Rex Kickass

QUOTE(Heads22 @ May 14, 2006 -> 11:11 PM) And, someone moves to 18-3 in game threads.... I'm 1-0 in White Sox Winner threads...

I'm not talking about governments, I'm talking about people.

QUOTE(samclemens @ May 14, 2006 -> 07:45 PM) what are "those things"? im sorry, but what could the gov't do specifically without raising constitutional issues? be realistic in your answer, keep in mind what democrats will and will not block in the house. Those things would be simple. How about securing our ports? How about rebuilding the CIA's human intelligence unit abroad? How about not revealing the names of undercover operatives for political payback? Even better, how about working with the massive population from which terrorist organizations draw their recruits from and actively win their hearts and minds by being respectful of the culture in which they live while bettering the poverty that their culture suffers from? That last one is hard. It takes a while to do and it requires diplomacy and some eating of crow - something that this administration and many others before it have proven themselves again and again unable to do. Instead, we get color coded charts, and laws getting broken and freedoms being abridged in the name of protecting the rule of law and freedom. The truth is you'll never be truly safe from someone hell bent on strapping a bomb to their chest and blowing their s*** up in a city, or on a bus or wherever. If that's all you want, go find your fortified panic room and stay there. Because all the wiretaps in the world and all the closed circuit surveillance isn't going to keep Joe Terrorist from blowing s*** up if he really wants to. Because if that were the case, the IRA's back would have been broken by 1985 and Al-Qaida wouldn't have dared bomb s*** in Madrid or the UK. European countries have a lot of the same "protections" that our administration seems to be moving to, but as you can see - they payoff isn't worth the cost. Because terrorism is still happening in Europe, just like it is everywhere in the world. What solves the problem? Being realistic about the problem. Not wiretapping every phone in America and certainly not logging a bunch of phone calls to see who calls whom.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ May 14, 2006 -> 07:36 PM) Sad becuase when you testify in fron of a grand jury several times, your stories are bound to be slightly different, truthful or not. All it take sis one time getting tired of answering the same damn question over and over for you to give an answer that is slightly different, though cold be the same in essense. Oops! You just changed your stiry! You must be lying to us! How many times did he testify? And this is all they found? I stand by what I said, a waste of time on a political whichhunt that yielded almost nothing. This was just payback for Ken Starr. Slight differences rarely get perjury charges. Fitzgerald, in his indictment of Scooter, basically went so far as to say that the degree to which they discovered Libby's testimony to be perjured has practically forced the investigation to start over on who leaked a CIA operative's name to the press and whether or not it was flagrant enough to justify it being a violation of the law.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ May 14, 2006 -> 05:56 PM) Thankfully he's not a Republican President. He would have blamed the lightning on Zeus and decided to invade Greece to destroy their powerful fortress on Mount Olympus. I thought he would have just wiretapped God for clues on where the next lightning strikes will be.

Since it clearly doesn't work, let's continue doing it then! But blame Clinton for why it still doesn't work. Nice.

Whatever you think about Sigur Ros aside (personally I find them completely captivating about 75% of the time, but I'm not sure I'd want to see them live), I think we can safely say Jim DeRogatis has been a douche long before this column. I figured it out when he wouldn't stop worshipping at Courtney Love's jockstrap on his awful Sunday night radio show.

Yeah, because perjury isn't important anymore. It's not like we recently impeached a president on perjury charges or anything....

QUOTE(samclemens @ May 14, 2006 -> 04:42 PM) estimated conservatively, clinton kicked the door open. yet bush should be impeached for walking through it after the worst terrorist attack on our country in it's history. someone please explain why bush should be crucified and people are wishing we didnt have a two term limit for clinton. no...letting terrorists enter the country and commit terrorist acts would make us the losers in this fight (hint- its called the war on terror) I'd rather the occasional bombing than having my freedom curtailed. Because the occasional bombing is going to happen whether or not we track everyone on camera and tap phones at will. Just ask the folks in London. This sort of stuff stops nothing, ultimately, and its a greater reliance on technology and not actual human intelligence that gave us the intelligence problem we currently have in the first place.

The only person it buys time for is us. So I guess I can firmly putting you in the camp for whining about Iran but doing nothing. Good then.

That's great. But you forget that the Bush administration closed off diplomatic dialogue with North Korea in 2001 - about the same time that they intensified efforts to get a nuclear weapon. And now, we're stuck in a stalemate with an Atomic North Korea which helps ensure the state's stability and also helps make regime change less possible from outside forces because of the risk of a nuclear blast in the region. So we seem to have a couple different scenarios - a set of options that you seem to support and a set of options that I seem to support. I seem to support the idea of a diplomatic dialogue with a goal of a peaceful settlement to the situation, while preparing ourselves to take part in any necessary measures to ensure resolution in our favor down the road. You seem to support one of two ideas (and I'm unsure which): Do nothing and whine "I told you so" when Iran does become nuclear. Or enter a military conflict that we clearly are not ready for nearly immediately since this untested possibility of dialogue is bulls*** because other countries didn't talk to us before.

Did anyone see Al Gore on SNL last night? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHM7iyjMAnw&search=al%20gore

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ May 12, 2006 -> 05:56 PM) Rex. You still think its a good idea to dither around and take Iran's bulls*** overtures to heart? Everything I've ever been taught about International Relations tells me its absolutely a good idea, especially when you're talking about a window of years, not months.

Negotiating for peace allows us the international legitimacy of a war, if necessary as long as the US as being seen as an honest broker.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ May 11, 2006 -> 11:37 PM) Yeah, things worked out REAL good with N. Korea. We got to talking and, oh, they have the bomb now. Guess that really worked huh? Again, you're missing the point. Agreeing to play the diplomacy game strengthens our military game, because if the time comes where it is necessary to take action, we'll have had a history of trying to be an honest broker regarding the Iranian Nuclear Crisis.

Wait, you mean people pander in other countries? I thought we had the patent on that...

Satire does not equal slander.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ May 11, 2006 -> 07:30 PM) If they are f***ing stupid enough to drop an atomic weapon on Isreal then Allah better stock up on virgins because there's going to be a whole lot of Iranian Muslims coming around when Isreal and the US turn Iran into a parking lot. Rex, those overtures were rejected because they were BS to begin with. Iran is playing the same game North Korea played with us for the last 10 years. They figured if the N. Koreans could get a bomb that way then why not try it themselves. BTW. If we let Iran get a nuke then China will be the least of our worries. You've completely missed my point Nuke. By playing along we legitimize any need for military force down the road. Instead, all we do is further marginalize and corner the people we're most concerned with... and cornered people are the ones most likely to lunge out. But I guess easier to just say "f*** em" then do what's right and be prepared to do what's necessary physically if it comes to that. Maybe the administration just figures that in 2009 it'll be someone else's problem. Oh and Nuke, that "game" that North Korea played with us for ten years (although it was really five) finally worked. We finally came to the table, albeit being dragged there. There's a great story involving the Iranian airliner that we accidentally bombed in 1988. The Vice President at the time, George H.W. Bush defended US action in the region, apologized for bombing a civilian aircraft and referred to Iran by its formal name "The Islamic Republic of Iran." The U.S. had never before used the term publicly. A lot of people argue that it was that mere sign of respect on behalf of Poppy Bush that quieted the Iranian outrage after that accident. Personal respect goes a long way in diplomacy. When the President of Iran addressed our President as "Your Excellency," there was a signal of dialogue issued. Maybe we oughta look into the idea of dialogue.

Gino's before it closed the original location near the John Hancock. It was my first true deep dish experience - and the place where I learned that sausage patties could indeed be 20 inches wide.

I love how in your world, you either hate him or love him. There might be a middle ground - one that acts with actual reason and not emotion. Personally, I hope that middle ground exists and exists in our policies. The letter from Iran to the US is way more important than people think. It's actually the first direct communication between the two states since 1979. That's 27 years. And although, it didn't answer any questions or address any issues - it's still an unprecedented step from Iran to start a process of easing tensions. Whether you want to believe it or not, this is Iran blinking first. Which means that the US government ought to be suspicious of motives but welcome the opening of dialogue. In fact our President should reply. Openly, honestly and publicly. Why? Because if we act the role of honest broker and they really are blowing smoke up our ass - it makes it easier to internationalize any conflict we may feel ourselves cornered into creating. Even if we doubt their intentions, playing out this hand only strengthens our position. We've rejected prior overtures from Iran through third countries to come to the table and start talking - and maybe help ease tensions. This is a tremendous opportunity for the US to regain influence in a part of the world where we need it and I hope it isn't squandered. Otherwise we will be looking up at China in the next 50 years.

Who didn't? I think that was in Nostradamus' prophecies actually.

Clinton had it on the Presidential limo. I think there's a big difference between when D.C. was created and today in terms of the influence that it would receive when it comes to federal government. The main argument against D.C. statehood these days, is that it would create two new Senate seats for the Dems in perpetuity.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ May 11, 2006 -> 01:26 PM) It was telling to see how fast the administration got GWB on camera to address this (which of course he didn't really do. . . "After 9-11. . . go after the terrorists. . . leaking about this program gives aid to the enemy. . . "). Their strategy is usually to see how a story gets picked up first before throwing President 31% in front of a camera to take a stab at damage control. This could end up being very big – maybe as big as the warrantless surveilance should have been. Maybe also big enough to scuttle the hayden CIA nomination. I read that a number of Hill strategy meetings today on getting the Hayden nomination through have been cancelled. Maybe coincidental that it happened after the NSA data mining story broke, but i don't think that's likely. Any chance of a recess appointment of the CIA top spot during the Memorial Day holiday? Not likely. I almost get the impression that this is a guy nominated to flame out. Give the GOP a chance to stand up and say no - distance themselves from a President who's becoming more and more toxic.

The more I've seen of Al Gore since 2000, the more I've liked him. He acts as his own man now, like the expectations of others no longer apply to what he feels is right. I can respect that. But if he runs for President again, I'm afraid he'll become the Al Gore I wasn't such a big fan of.

Classy: http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/The...06/kennedy.html