Rex Kickass

There is a town near where I live where city employees actually get the following paid holidays in February. President's Day. Lincoln's Birthday. Washington's Birthday. Valentines Day. And your birthday too. If only I worked for them.

I always thought having junk mail sent to someone's house was more of a prank then terrorism. Granted a mean prank - but I don't think that it is "terrorism." Broken windows, threats of murdering your kids? Yeah, that's not legal. I don't know that I would call it terrorism either though.

Daley wants em in bars and other businesses open til 4AM. It won't really stop crime. And its a bad way to do it.

QUOTE(mac9001 @ Feb 19, 2006 -> 08:37 PM) Didn't Reagan withhlod UN dues? How long did that last? It wasn't really withheld so much as we never cut the checks. Or we'd only pay a portion...

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 19, 2006 -> 07:43 PM) various Stans The only Stans I've ever known have been baptist. And of course there's St Stans in Michigan City...

It's been so long since I listened to the record, I had to look at what exactly was on it... and now I remember why I loved it so much. I remember the first four songs completely blowing me away. Even when I was little.

QUOTE(Yoda @ Feb 18, 2006 -> 07:02 PM) No love for Start Me Up? I hear that song in the car and I turn the volume up, up, up. Since some have listed their favorite Stones songs, I'll post mine. It isn't a top 30, but here are 10 in no particular order: Satisfaction Jumpin' Jack Flash You Can't Always Get What You Want Under My Thumb Sympathy for the Devil Mother's Little Helper Paint It, Black b**** Start Me Up Beast of Burden Lately I've been addicted to Shattered. There's times when I can't get that song off my head. What a drag it is getting old. . . I love how that song starts off. My love affair with the Stones pretty much starts and ends with Flowers. My cousin had it on vinyl and whenever we went to visit, I always wanted to listen to it. Looking back on it now, no idea why.

I lurve Britpop! 1994 - Blur - Parklife, Oasis - Definitely Maybe.... droooL!

Sam, This is a place for thick skins. Let it roll off, or feel free to enjoy the other parts of this fine website.

Why? You don't seem to have any problem blaming Bill Clinton, even if you're without any facts whatsoever. Then presented with them you just wave them off. Who needs the truth to back up an opinion when its right to begin with. Reality be damned! The bulk of CIA and military dismantlement came from the Bush 41 years if I remember correctly. All that fun peace dividend talk.

Yes, but the administration apparently doesn't support the move either. This won't become law. And it shouldn't.

I would be very surprised if this doesn't get killed in the Senate.

The Civic hybrid has been knocked repeatedly for its spartan interior. It's not really the same car as the rest of the Civic line from what I've read. The Prius seems to have gone down in price significantly and is more along the lines of what would be an affordable hybrid car.

The fault lies with people who would take matters of national security and politicize it. People's whose opinions change about what is necessary based on who's in what office. And with people in our government who have a fundamental disconnect with what a "war" on terror actually has.

QUOTE(samclemens @ Feb 19, 2006 -> 10:31 AM) ...and your reasons are?? Because his methods are outmoded and unsuited for the United Nations. He brings a distinctly cold war mentality to a non-cold war situation. If this was still 1983 - where the world was consistently being judged in a Soviet/US polarity, you might argue that John Bolton could have been the right person for the job. But in my opinion, he's a contrarian and offers little in the way of positive leadership in the U.N.

Google search it. You'll find that Bill Clinton was trying to bring counter terrorism efforts to the forefront of his administration in 1995, before the Oklahoma City bombing, but it was blocked repeatedly by Republicans. In 1996, the Clinton administration introduced a counter-terror initiative that sought to increase funding for counter terrorism programs. It actually included enhanced wiretapping capabilities so that the US could be more flexible in pursuing non-state actors who were threats to national security. (FISA was amended in 1995 to give the administration a 72 hour window after the beginning of wiretapping to allow the government more flexibility in pursuing terror suspects.) The Clinton administration actively sought to upgrade security at US interests including its embassies during the 1990s, so much so that they actually got into an argument with Germany that delayed renovation of the Brandenburg Gate because Germany objected to blast walls and 20 foot high fences in the center of Berlin. (The bulk of embassy operations were later moved to an old US military base in the Southern region of the city where security measures could be more easily used.) Clinton actively tried to dry up economic assets of known terror suspects, including Bin Laden in 1998. Under his watch, he had the FBI reorganize itself to devote at least part of its resources specifically to counter terror organizations. His administration also chartered a blue ribbon investigation panel chaired by former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, and who included former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. They delivered a comprehensive study of recommendations that could have been implemented (some of them immediately) but when introduced fell flat because it just wasn't the interest of the people in charge at the time. What's my point? The Clinton administration actually did quite a bit to combat terror during its term. But because it did so without drawing attention to itself over and over and over again, when something major happened - it was all about how the Clinton administration screwed up. The truth is that we live in a free society. And with freedom comes a degree of vulnerability. We can do whatever we can to protect ourselves and maintain our way of life - ideals and all. But that means that sometimes some mean people with box cutters can slip through the cracks and cause us a world of pain. Because we value our freedom, we also have to accept the possibility that others who don't may use our freedom against us. So terrorism happening isn't Bush's fault. It isn't Clinton's fault. But I can say that ignoring specific threats can be a President's fault. And I haven't seen any evidence to show that the Clinton administration did just that.

You know so little about this issue, it's stunning that you'd make a comment yourself. Bill Clinton did start the work of transforming the way government responds to threats - his work was by no means complete, or in some cases enough, but to say he did absolutely nothing or had a "grease up and bend over" policy is just wrong.

Sherrod Brown has run a nasty campaign - no doubt about that. BUT, that doesn't mean that the party is actively plotting against Hackett.

I have friends on the Culver campaign.

I feel the same way about executing people. If the chance is 1% that the wrong person could be killed, it's too much.

Mitt Romney and centrist don't deserve to be in the same sentence. And I think you're the first person I've ever seen that says Evan Bayh's got charisma. Did he buy some from Al Gore? Mark Warner in Virginia is a centrist. So is Tim Kaine, the current Gov and Warner's heir to the seat.

He won't do that, but he might run as an independent. But chances are if he loses the primary, he's just going to lose period.

Bryant Gumbel has a job to begin with?

QUOTE(mreye @ Feb 17, 2006 -> 11:01 AM) I thought this was funny: The ABC radio National "Top of the hour" news led with the Cheney story for the 5th day. The story this morning was that he was making his first public speech since the incident, which happens to be in his home state of Wyoming. The had a clip of someone from there: "If I was him I'd be embarrassed. That'd be like me accidentally shooting a friend of mine." I'm like, "Well, yeeeeaahhh. Brilliant, buddy." Did Yogi Berra say that?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 17, 2006 -> 09:59 AM) You know, I never EVER have heard Republicans while the last Democrat was in office og to foreign countries and slurp them like there's no tomorrow during a time of 'war'. For example, when Clinton 'attacked' Iraq, most were very supportive. The only exception about this is when he withdrew from Somalia, which IMO set the precedent for modern terrorism, because the Americans became 'cowards' at that point, and when the 'wag the dog' crap came up with the Bosina stuff. I thought that was tasteless then and I do now looking back on it. Here, though, in today's times, people on the 'left' can't wait for the next opportunity to throw stones on the glass house. It's all they do. They sit back, wait for something to pick apart, scream, b****, yell, throw two year old temper tantrums about how much our president sucks and WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH, instead of offering real alternatives to our problems of today's time. I'm going to say this again. I really don't like Bush, but I will defend assinine attacks and provide alternatives to what I think are endless, classless assults on the presidency. Kap, I say this with all the love but you're full of s***. Half the people in this forum who get upset about people being angry over the way Cheney handled his shooting accident are the same one who bring up Chappaquiddick every five minutes. The "wag the dog" stuff by the way was Clinton trying to go after Osama Bin Laden. Not Bosnia. The Republican members of Congress just opposed it because it was Bill Clinton's doing and not theirs. The truth is Bill Clinton was a pussy in 1998 when he let Congress cause him to scale back plans for limited military involvement in taking care of OBL and Saddam Hussein when the UNSCOM dust up happened. In 1999 when he went to Bosnia, he did the damn right thing - trying to stop a civil war that was being fought against religious lines. And over the objections of a Republican Congress who claim now that George Bush has the same rights that Bill Clinton supposedly didn't have. I think its a little old that people here seem to think that its only the Democrats who throw stones in this forum. The big threads in this forum are regarding legitimate questions of legality over a domestic spying program, the Vice President shooting a 78 year old man in the face and what an asshat Al Gore is and what an asshat Hillary Clinton is. So who's attacking whom? Oh yeah, we're all attacking everyone. That's sort of what this forum is. Political debate, the good bad and ugly. So no victim cards allowed.