LowerCaseRepublican

They weren't told it was Radiohead. They just played their songs and told the children to draw what they felt after listening to the songs.

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/issues/2003-...ml/1/index.html A grade school class listened to Radiohead songs and were told to draw what they felt after listening to the songs. I love the picture that says "Free Suicides"

She knew how I felt and we made out etc. a whole bunch of times. So she knew where we stood. /pabstblueribb0n

What is this cancer you speak of?

I'll join you in the drinking. I've been drinking/drunk/hungover every day since Thursday, Sept. 9 [including today] Found out the girl I like made out with a few guys at a party and my ex spoke with me last night yelling at me for a bunch of random s*** (talking to her friends who call me and want to hang out etc. etc.) So I've been a real bundle of sunshine and happiness.

At least she is serving a prison term *cough Ken Lay *cough

Here's another.

Here's some that I have.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/world/9635067. This comes after the Russian officials released that the militants may have had help from the police (on Sept. 6 - release date) Initial investigation looked into a conspiracy with the police working with the Chechens to carry out the attack. As for the plane crashes, the independent Russian media, what's left of it after years of brutal crackdown, are saying that the planes were not hijacked and bombed by terrorists on board, but that the Russian air defenses purposefully shot down the airliners to then blame the Chechens. The apartment bombings of the late 90’s which were blamed on the Chechens, were actually carried out by the Russian FSB. A particular example was in a place called Ryazan, where people witnessed FSB agents planting hexogen explosives and Putin's pals got caught. (Putin used to be part of the FSB). More information like policy complicity and the fact that the Russians admitted that none of the terrorists spoke Chechen is a little fishy on these recent acts of terrorism.

Goldmember, that guy can't be a Congressman. He was talking with common sense.

The Royals have hung a 10 spot against the Yankees in the 5th inning tonight to take a 12-3 lead.

Really? All I saw that Saddam was a threat to the US was -- oh wait, he was not a threat to the US in any proportion, especially the bulls*** that the neo-conservatives shoved down peoples' throats about nuclear weapons et al. The idea of pre-emptive warfare has been condemned internationally as a war crime. The idea was first used during the Nuremburg tribunals when they were trying former members of the Nazi party for war crimes. The Nazis tried to justify their blatant imperialism and greed by saying it was "pre-emptive" and "preventative". Unfortunately for them, there was no evidence showing any of the countries that were conquered would have invaded Germany, so their defense was destroyed. Pre-emptive and pre-ventative warfare is not a legitimate cause for war and has been destroyed by the Nuremburg legal precedent. But if you want to advocate an already destroyed policy created by Nazis, be my guest. The United States does not have free reign to go into a country, depose their leadership and start an occupation when that nation has not done anything to the US. The real leak is Al Qaeda and the proliferation of it which has been made much easier due to the poor invasion of Iraq. As the many independent and conservative think tanks and policy gurus point out, the invasion has caused the threat of terrorism to increase. There are better ways to fight global terrorism than invading a 3rd world country that was not a terrorist threat.

He should have shot off a nuke. I mean, he could celebrate shooting a 38 under par in his first attempt golfing. http://216.26.163.62/2004/ea_nkorea_06_16.html

The mass proliferation of military style assault weapons to the general public is absolutely mindboggling. The ban did cut down on the sheer number of these weapons in the streets. Nobody is naive to think that these bans automatically get rid of all these weapons but there is no logical or feasible reason for random citizens to need an assault rifle.

Is Suddan the same as "Saddam"? As for the weapons that he was using against his own civilians, former State Department member William Blum has written ""You cannot defy the will of the world," the President proclaimed. "You have used weapons of mass destruction before. We are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again." Most Americans listening to the President did not know that the United States supplied Iraq with much of the raw material for creating a chemical and biological warfare program. Nor did the media report that U.S. companies sold Iraq more than $1 billion worth of the components needed to build nuclear weapons and diverse types of missiles, including the infamous Scud. When Iraq engaged in chemical and biological warfare in the 1980s, barely a peep of moral outrage could be heard from Washington, as it kept supplying Saddam with the materials he needed to build weapons." Rest of the article is here: http://www.progressive.org/0901/anth0498.html And if you want to get into "He killed more by mistake", actually the blood of the civilians he murdered is on our hands because our government sold him the weapons that he used during the 1980s to abuse/murder his citizens and since the 1960s, PBS and other news organizations have cemented the fact that the CIA was involved getting and keeping Saddam in power since he was a guy we could use. (Just like we us with Noriega) And what about Bush's claim that the oil was going to pay for the rebuilding effort? It's not. It's US taxpayers. As for "If we revoke our troops, it'll be chaos" argument. Yeah, chaos compared to what they have now? The fact remains that this war was not done for "humanitarian" reasons. The reasons were introduced by PNAC in 1997 -- control of Mid-East oil supplies and a tactical pivot for future invasions of Syria, Saudia Arabia and Egypt. (This fact was reaffirmed in 2004 at a neo-conservative lecture by heads of the policy makers). And for the AQ terror threat increasing, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (a well respected centrist group) stated that attacking Iraq would increase terrorism against America. AQ has made statements wanting Bush to be elected because the bombing campaigns/murder/torture of civilians makes for easy recruitment of new AQ members. Also, the very conservative right wing Cato Institute came out with a report saying that Iraq has caused us to be alienated, that terror threat has increased and that AQ membership has increased because of our invasion of Iraq. Worse, evidence from the Senate committee report revealed that the Bush administration willingly put the U.S. in greater danger by attacking Iraq. Intelligence Committee member Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) summed up the terrorist threat from Iraq: "The Intelligence Community did not believe that Saddam Hussein was likely to use his own forces or an outside group like al Qaeda to attack the United States – with one important caveat. The Intelligence Community believed that an impending U.S.-led attack to remove Hussein from power would increase the likelihood of a terror attack." As for allies, it's more than France. Here's the coalition of the unwilling: Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Cuba, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Jordan, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Russia, S. Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe and 103 other countries. As for the Coalition of the Willing, the main countries like Australia were put on board after a free trade agreement was dangled in front of their PM by the Bushies. (If you can't get them on board, bribe them) The Coaltion of the Willing countries make up, approximate, 20% of the world population and in many of those countries, the majority of their populations were against the purely elective war against Iraq. As for your prison analogy, where is the evidence that Saddam attacked us the first time? And don't even say the Gulf War because Kuwait's slant drilling of Iraq and flooding the market with oil was the reasoning behind Iraq's invasion. This was coupled with US Ambassador April Glaspie telling Saddam that the US "had no stance" on their dispute. Since GHWB wanted to get rid of "Vietnam Syndrome" he decided to renig on that policy he had in place of no stance and then invaded Iraq, kicking the s*** out of a 3rd world army.

Would those military powerhouses be Morocco, Palau and the other host of small countries that make up the vast majority of the Coalition of the Willing that sent no soldiers to Iraq? And if you've been reading the British press, Blair has been taking a beating from the conservative and liberal parties and he is most likely gonna be out of a job as Prime Minister. Other countries don't like it when their leaders lie to them about a threat (i.e. Spain) And as for only radical liberals like me getting pissed off by Bush, perhaps you should check out statements made by Ron Paul (R-TX) in the House of Representatives or Colin Powell calling them "f***ing crazies" amongst numerous others throughout the world. The flagrant disregard for other countries has alienated the US from the rest of the world and has actually caused more harm in the anti-terrorism effort. So, 420...I'm trying to get your logic. You're attacked by a radical fundamentalist Islamic douchebag so the only viable course of action is attacking and occupying a very secular anti-fundamentalist regime that did not work with AQ or attack the US or was even the slightest bit of a threat to the US? If Bush was really true about WMD and threats, then what about N. Korea or getting Israel to be more open about it's profileration of a secret nuke program etc. etc. etc.?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,501...-110878,00.html

http://www.qctimes.com/internal.php?story_...ss&c=31,1034852

Tex it tells me that liberals really like porn.

These stats are skewed in a few ways that I can see right off the top of my head. First off, they went with telephone interviews. That's not really a representative part of the population since there are many people without telephones, so their opinions are null & void. The margin of error for registered voters is approximately +/-3 percentage points. The margin of error for likely voters is approximately +/- 4% points. -- So, one could feasibly swing this poll 7 points the opposite way as well using simply the margin of error. Also, what were the ages of these "adults"? That can have an influence on the results.

Yeah I found it fun that CBS was verifying the CBS source.

Correcta-f***ing-mundo on the investigative reporting. I honestly think the real last investigative report broken by US media had to have been the Pentagon Papers/Watergate scandal which is 30+ years ago now. One could argue that the Abu Ghraib scandal was broken by US media but I don't really consider the New Yorker magazine a mainstream media source for most people. International media (Guardian, Le Monde, BBC, Haaretz, etc.) has been all over investigative stories like the Hugo Chavez stuff to the voter fraud in 2000. You have to go further and further from most US media to find actual stories that aren't along the lines of "Paris Hilton Lost Her Dog" as if that is some huge media event at all. And I think guys like Rush and the rest of the talking head pundits are so popular is because, to take a line from the movie "Private Parts" -- "People who love him tune in to what he's gonna say next. People who hate them listen to see what he's gonna say next." BTW, Kap, I think you'd like this book "How to Watch TV News" by Neil Postman. He is a media expert and just goes chapter by chapter in how to question news media. He talks about the station having an agenda, having to come up with confrontational shows because that's what people watch and gets ad revenue etc. It's a really good read. As for national health care, I feel that Americans should have some guarantee to health care. I know not everybody likes Michael Moore but he did do a good thing for a piece on his TV show. A guy had a plan with his HMO Humana to cover all problems related to his diabetes. Unfortunately, it got so bad that he needed a pancreas transplant or he was going to die. Humana denied him the transplant (even though they had said they would cover all problems related to his diabetes) So MM and the guy went to their corporate HQ and talked with them, asked the PR guy to help them pick out a casket and staged a mock funeral in front of the building to drive home the point that this guy was going to die if Humana didn't help him with the transplant. Humana caved to honor their original agreement to cover all costs related to his diabetes and got the guy his transplant and now he's living a fully functional life.

I saw that too and laughed my ass off.

The documents that were real, then fake, are now real again. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/06/...ain641481.shtml But as for all this debate about Vietnam...