Rex Kickass

Talk to the students' whose assignments that you wanna use. And then take their names off em, if they give you their ok.

Is this even a US port they're being hired for?

The prosecutor in this case suddenly wants to drop the charges, saying that the defendant is insane - in a convenient way to get out of the issue. However, the judge is refusing the motion and insisting the trial goes on. If this man is put to death, how should that affect our relationship with Afghanistan?

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 24, 2006 -> 04:29 AM) Hey Rex! Sorry, but in the course of this discussion I never responded to your question about Bennett. I can't help you much as I have no idea who this guy is. As I said, I had never heard of him before. I also couldn't tell you the name of the radio program. He may very well be a whack job. It was what York was saying that grabbed my attention. Ain't no thing but a chicken wing on a string. Bennett and York both have an ideological axe to grind in trying to prove domestic wiretapping as not a violation of the law. It seems that York is taking a ruling to a specific case about an appeal for a FISA warrant and applying it to dozens if not hundreds of cases where warrants weren't even sought to begin with. The COA, if I'm following this discussion right issued a ruling on appeal on whether or not a warrant should have been issued. Not whether or not the warrant was even necessary. Am I wrong?

And we're closing. Please take your pissing match private.

Odd Fox News screen shot.

The taliban began to establish power in Afghanistan 6 years after the Soviets left. Many of the Taliban were in fact involved with the US backed Mujahadin.

We got folks from all around this great land here. So what kind of house payment/rent payment do you have every month? I have a two bedroom apartment. I pay over 900 a month.

I might be seeing Jamie Collum this weekend.

A good thing to not have done was fuel a low level civil war in an occupation of another country with the goal of weakening the occupying government.... Wait where have I heard that before?

There are people in Berkeley who aren't whiny?

Nope, you're right. Supporting terrorists is clearly the right thing to do.

Random samples can be harder to find when you're doing a several year study - but this is a crap, pop science, worthless study.

No, I'm saying sending 67,000 tons of weapons a year during the 1980s to the same terrorists we're fighting against and then allowing a power vacuum to exist in Afghanistan from 1990 to 1994 does not help a humanitarian crisis.

And Islamoterrorism made that better how?

QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 11:15 AM) Did the Kremlin fund Islamic terrorist attacks against the U.S. and promise to wipe a U.S. ally off the map in the infancy of its nuclear weapons program? No, but the US did fund Islamic terrorist attacks against the Kremlin's interests in Afghanistan.

*Totally off topic sidebar* Is that the "Morning in America" show? There was some controversy with that show about a year ago IIRC, when Bill Bennett, former Education czar for Bush 41, made some statement that the crime rate would go down if we aborted every black child to be born. He was lamely trying to make a point from the book Freakanomics - which the author Stephen Levitt then refuted and explained that Bennett missed the point. Tons of allegations of racism and such. Which was, IMHO, kinda unfounded Bill Bennett also wrote The Book of Values. And he loves his slot machines. A few years ago, it was revealed that the guy who made a living for nearly a decade as America's moral guidepost had lost over 750,000 dollars gambling over a couple year period. There was much controversy over that too. Which was, IMHO, kinda unfounded too. **Back to topic at hand** You made a couple points here that I want to address. This guy is claiming that the President has the inherent authority to do any kind of surveillance that he sees fit. The nature of this program, from what I understand, is that individual cases of surveillance are not being decided upon by the President, regarding US Citizens, but rather by shift supervisors at the NSA. The program was decided upon by the President. It is, by his own admission, in direct violation of the FISA law. If there is a legal justification of the wiretapping that he's doing, he needs to establish that legal justification of the program at large prior to establishing the program. This COR program doesn't really seem to do it. If there is a legal justification of the wiretapping he's doing, why is there a push by a GOP led Congress to make it "legal" now? YAS, you are absolutely right that there are some Democrats who never accepted the legitimacy of the Bush presidency and were always out to get him. Just like there were some Republicans who felt the same regarding Clinton and were drafting articles of impeachment for him as early as 1993. But for the most part, this was not the case. However when scandal after scandal seems to pop up, and a Republican led Congress won't even investigate, it tends to invoke different reactions in people. Some see there being no problem. Others see it as indicative of a larger problem with the party in power.

Outsider Dems have success in Illinois: see Barack Obama. See Cegelis, who is in a very tight primary night with Tammy Duckworth - the candidate recruited by Rahm Emmanuel and Obama. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/electio...lstory#governor

Crossfire hasn't been the same since Kinsley and Buchanan left. Or since Ted Turner left either for that matter.

But an open doctrine of preemptive warfare is something that was not readily used in the past. Which is why the doctrine that we articulated in 2002 was so dangerous. When the big kid in the sandbox starts using it, it lets the smaller mean kids to start using it too.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-03...nkorea-us_x.htm

An attack on Afghanistan in 1993 would have been pointless given that Al-Qaeda wasn't there yet.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 20, 2006 -> 08:27 PM) Point taken, although opposition in this country was minimal at most then. The movie was written and filmed years earlier. We weren't at war in 1930... ... or 1946. Still very early on in the Vietnam War, before opposition became strong. Which, ironically, was right smack in the middle of Vietnam but about the Korean War. I wouldn't say that it's "as anti-war as it gets" but, yes, the fact that they were medics makes it definitely anti-war. Vietnam still in its infancy... And we were out of Vietnam by then. You asked about anti-war movies during the Carter administration. The Kennedy administration. The Truman administration. FDR's administration. So I showed you some samples of it happening.

Not to nitpick, but when the main focus of your argument is about your opponent's grammar and Dan Rather, especially when its about bias in film, you seem to be losing track of your point.