going to be conducted at x time against target x. First of all there is little comparison between the 2 and secondly I bet you a bundle that if they try these traitors today that this court would rule in favor of the government.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 10:35 PM) I love how everyone mentions the New York Times and neglects the LA Times, and the more conservative Wall Street Journal gets a pass... And now those who say they want to defend our freedom are calling for restricting the press. Dont you get it Rex?! We have thousands of people in harms way, millions more at home who are still vulnerable to attack and now a classified program used to track down and stop the money sources of our enemies is outed in the media like some celebrity's secret wedding plans. Where is the accountability Rex?? Where is any regard for national security?! Its clear that the media in this country hasn't even the slightest journalistic integrity. It's willing to commit treason in order to sell newspapers. We need to make some examples of these pricks.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 10:30 PM) How is it cut and dried treason when they were the third paper to publish the story? OOOOOO Someone else committed treason so let me play along too!!!! YIPPIE SKIPPY!

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 10:21 PM) Discrediting an organization he happened to join does not mean that his research and methodology is incorrect. If I was to follow your line of logic, I could say "Well Lt. Calley killed a bunch of people in My Lai so that's all I need to know about (your words here --) these scumbags." Its misrepresenting research and a really easy end around legitimate debate. But please -- explain to me how we're all to have reverent respect and be in awe of soldiers ("Spitting hippies = Bad!) yet it is okay to call others "dumb motherf***ers" and "lying cocksuckers". I'm just wondering why there's the double standard when one standard will work just fine. I don't expect you or anyone else to respect soldiers thats a choice for people to make on their own. I do, however, expect those who do not respect soldiers to at least have the common decency to stay away from them. I do expect them not to perjure themselves in front of the United States Senate by sending phony veterans to the stand to make up phony stories about atrocities that never happened. I do expect those who dont respect what we do for a living to politely keep their opinions to themselves. The minute they voice their vile opinions of us in the open is the same minute I voice my opinions about them.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13554907/ This nation is at war. We are at war and we have the NYT disclosing classified programs which are designed to prosecute this war. This type of behavior is no different than if they had somehow gotten the plans for the D-Day invasion and splashed them across the front page of their newspaper. This rag newspaper is actively undermining the war effort in order to pursue its leftist agenda and it must be stopped NOW. The Attorney General needs to find out who is responsible for leaking this information, and get a list of everyone who wrote this story, every editor who greenlighted this story, the entire board of directors and the president and owners of the NYT and prosecute the whole lot of them. This is treason, cut and dried, and they should be dealt with the exact same way anyone else who commits treason during a time of war is dealt with. The whole lot of them should be stood up in front of a firing squad.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 10:10 PM) Nuke, last time I checked LCR wasn't a lawyer. So cool it already. I didn't mean him personally but those who think like him and who are, in fact, responsible for the conduct I talked about. Just to clarify.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 09:52 PM) Nuke, you just said he was a member of VVAW. You never addressed the sources or methodology of his research. I personally just find it more fun that we're told to respect the military yet you and Minors are slandering veterans who develop an anti-war opinion as a result calling them every name in the book because they dare to criticize. Having an opinion against the war is one thing. These VVAW people were a bunch of lying cock-suckers. They took people who never saw combat or never served at all and stood them in front of the United States Senate and had them make up fairy tales about atrocities that never happened. That's all I need to know about these scumbags. f*** these guys.

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 09:45 PM) Do we really have to debate whether Vietnam vets were spit on or not? Can't we just ridicule minors' idea that those events, whether real or not, had any effect on American society. Perhaps the War itself just may have had a little bit larger of an effect on American society... How bout we ridicule you instead for failing to realize that the treatment of veterans when they arrived home from the war was absolutely reprehensible and these hippie cock suckers spitting on them as they returned home, calling them baby-killer and other assorted vile garbage was just insult to injury. It was bad enough they had to go fight a war that the politicians would not let them win but to come home and listen to and endure garbage like that from people like you made it an order of magnitude worse.

QUOTE(minors @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 03:33 PM) This guy caused terror and panic all around the country. Now it is his time to die and meet Tookie and the rest of the murdering thugs. Railroad killer set to die FINISH HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!! QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 04:17 PM) I'll bite on the death penalty stuff. I know I'm likely to be flamed and the difference is in philosophy. For all the people proclaiming that religion is being taken out of schools and the public arena, it is amazing how so many of the so-called "conservatives" (I don't even want to slander actual conservatives by putting them in with the cult of Bush personality since his ilk is anything but conservative) fail to mention capital punishment in their case. Its "Thou shalt not kill" It isn't "Thou shalt not kill, except when..." or "Amend Section A". If you're going to say that life is sacred and it is wrong for an individual to kill -- then how can it be right for the state? And these stats are not specific to the case, but I figured they'd work in a better over-arching discussion of capital punishment (remembering that the US is the one Western industrialized nation to still continue the practice) Over 80% of people executed since 1976 were convicted of killing white victims, although people of color make up more than half of all homicide victims in the US. A defendant who can afford his or her own attorney is much less likely to be sentenced to die. 95% of all people sentenced to death in the US could not afford their own attorney. Thats because leftists like you keep throwing up court challenges to any expansion of the death penalty to make it imposed in a uniform manner for certain crimes. "THATS RACIST" Whaa whaa whaa.......thats all we ever hear from you regards to the death penalty, yet its opposition from your side that keeps conditions the way they are. QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 04:17 PM) When you add in that there is no deterrance effect from capital punishment, that the trials cost so much more than life without parole, the numerous times that prosecutors have been "thrown under the bus" and caught for hiding exculpatory evidence and that there have been innocent people both executed and released from death row -- it adds a few bumps to believing that the social and economic costs of the death penalty are worth paying for. Once again, you are the reason for all of this. It is YOU that throw up all these legal challenges. It is YOU that fight every case tooth and nail no matter how damning the evidence and thats what drives up the cost. It is YOU that file one bulls*** appeal after another to drag a case out in the courts even if the condemned wants to drop his appeals and die. You f***ing hypocritical leftists have some nerve. You deliberately create the conditions for the death sentence to fail with prepostorus court challenges and then you have the nerve to point to the trouble you caused and say thats why the death penalty does not work.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 07:50 PM) Actually I was talking about the claims the administration made regarding our soldiers going to Iraq being showered with flowers and candy. But nice try, now to dive headlong into the thorns. (check out the bold portions especially) The hippies during Vietnam thing is really tired out. While it is impossible to prove that something never happened, there is no historical record (police reports, news accounts, etc.) proving that these "spitting incidents" in specific took place. According to Vietnam veteran and author Jerry Lembcke: There is nothing in the historical record — news or police reports, for example — suggesting the spitting incidents really happened. In fact, the Veterans Administration commissioned a Harris Poll in 1971 that found 94% of Vietnam veterans reporting friendly homecomings from their age-group peers who had not served in the military. Moreover, the historical record is rich with the details of solidarity and mutuality between the anti-war movement and Vietnam veterans. The real truth, in other words, is that anti-war activists reached out to Vietnam veterans and veterans joined the movement in large numbers. Stories of spat-upon Vietnam veterans are bogus. Born out of accusations made by the Nixon administration, they were enlivened in popular culture (recall Rambo saying he was spat on by those maggots at the airport) and enhanced in the imaginations of Vietnam-generation men — some veterans, some not. The stories besmirch the reputation of the anti-war movement and help construct an alibi for why we lost the war: had it not been for the betrayal by liberals in Washington and radicals in the street, we could have defeated the Vietnamese. The stories also erase from public memory the image, discomforting to some Americans, of Vietnam veterans who helped end the carnage they had been part of." So...yeah. He couldn't find a single shred of evidence in the historical record for the urban myth of spat upon soldiers. And oh yes...John Llewelyn from Wake Forest: I have studied urban legends for nearly 20 years and have been certified as an expert on the subject in the federal courts. Nonetheless, it dawned on me only recently that the spitting story was a rumor that has grown into an urban legend. I never wanted to believe the story but I was afraid to investigate it for fear that it could be true. Why could I not identify this fiction sooner? The power of the story and the passion of its advocates offer a powerful alchemy of guilt and fear -- emotions not associated with clearheadedness. Labeling the spitting story an urban legend does not mean that something of this sort did not happen to someone somewhere. You cannot prove the negative -- that something never happened. However, most accounts of spitting emerged in the mid-1980s only after a newspaper columnist asked his readers who were Vietnam vets if they had been spit upon after the war (an odd and leading question to ask a decade after the war's end). The framing of the question seemed to beg for an affirmative answer. In 1998 sociologist and Vietnam veteran Jerry Lembcke published "The Spitting Image: Myth, Media and the Legacy of Viet Nam." He recounts a study of 495 news stories on returning veterans published from 1965 to 1971. That study shows only a handful (32) of instances were presented as in any way antagonistic to the soldiers. There were no instances of spitting on soldiers; what spitting was reported was done by citizens expressing displeasure with protesters. Opinion polls of the time show no animosity between soldiers and opponents of the war. Only 3 percent of returning soldiers recounted any unfriendly experiences upon their return. So records from that era offer no support for the spitting stories. Lembcke's research does show that similar spitting rumors arose in Germany after World War I and in France after its Indochina war. One of the persistent markers of urban legends is the re-emergence of certain themes across time and space. There is also a common-sense method for debunking this urban legend. One frequent test is the story's plausibility: how likely is it that the incident could have happened as described? Do we really believe that a "dirty hippie" would spit upon a fit and trained soldier? If such a confrontation had occurred, would that combat-hardened soldier have just ignored the insult? Would there not be pictures, arrest reports, a trial record or a coroner's report after such an event? Years of research have produced no such records. Sorry LCR. I already exposed Lenbecke for the piece of s***, lying cock-sucker anti-war hippie that he really is in a previous post. This guy has a smear the military agenda from hell and when you invoke his name and try to pass off the nonsense he spews as fact it makes me laugh.

This team has some serious f***ing heart!!! Every game is an adventure and no lead is ever safe for our opponents. This team just rules!!!!!

BASE HIT!!!!! COME ON MACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NEVER f***ING QUIT!!!!!

COME ON URIBE...........BE A HERO!!!!!

COME ON AJ!!!!! DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

QUOTE(greg775 @ Jun 25, 2006 -> 11:18 PM) We gotta get out of this with one run. Two is gonna take another Guchi miracle. Gooch wont bat next inning.

QUOTE(greg775 @ Jun 25, 2006 -> 11:17 PM) What a wild game this has been. Who'd a thunk the Stros wouldn't just quit and get the hell outta town once we tied it? They are desperate right now. After us they got a series in Detroit. They can't afford to blow this one.

LOL!! Anyone want to pipe up with "Its over"? LOL

AND GUESS WHO'S LEADING OFF?! LOL!!!

He got a good swing on the ball, just got a little too much on it. On to the 12th

How f***ing stupid is Joe Morgan Hes saying they should walk Pods to get to Gooch in that situation LOL!

Pablo tweaked his hammy running that one out. Uribe in to pinch run now.