Rex Kickass

BTW, this thread is getting closed. I don't want a new eruption tomorrow.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 7, 2006 -> 07:53 PM) So Jimmy Carter mentioning that the Kings were illegally wiretapped in the 1960s is now considered Bush bashing? I would think it more JFK bashing. No, I don't think it was an unintended consequence that it was mentioned. But it raises a great point. There's nothing wrong with mentioning the obstacles that the Kings had to face in their struggle for rights. And there's nothing wrong with mentioning a specific obstacle that might resonate with people today because of current events. If you think its bashing, that means you're thinking that the person who's being compared is doing something wrong.

I highly doubt that health insurance benefits are valued at $70,000 per worker annually.

I saw the letter and I don't know what the hell the deal was about. Maybe its because Obama and McCain don't see eye to eye on the issue's reforms... or maybe because McCain sees his thunder being taken from him and he's kind of pissed about it. Or maybe because Obama is kind of a prick. Or maybe its all of the above. I'm going with this option.

So Jimmy Carter mentioning that the Kings were illegally wiretapped in the 1960s is now considered Bush bashing? I would think it more JFK bashing.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Feb 7, 2006 -> 05:46 PM) First of all, why is that in green? Second. Why don't we get a Koran and take a crap on it then leave it outside a mosque. That'll raise some pulses huh? LOL! Way to keep yourself above the fray!

Why did today have to be my first busy day at work? Juggs, I'd like to thank you for helping to create the tidal wave that will finally send the "hollywood homosexual agenda" over the top. Indeed, you've caused the tipping point. Leather harnesses for everyone!

QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 7, 2006 -> 04:33 AM) You certainly are. The very first sentence stated the fact that I didn't think NASA should have to consider religion. I used this specific instance to point out to Jim, because he asked for someone to challange this issue, that challenging him on anything religiously oriented is a complete waste of time. OK. Clears it up enough for me.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 7, 2006 -> 12:32 AM) You all miss the point. CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY doesn't mean "wiretapping" but your whole argument is based on WIRETAPPING. Other presidents have intercepted communications via other means, yet, that's not relevant. That's my issue with "your" arguments. The difference is that in the late 1970's the federal government did determine what is the proper procedure for domestic electronic surveillance of any kind. That's what FISA is, period. This issue came up to the Supreme Court in the 1970s and they said that the Federal Government needs to determine procedures to help make sure that fourth amendment rights are protected. That's what FISA is. I caught a little bit of the hearings on the way to work. I was surprised to hear Kennedy ask some serious, rather non-partisan questions. I missed the bulk of his time, so didn't get to hear his grandstanding, but instead ask the Atty General why it was that they didn't take the approach similar to the Ford Administration in the 1970s when this issue first came up... which was being an honest broker with its oversight committees. Kennedy didn't seem to have his mind firmly made up on whether or not this is a crime, although he didn't seem to think it ethical or right. I was surprised to see Kennedy not play the firebrand - but then again I just caught the last few minutes of his time. Then Grassley came on and I found it sickening. He was ready to blame everyone for this problem. The media, whistleblowers for leaking the situation, outraged Senators who know for not leaking the situation if they felt it so bad. It seemed that to him everyone was at fault for this but the President, the NSA or anyone in the administration. I put on my Chiodos CD instead. As much as people may or may not want to believe it, this issue is deadly serious. If a crime was committed here, if the law was broken (and in my opinion it clearly was), we need to hold those responsible accountable. If not, we need to take a serious look at what is and isn't acceptable for the government to do when it comes to surveillance - especially regarding the people protected by the U.S. Constitution. It seems like a small issue, but its a larger principle that's at stake.

QUOTE(The Critic @ Feb 6, 2006 -> 11:10 AM) Less suck does not = no suck. I'm sure we wouldn't have to think very hard to come up with a "suitable" replacement for the Thong Song. The Ketchup Song - Las Ketchup.

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Feb 6, 2006 -> 08:25 PM) But I also think that firing the man is absolutely retarted as well. What do pastries have to do with it?

I didn't realize saying that painting with a broad brush is the same as "they all do it." I thought that it was quite the opposite. If that's the case, guess I'm guilty.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 6, 2006 -> 02:47 PM) No, I don't think a mandate of NASA is needed. Still, the point remains that it wouldn't matter if it was NASA or whatever, you wouldn't consider a religious POV for one iota. So, why do you ask for a challenge on the matter? It doesn't make sense. If you are totally closed minded to any reigious phlosophy whatsoever, what's the point of debating it? So you're saying Flaxx is wrong for thinking that NASA shouldn't have to consider religious implications in its discussion of science because Flaxx wouldn't consider religious implications elsewhere? I'm honestly confused.

It wasn't the Democrats who leaked this story, it was an NSA whistleblower. But I'm sure he's a Democrat too.

I think we agree, we're just debating semantics. If the guy has a dynamite vest on - that's not the same thing as being hours away from flipping a switch or shooting someone.

Sisqo's Thong Song was from 1999. Breathe easier, our decade just got better.

I don't understand, does that mean I'll have to pay for my Yahoo! accounts? Or are they giving businesses a chance to pay for an EZpass through the spam filter?

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Feb 6, 2006 -> 12:06 AM) Did you know Al Gore himself appeared on Futurama twice? I did not. Kristin Gore is a pretty funny writer, I just got finished reading her book - Sammy's Hill. It actually had a couple laugh out loud moments.

I wear my bleeding heart on my sleeve. Thank you very much.

Even if he's about to something bad, you can't just kill him. He has to literally be holding the detantor to the bomb or a gun pointed at someone and about to pull the trigger. It has to be a split second away, not minutes or hours.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 6, 2006 -> 09:58 AM) I agree, Rex, that some of what we are seeing is as you describe. But I think there is already enough hate towards the US in the Arab Muslim world, so that such encouragement isn't even necessary. What is lost in all this for many people, sadly, is that this hate towards the West didn't just spring up from the ground. Israel, Europe, Russia and even more so the US, can blame themselves for a big part of this. We sowed the seeds with our manipulation of that region. We are not the ONLY reason for it, but we are a major contributing factor. You're right, but the governments that we've cozied up to down there have played a big part in fueling that hate themselves. Not only have we tried to manipulate the politics of that region, we did so in a way that backfired again and again. Now unlike in the US, a democratic state, these states don't have the political infrastructure to channel this hate into something peaceful, like say a referendum banning gay marriage, to take away from any kind of government ineptness. So they incite riots that don't threaten their government. And they don't stop them. You don't think that the people running these countries could stop this violence? They could, but they don't want to - because it gives the populations they oppress someone and something else to be pissed at. In a month, this will be forgotten.

That is not assassination. That's self-defense, and that's the only time when a government agent has the right to use deadly force in the United States. One of the big differences between us and the people we fight against is that we don't believe in killing those who oppose us. Especially within our country. When we start doing that, we start becoming the enemy we claim to fight.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 6, 2006 -> 08:54 AM) Of course the President can do this. That has already been established. Waco. I was wondering when we were finally gonna make this Clinton's fault.

Yes. there is. The Saudi government was aware of these cartoons months ago, they had talked about it then - and had even asked for a meeting with Danish government officials regarding them. Extremist Islam is at a peak of popularity right now and encouraging these protests are a way to appease that base. It's the same principle that has members of our government pandering to the people who follow Falwell, Dobson and Robertson. This is the creation of false outrage to overshadow a government's own ineptness.

The more I've heard about the rioting and protests, the more I'm convinced, its a means of distraction encouraged by arab governments looking to defer heat from their mismanagement. Saudi papers started covering the comics horror in January, four months after they had been published. The Arab League calls for the paper to be shut down. Reaction was immediately strongest in Egypt where extremist religious parties did well in recent elections, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan which is filled with Saudi funded religious schools. This is really very little to do with religion, and more to do with government.