kapkomet

QUOTE(Mercy! @ Nov 11, 2005 -> 06:39 PM) I think Jon Stewart has captured Pat Robertson’s essence pretty well.: I’m hoping Stewart takes a moment to train his wit on this moroon again and gives us a laugh about the Dover, PA remarks. Maybe this has been posted before, but for those who haven’t seen it and have four minutes to spare, Stewart’s bit about Robertson’s call for Hugo Chavez’s assassination is really good: http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/002322.html Jon Stewart is about right on with this one. I hope he does something too on this, like show a earthquake, tsunami, hurricane, and tornado rolling right through the tv studios of the 700 club and stupid Robertson sitting there like nothing has happened.

QUOTE(Steff @ Nov 11, 2005 -> 08:44 PM) I got him stuck between two balls dangling upsidedown.. LMAO. Save the peanut gallery comments.. It just goes to show that GWB really is a dick.

This is cool.

Thanks. We needed that.

Hmmm, I think it's interesting that these people are pissed off at the people who did it, not George W. Bush, because after all, it's all his fault that this happened.

Way to make this political. The whole point was to NOT make it that way. Much appreciated. I don't care who or what anyone's POLITICAL slant/thoughts are on this today. I only wanted to express my gratitude to those who have served, not turn this thread into the bickering cesspool we usually end up in. If you want to politicize this, take it some where else (another thread). And, I would appreciate any comments about this to be in private from here, and not continued in this thread, because this is NOT what this is about.

This guy is a jackass. Period. And the thing is there probably is a couple of people in Soxtalk land that agree with him, and that's even more scary.

No matter what your thoughts are on all the political stuff, no matter what we are doing today... Please give pause, and remember those that give us the freedoms we enjoy today. THANK YOU to all those who have sacrificed and paid the ultimate price for what we enjoy today. THANK YOU to all those who have served our country, who are serving our country, and who will serve our country. We are so blessed and seem to often forget how we got here. On this Veteran's Day, let's not forget. Kap

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Nov 10, 2005 -> 08:50 PM) That's one snarky post tehre, Kap. Oh don't worry, I'll be snarky about something else that you'll agree with later.

Have a safe trip!! Kap

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 10, 2005 -> 07:25 PM) Just like our army when it went into Iraq. OMG. Are you kidding me? With that statement, do you think we're "losing the war"? I guess we should be chicken s***, turn tail, and come home, because after all, according to your thought process, it's all a lie, and we should never have gone. That about sums up the "leftists" point of view, am I correct? Now, when (not if, when) something else happens in this country, that'll be Bush's fault too because he fired them assholes up, right? Have I about got the Democratic playcard down about right? This is way bigger then that, but through the shortsightedness, let's see now. Blame Bush, we lie like motherf***ers, stay the hell out of anywhere but our own borders, take all that money, dismantle the military, and GIVE (key word) it to all the people who are less fortunate, because they can't help themselves. That's the American spirit I love. After I wake up from my nap trying to get rid of my headache, I'll give you the elitest point of view. As I always say, somewhere in the middle is usually the truth. Let's see if we can ever agree on any of this. Edit: and to preview - it's all about warmongering and f*** the world because we own it anyway.

Cover Letters and Resumes are nothing but a quick hit, BS way of saying "this looks interesting" from a manager's perspective. That's it. Seeing as how you already have an "in" ... it's not as critical. I'll look for that stuff later. Pharmy sales is VERY lucrative if you have the right in.

QUOTE(Steff @ Nov 10, 2005 -> 06:22 PM) Hmm.. Aunt Steff... it's a bit of a mouthfull to be screaming in the throws of passion, no..??? Jim is standing behind me laughing with tears in his eyes.. You're gonna wake up from this nightmare one day.

Hey - I have some cover letters somewhere that I've used... I could try to dig them up if you'd like. Is this someone that you have never been in contact with?

QUOTE(Steff @ Nov 10, 2005 -> 02:07 PM) Ding, ding, ding... Dong, dong, dong...

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 10, 2005 -> 01:49 PM) Do you really think Bin Laden would have abandoned his plan to ram jets into the World Trade Center, to swap bombs with the US military? GMAB. Terrorists do not need countries to plan or carry out their attacks. McVeigh is the classic example. So the terror sponge doesn't hold up with me. Terrorists don't want to take on the US Military, they know that too many Americans don't care if the military dies, after all that's what our tax dollars pay for and only anti-American commies believe 1,000 or 2,000 dying is wrong. Bush can hide our war dead, and the GOPerheads believe he is right. You can't hide 2,000 civilian caskets. The terrorists recruit their criminal co-conspirators by preaching America is an evil land, out to destroy them. When we start bombing Iraq, killing women and children (s*** happens in war), we become their greatest recruiter. True, the people of Iraq are better off that Saddam is gone. Thousands of US families are worse off, visiting graves of their loved ones. Millions of Americans are worse off, funding the destruction and reconstruction of Iraq with loans that our children's children will be paying off. Some will say that is a fair trade, others will not. Ok, what about Serbia/Yugoslavia/Bosnia whatever it's called today? What about all those people? The scale is smaller, but it's the same thing, isn't it?

QUOTE(JHBowden @ Nov 10, 2005 -> 05:57 AM) 1. I don't know if anyone mentioned this above, but the national debt is not the deficit. 2. The Democrats clearly have moved to the left. My main man Clinton put the smackdown on Hussein in 1998 unilaterally, and he also helped screw Milosevic in 1999 without UN approval. Now things are a bit different on the left, as the worship of the feeble-minded Cindy Sheehan makes clear. 3. Many of the statements made by the administration before the war, for instance, that Iraq developed nuclear weapons fit into a pattern of blatant lies. Despite this, there were good reasons to do Iraq-- a) We f---ed Saddam Hussein. His despotism was a WMD threat in the midtern. Ceteris paribus, the world is a better place in his absence. B) The United States of America showed a willingness to spend dollars and spill blood to defend itself. There were 3K Americans dead after 9-11; there have been 25-100K Muslims dead up to this point in the Iraq war. As the recent case of France shows, if one simply appeases militants, they will walk all over everyone. c) Our presence in Iraq functions like a giant terror sponge. All the jihadists are going over to their backyard in Iraq to die at the hands of Americans instead of attacking civilians here in America. This gives truth to the saying "fight them there, or we'll fight them here." There has been no comparable follow up attack since 9-11 on the United States. d) Lastly, our presence in Iraq has strategic value. Iran and Syria sponsor international terror with a passion. If another major attack occurs, they know they're next, no questions asked. As a result, there's a powerful incentive for them, as long as they aren't nuclear, not to support groups aiming terrorism at the USA. According to most people on the left, the reasons above are not good enough. Why is that?

It's amazing to me the different spins that different people put on the same story. This is a clasic example.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Nov 10, 2005 -> 02:22 AM) The dialogue here is quite informed, even if it had to be coerced by Kap suggesting the thread was too silent on the side of the Dem backers. How about the participants here taking a stab at dissecting this essay by Norman Podhoret? It's an advance piece from the December (newsstand date) Commentary Magazine, so it would be good to get a head start on either countering or supporting (depending on your position) these talking points. Some of this has been touched on in this thread, but there are other specific points that I'd like to hear comments on. It's a long-ish piece, but worth reading even if only to rip holes in it. The central point of the piece is that the anti-war charge that GWB intentionally misled us into war is a falsehood that has been "refuted and discredited over and over again by evidence and argument alike." My take on it is that the piece very conveniently leaves the most damning evidence out of the mix, namely the fact that the key justification messages AND messengers had been largely discredited months before the invasion yet the administration kept using all of this "evidence" in their argument for war without ever sharing the VERY LIKELY probability that it was bunk. Of course, probability and certainty are key parts of Podhoretz' argument. He reminds us that " "To lie means to say something one knows to be false." And by extension, he pleads with us to accept that as long as the administration didn't know with 100% certainty that all of the intel was bogus then running with it the way they did was technically not lying. This is the new version of arguing over the definition of what "is" is. The piece also utilizes a lot of the recent pro-war gospel statements – that the Brits had 100% confidence in their intel so why shouldn't we. etc. The problem is, we now know a number of British intelligence folks dind't have 100% confidence in the information. There's also a lot of Wilkerson statements in there that are undated, so it's hard to decide how much of that is him talking and how much is the administration spin machine he was still a part of at the time. Lots of other thoughts, but 'd like to see some from all of you as well. This is cool s***. I'll read it when I have some time. And I'll disagree with it all because I'm a Rushbo blowhard. LMAO.

Bin Laden and Iraq, contrary to the media bias, are related, at least by correlation. Maybe not DIRECTLY related, but they are related. So is Syria and Iran, and that scares me.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 9, 2005 -> 06:45 PM) Which is why Clinton didn't invade. I'd like to call Bull s*** on that one. You make it out like the man was on his pedistal and didn't do it for "golden boy" reasons. He didn't do it because he didn't have a mandate to. Whether we like it or not, 9/11 gave him the mandate. One of two things would have happened if Bill Clinton would have been presiding as President during 9/11 regarding Iraq... 1) He would have acted on the same intelligence or 2) We would have been attacked again after 9/11 - on the same scale of attack. And now, I'll get the story that the two aren't connected. Yes, they are. In principal, they are. Edit: Just saw your second post on the issue that there would not have been a war. Personally, I think Clinton would have acted just about the same way. I still believe that. The United States has had a hard on (pardon the pun) for Middle East activity since 1990 and really before that. More like 1948.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 9, 2005 -> 06:40 PM) I think the American economic picture would be better without the trillion dollar deficits. Really? I see what you're saying, but... would it really? I'm thinking short term vs. long term. Short term, no, long term, yes, I agree with you. Edit: Thing is... that's partially why we kept the war maching going, IMO, was to prop up the economy... more later. Got to go to a meeting. BLAH.

Of course the REAL question to the two or six inchers is "does it float"?

I think there's juuuuuuuuuust a few more oil using products out there now compared to 15-20 years ago.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Nov 9, 2005 -> 06:30 PM) I don't know how amazing it is. Balta's post above, #2 in the thread, makes the salient points that differentiate the two situations fairly clearly. He also points out what I've tried to stress to everybody who points to Congressional Dems who backed the invasion in 2003, and that is that Congress was only showed the intel the administration wanted them to see, and it didn't have a huge "*" on it and a "This is total garbage" disclaimer attached. The administration knew that though, even if nobody else did. I mean, how are you going to hoodwink Congress into authorizing your war if you let them in on the scam? I don't have much to add to that. And I disagree with that. There's just as much intelligence that was floated out there pre-Bush that said exactly the same thing. I see what you're saying, but there's just as much '*' going on pre-2001 as there was in 2003.