kapkomet

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 26, 2007 -> 11:51 AM) Noticing it is always at the top? Yea. Sorry about that, folks.

Test.

QUOTE(mreye @ Feb 24, 2007 -> 02:06 PM) You know that's not what I'm saying, Tex. Many POWs from Vietnam said the vast coverage of discontent here only emboldened the enemy. That's the road we're heading down again. I don't know the answer. I just think cuttin and running at this time is not ideal. Exactly.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Feb 24, 2007 -> 01:47 AM) The only logical answer to this problem is socialism. Why is that in green? According to Hillary Clinton's own words, it is.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 24, 2007 -> 03:47 AM) Which differentiates him from the rest of the Repug field how? He's no different then any of these f***tards, that's the problem.

Most of you think we need to leave now, at least if you listen to your own rhetoric.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Feb 23, 2007 -> 08:02 PM) What is this guy 9 years old? Read the rest of the article: LINK Romney is an idiot, IMO.

So the ONLY answer is to get the hell out, right?

BRILLIANT.

Idol is becoming boring. Teletubby references included.

Well, "wind chill" doesn't do anything to steel tempratures, but, I'm sure the -10 did. That's good info, thanks for it.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Feb 21, 2007 -> 10:39 PM) Heh. No problem. I'll be going through Dallas on Monday. I'll keep my eyes open for a whack job. You just do that. I'm sure you'll find one. One of these trips down you'll have to let me know. I disagree with your hippee tendencies, but hey, we're Sox fans. I'll overlook it.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Feb 21, 2007 -> 10:16 PM) Signed it earlier today. Hippee! (and yes, I'm joking).

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 21, 2007 -> 10:07 PM) Nothing like a military man not wanting to go kill somebody, it'll make anyone vomit. LMAO. Nothing like every "military man" that's a Democrat coming forward and saying "Iran's next!!!!".

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Feb 21, 2007 -> 09:41 PM) I'm feeling confident in this team (of course, that'll all change on opening day all the way up to the end of the season). I'm going to say this team tops the 2005 one. Overall record of 100-62 and an 11-0 run through the playoffs. Dude, you kill me.

I think I'm going to vomit.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Feb 21, 2007 -> 03:28 PM) As an aside, I'm somewhat struck by the logical conundrrum you present when you bemoan the politicization of death while at the same time pointing out that the MSM has in the past failed to make a big deal about the sizable number of peacetime military deaths. Obviouslythe solution for you would not be to have the MSM report these because you would likely see that as inherently politicized. ZING! What I'm trying to point out is, the 3,1XX that gets told to us by our representatives (D) and senators (D) in Congress (and I'll add a ® for Chucky Hagel) every day in their LOOK AT ME camera moments - DOES count combat deaths, whether in Nat'l Guard or full time military, yet, there were 4,000+ deaths in peacetime due to military accidents in JUST the full time military during the Clinton years. It's NOT an apples to apples comparison, and I grant you all that... which is why I've been (trying) to be very delicate about how I phrase this - I'm not trying to paint a worse picture unlike some of these other nutballs do. But - the politicalization of it all is just sick. On both sides.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 21, 2007 -> 02:51 PM) Nay on what? I'm assuming the original vote on the Iraq war? I don't remember how Dicky Durbin voted.

I think any time you politicize "death counts", it's disgusting. I also think my point has been very clear.

What my point was in saying what I said is there are risks and always will be ANYTIME you go into the military. However, the politicization of the IRAQ DEATH COUNT NOW AT 3,1XX is disgusting, because there's deaths no matter when it is, and I find it interesting that there were more "peacetime accidental deaths" over a 4 year period then there are during "combat years" specifically in Iraq that we hear EVERY DAY in the MSM. That was more my comparison, and I also think I made that pretty clear by saying that I realize the numbers are indeed "skewed" depending on how you want to use them.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Feb 20, 2007 -> 11:38 PM) I'm highly dubious as well. What battles cost us 3,000+ combat troops in the mid 1990s?? There were more "peacetime deaths" in the mid-1990's then Iraq "combat deaths" war to date. I'll see if I can find the document, I heard a short snippet this morning on my traffic station, but I don't remember the source. http://siadapp.dior.whs.mil/personnel/CASU...eath_Rates1.pdf Edited for link. Is this somewhat skewed? Absolutely. But it's interesting nonetheless.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 20, 2007 -> 08:45 PM) They want to make the other side look bad, but I have a hard time believing either party is interested in trying to make someone lose a war. In their own way, I think almost all of them, on the subject of war, want to save lives. Oh, I do. I absolutely do. They know the risk of withdrawing (ooooooooops, wrong Democratic word, "REDEPLOYMENT") and how it makes us lose and lose terribly right now. But, they're heros, because they "defeated the war" (read: GEORGE BUSH'S war, as they so like to refer to it.). Interesting stat: we lost more troops during the mid 1990's in "peacetime" then we have in Iraq to date. I'm not diminishing the value of any of these lives, but we certainly do get a count for Iraq pretty quick in the MSM during these debates. Anyway, it's a game of political chicken, on BOTH sides, and it's disgusting.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 20, 2007 -> 06:33 PM) Well, I don't like her, but I wouldn't call her a retread (which was the post earlier). She isn't much like her hubby. Gore would definitely be a retread. But, I'd probably vote for him well before I'd vote for Clinton, or any of the aforementioned retreads. Gore's a "retread" as well... but Gore wouldn't be as much of a "pacifist" as some might think, imo. In fact, all these liberals are going to get really giddy on the "war" when they get in office, because at that point, they are responisble and they won't want to "lose" like they want Bush to "lose" now. It's all about power and making the other side look as bad as possible. Gotta love our screwed up country.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 20, 2007 -> 01:59 PM) Agreed. No one named Kerry, Edwards, Biden or McCain, please. And Clinton's not on this list? She should be. Other then that gross omission, that's a good start.

Danke.