ThinkFast: November 30, 2007
ThinkFast: November 30, 2007
The social networking site Facebook has “modified a controversial service that broadcast details of its users’ online activities outside the site to their friends, following complaints about its privacy implications.” Facebook will now give greater control to users over what information they want advertised. MoveOn, which had mounted an online campaign to pressure Facebook to change its policy, said the policy could be a “huge step in the right direction.”
Marking the 14th anniversary of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” program, “28 retired generals and admirals plan to release a letter” today “urging Congress to repeal the law.” The letter will include “data showing that 65,000 gay men and lesbians” are currently serving in the military.
Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee’s (R-AR) moderate position on immigration compared to the stances of his rivals is causing anger in right-wing circles. “He was an absolute disaster on immigration as governor,” said Roy Beck, president of the conservative group NumbersUSA.
“Without a serious effort at national conciliation, American troops are just holding down the lid on a pressure cooker. Iraq’s rival militias, the insurgents, the bitter sectarian resentments and the meddling neighbors haven’t gone anywhere,” writes The New York Times in an editorial today.
51 percent: College students who say “where a candidate stands on the environment would be very important to their vote,” according to a survey conducted by American University students.
Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) stated unequivocally that he would move to impeach President Bush if he bombs Iran without congressional approval. “The President has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran and if he does, as foreign relations committee chairman, I will move to impeach,” he said.
A New York Times analysis found that “Medicare spends billions of dollars each year on products and services that are available at far lower prices from retail pharmacies and online stores.” For example, Medicare spends more than double the drugstore price on oxygen tanks.
Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) acknowledged that the surge, which he had firmly criticized, “has led to military successes. But he also warned repeatedly that the Iraqis were not doing enough to capitalize on those gains. ‘I think the surge is working but that’s only one element. It’s working because of the increase in troops,’ he said, ‘but the thing that has to happen is that the Iraqis have to do this themselves…’”
A new report by the Department of Labor Inspector General finds that 87 percent of the funds handed out by the Department’s Employment and Training Administration in the past six years were through “sole-source grants,” meaning $271 million in federal funds were awarded without any competition.
And finally: Ann Coulter suggests she should be the new White House press secretary. “She told a crowd gathered at the National Press Club for the National Journalism Center’s 30th anniversary that she deserves” to be White House press secretary for the last six months of Bush’s presidency. “I’m sure she would find it to be a fascinating experience,” said White House Press Secretary Dana Perino.
What did we miss? Let us know in the comments section.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
http://www.whowouldtheworldelect.com/
You can vote once
WHO THE WORLD WOULD ELECT
RON PAUL THE WINNER SO FAR
second OBAMA
GET THIS ON AMERICAN MAINSTREAM TELEVISION NONE STOP
November 30th, 2007 at 9:33 amLooks like of Ron Paul get in , the democrats will lose the election
November 30th, 2007 at 9:35 amSo the rest of the world is as stupid and gullibile as the pautards here. interesting.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:37 amAnn Coulter suggests she should be the new White House press secretary.
Considering Ann’s penchant for lies, deceit, and misinformation, I imagine she would be more than qualified to be a Bush Admin press secty
November 30th, 2007 at 9:38 amWhat did we miss? Let us know in the comments section.
-The Iraqis managed to pass a budget, our DFL controlled Congress hasn’t.
-Murtha also said that we couldn’t possibly leave before 2009.
-The new Rasmussen poll shows the dems are the only constituency who believe that the U.S. can’t win in Iraq.
More evidence that the libs are more interested in fellating terrorists than defeating them.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:39 amWHO THE WORLD WOULD ELECT
RON PAUL THE WINNER SO FAR
second OBAMA
Gee, the same folkses who swoon over the likes of Chavez and Castro? Go figure they would choose a nuthead like Paul and an empty suit comrade like Obie.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:41 amWhat, going to war against Iraq based on lies isn’t enough?
Invading Afghanistan instead of pursuing extradition isn’t enough?
Admitting secret renditions, a violation of international law, isn’t enough?
Holding a U.S. citizen for years without charges isn’t enough?
Torturing prisonsers isn’t enough?
You, Senator Biden, have to draw an imaginary line in the sand? A line which, by the way, ignores the effect of the War Powers Act granting the President the authority to use military force any way He sees fit for up to 60 days without Congressional approval.
No, Senator Biden, I am not iimpressed with your grandstanding. There are enough reasons to impeach the president right now. You don’t need to add one more line, one more time. Support the Constitution NOW or shut-up about it.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:41 amCoulter would never be named WHPS. She’s too honest. She skips the code words and goes straight to spewing the actual fecal matter that fills her cranium. Instead of the oblique “crusade”, she says “kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity”. That’s just TOO honest for politics.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:41 amNew troll. Be sure to report abuse
November 30th, 2007 at 9:42 am“51 percent: College students who say “where a candidate stands on the environment would be very important to their vote”
Too bad they vote in miniscule numbers…
November 30th, 2007 at 9:43 am“More evidence that the libs are more interested in fellating terrorists than defeating them.”
Comment by Age of Rifles
If Ronny Reagan hadn’t sold them weapons, they would be just a memory by now. His treasonous cowardice paved the way for 9/11.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:43 amput it this way if Clinton gets in , Most people in Europe and the world will Boycott American goods STILL
If Obama get in I would say if theres a change in direction the BOYCOTT is off
http://www.whowouldtheworldelect.com/
WHO THE WORLD WOULD VOTE FOR
November 30th, 2007 at 9:44 amSen. Joe Biden (D-DE) stated unequivocally that he will move to impeach President Bush if he bombs Iran without congressional approval. “The President has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran and if he does, as foreign relations committee chairman, I will move to impeach,†he said.
Biden must have had lunch with Leahy and brainstormed the idea of talking a big game then not really doing anything further.
$hit, is Biden even still running for president?
November 30th, 2007 at 9:44 am13:
They are going to write a stern letter to the president any day now.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:46 am“51 percent: College students who say “where a candidate stands on the environment would be very important to their voteâ€
Too bad they vote in miniscule numbers…
Comment by Frosty Cupcake — November 30, 2007 @ 9:43 am
I wonder if these are the same college students who said they’d trade their right to vote for an ipod.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:47 amIf Ronny Reagan hadn’t sold them weapons, they would be just a memory by now. His treasonous cowardice paved the way for 9/11.
Comment by barfly — November 30, 2007 @ 9:43 am
Carter spent his time in office watching those terrorists parade our peeps on international tv, sitting on his thumb and eating peanuts.
Talk about paving, Carter owned the asphalt company AND the heavy equipment.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:48 amLooks like of Ron Paul get in , the democrats will lose the election
Comment by Bush Cover Ups — November 30, 2007 @ 9:35 am
No, America would lose the election
November 30th, 2007 at 9:49 amTalk about paving, Carter owned the asphalt company AND the heavy equipment.
Comment by Age of Rifles
Terrorists saw that Reagan was an easy mark; his actions spurred additional hostage taking.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:49 amOnce again history repeats itself with the young people reminding us what being american actually means. (at least it did once)
Of course, the way a candidate views the environment is critical to the longevity of this planet so why would any candidate NOT volunteer that info?? Because the vast majority of them are “establishment candidates being propped up by the fascist media”.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:51 am51 percent: College students who say “where a candidate stands on the environment would be very important to their vote,†according to a survey conducted by American University students.
5 percent: College students who vote.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:51 amComment by Age of Rifles
And Carter never lied to the American people, saying, “we don’t make deals with terrorists – while he was making deals with terrorists.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:51 amTerrorists saw that Reagan was an easy mark; his actions spurred additional hostage taking.
Comment by barfly — November 30, 2007 @ 9:49 am
And of course that terrorism had nothing to do with watching Carter fiddle for 444 days while a gaggle of savages crapped on our citizens.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:52 amRon Paul is a one issue candidate: Bush’s War, Bush’s War, Bush’s War!
Beyond that, Paul doesn’t have a chance of winning the election. Other dem candidates should take very careful notes from the way in which Ron Paul is campaigning – Anti-war, anti-war, anti-war.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:52 amBut, here’s the rub for the Dem candidates: They can’t promote an “anti-war agenda” when they voted to enable the same war! That means Hillary, Biden, and Edwards are OUT.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:53 amHi squeege! Isn’t that number sad? Maybe they will realize that they have a vested interest in voting for THEIR future, if nothing else.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:54 amWas there ever any coverage on here of the woman in Sudan who is imprisoned for letting students name a teddy bear Mohammad??
November 30th, 2007 at 9:54 am“And of course that terrorism had nothing to do with watching Carter fiddle for 444 days while a gaggle of savages crapped on our citizens.”
Comment by Age of Rifles
Carter tried, Reagan lied. And sold weapons to both sides of the Iran/Iraq war. How politically cynical and jaded would one have to be to ever think this was a good idea?
November 30th, 2007 at 9:55 amI wonder if these are the same college students who said they’d trade their right to vote for an ipod.
Comment by dim wit — November 30, 2007 @ 9:47 am
OMG. I missed that gem.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:55 amFacebook will not give greater control to users…
is that a typo??? should it be “will NOW”?
November 30th, 2007 at 9:56 amIn this supposedly authentic “world poll” here, clearly, these foreign countries probably think it’s great that our democracy is being usurped (citizens being spied upon and corruption in every corner of the administration). It fuels their own agenda that a democracy cannot work as well as their feelings about hypocritical americans. So, sure, they’ll hang their hat on a “one trick pony” like Ron Paul.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:57 amAnd Carter never lied to the American people, saying, “we don’t make deals with terrorists – while he was making deals with terrorists.
You’re right, Carter just sat in the Oval Office, stunned and sh!ting his pants, while the best response he could muster to the embassy takeover was a half-hearted, doomed and far too late rescue mission.
He left office with those hostages still in the hands of the terrorists.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:57 amWho is drudge?
Seems like a good story for this site, I just wondered why it wasn’t covered?
November 30th, 2007 at 9:58 amAnn Coulter might be a better fit for WHPS than people realize. After all, the primary requirement is to parrot the talking points of the administration, which she has been doing for years now.
Of course, she would add her own bigoted (and fanciful) spin to them, as she does in her columns. This might make the administration appear to be intolerant, mean-spirited, xenophobic, warmongering, and fascist. Oh wait…
November 30th, 2007 at 9:58 amSen. Joe Biden (D-DE) stated unequivocally that he will move to impeach President Bush if he bombs Iran without congressional approval. “The President has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran and if he does, as foreign relations committee chairman, I will move to impeach,†he said.
Good heavens, someone has a spine. About effing time.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:58 am#26 Yes there was last evening and the Sudanese government tried to imply that teddybears have a totally different meaning in their country. WTF’s up with that? A teddybear??
November 30th, 2007 at 9:58 amwasn’t huckabee an absolute disaster on most EVERYTHING as governor?
the guy’s a charmer, for sure… but “president HUCKABEE”???
we’d NEVER live that one down…
November 30th, 2007 at 9:58 amVeritas
Hi squeege! Isn’t that number sad? Maybe they will realize that they have a vested interest in voting for THEIR future, if nothing else.
Morning, I made up that number because the closest I could find was that 17% of the people who voted in 2004 were between 18-29, but I’m assuming it is rather tiny anyways. It is sad, although for a free ipod, can you blame them?
I would disagree on your view of Ron Paul being a 1 issue guy. The Anti-war bit is the only thing separating him every other R, but he is also for shrinking the gov’t in any way possible and moving back to a strict view of the Constitution, as well as having some views on dealing with Social Security.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:59 amBush Four Letter Word: Where the hell is Joe Biden’s voice RIGHT NOW when he knows Bush has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity though??
November 30th, 2007 at 9:59 amOMG. I missed that gem.
Comment by Frosty Cupcake — November 30, 2007 @ 9:55 am
Most at NYU say their vote has a price:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6892.html
November 30th, 2007 at 9:59 amIs Joe Biden implying that crimes against humanity, lying to the public, altering intelligence, and spying on americans does not warrant immediate impeachment?
November 30th, 2007 at 10:00 amI hate to simulate a troll here but this is the one time where I feel this reference is warranted: Clinton was impeached for a BJ! Now go figure!!
November 30th, 2007 at 10:00 amJoe Biden’s candor is impressive, no doubt but where is his voice right now when we need it? Where is his voice in saving this country from what lies ahead in the hands of this crumbling democracy?
November 30th, 2007 at 10:01 amI dunno, I prefer Huckabee to Giuliani. Giuliani is a corrupt, warmongering, lying, inexperienced, moneygrubbing con man.
Of course, Huckabee seems a tad moneygrubbing, too. Just not on Giuliani’s scale.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:02 amMore evidence that the libs are more interested in fellating terrorists than defeating them.
Comment by Age of Rifles — November 30, 2007 @ 9:39 am
##
Note to you: The ONLY Iraq war veteran serving in congress is a democrat. Also, we cannot leave before 2009, because it is not physically possible. It takes time to get all of the planes, travel, handoffs, and logistics completed. We have over 350,000 Americans in Iraq. If we started today, it would take at least 18 months to move all of them out with their equipment.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:02 amWhat did you miss?? A Huge Story.
Once again the USA is interfering in Venezuela. A secret memo was intercepted by Venezuelan officials and made public. The CIA memo reveals that once again the USA is trying to ovethrow the Democratically elected Government of Hugo Chavez. $8 million of our tax dollars have been funneled to the CIA to attempt to:
* Promoting street demonstrations and violent protests
* Creating a climate of ungovernability
* Provoking a general uprising
* Coordinate with ex-military officers and former coup plotters against Chavez.
Hugo Chavez claims there will be another attempt on his life.
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/lindorff/043
http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2007/11/intercepted-cia-memo-on-attacking.html
**And once again our brain-dead, morally corrupt media is silent.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:03 am-CNN’s Washington bureau chief David Bohrman:
Bohrman said he had no problem using questioners who have voiced support for other candidates as long as they are not donors or formally affiliated with any campaign. “We bent over backwards to be fair,” he said. “We’re not perfect. But we tried extremely hard.”
Laughable.
Communist News Network.
Joke.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:03 amdim wit:
Thanks for the link.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:03 amLast comment – have to run – but I believe herein lies the key and the “missing dot” in everything we already know:
The testimony of one, Sibel Edmonds, is the integral piece of the puzzle in solving Bush’s riddle.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:03 amSudan groups say teacher ‘infidel’
CNN International – 3 hours ago
KHARTOUM, Sudan (CNN) — Muslim groups in Sudan, angry at a female British teacher for allowing her students to call a teddy bear “Mohammed,” are planning a protest in the capital Khartoum a day after she was sentenced to 15 days in jail.
* did anyone hear scarborough’s remarks about this this morning?
it’s a cinch he’s do diplomat – even if one agrees with him…
he repeatedly called the protesting muslims “IDIOTS”, repeatedly,
many times, “idiots”…
way to help the problem, joe…
November 30th, 2007 at 10:04 amI would disagree on your view of Ron Paul being a 1 issue guy. The Anti-war bit is the only thing separating him every other R, but he is also for shrinking the gov’t in any way possible and moving back to a strict view of the Constitution, as well as having some views on dealing with Social Security.
Comment by Squegeeboo — November 30, 2007 @ 9:59 am
I agree with you here. Ron Paul may be a one issue guy, but that issue isn’t anti-war, its small government. Ron Paul looks at every issue, including the Iraq War, from the standpoint of a small federal government.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:04 amI do wonder why he is popular – he always seems to come as being someone’s crazy grandfather.
#49 Thanks for the laugh on my way out!! “Fair” is a word they know nothing about. ahahaha!
November 30th, 2007 at 10:04 am“He left office with those hostages still in the hands of the terrorists.”
Comment by Age of Rifles
And danged if they weren’t released as soon as Reagan took office. Why doesn’t Bush just sell weapons to the Iraqi insurgents, like Reagan did? It worked once, and the insurgents are getting weapons by strong-arming iraqi officials into steering reconstruction funds their way, anyway. It would just be cutting out the middleman. Mission Accomplished, right?
November 30th, 2007 at 10:05 am#48 8 million dollars to manipulate the Chavez government and anyone still has questions about losing 4,000 lives on 911 to manipulate our own??? I rest my case.
Now let’s move onto Boston Tea Party #2, shall we?
November 30th, 2007 at 10:06 amdim wit
Most at NYU say their vote has a price:
So this was in the article also:
But 66 percent said they’d forfeit their vote for a free ride to NYU.
I can’t really blame them for that. Miss out on one, maybe two presidential elections, and a few off year elections to not have 20k+ in debt, and/or working full time while being a full time student? (both something that I got to do) I would have been sorely tempted to give up my vote while in college if it meant not having to work so much and not having roughly 27k in debt when I got out.
Now the ones who said they’d do it for an Ipod, that’s amazing.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:06 am2millionlightyears: Send this link to every fascist media whore in the country!
November 30th, 2007 at 10:06 amMore evidence that the libs are more interested in fellating terrorists than defeating them.
Comment by Age of Rifles — November 30, 2007 @ 9:39 am
At least we finally get down to AoR’s one true area of expertise, something he’s qualified to talk about from his own personal, hands-on experience. It’s just kind of hard to understand what he’s saying when he’s got his mouth full like that.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:07 amA secret memo was intercepted by Venezuelan officials and made public.
See that whited-out section at the top of the ‘memo’? It used to say “From the desk of Hugo Chavez-Dictator for Life”.
You dope smokers will believe anything.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:07 amComment by cold_hard_left — November 30, 2007 @ 10:02 am
##
US influence among our allies in Afghanistan has waned because it is the war that George forgot. Back when they were begging us to send more troops, Bush was actually pulling troops from there to send to Iraq. Now the Taliban has taken back the majority of Afghanistan, and our allies know that we won’t be sending any more help.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:07 amNow the ones who said they’d do it for an Ipod, that’s amazing.
Comment by Squegeeboo — November 30, 2007 @ 10:06 am
Prolly the College Republicans.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:08 amComment by The Republic of Stupidity — November 30, 2007 @ 10:07 am
Whooooooo! Took you all morning to formulate that response and this is the best you can manage?
Sad sad days at TP for the old guard libs.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:09 amCommunist News Network.
Joke.
Comment by Age of Rifles — November 30, 2007 @ 10:03 am
More like Corporate News Network.
And yeah, I think they’re a joke, too, though not for the same reasons you do, I suspect.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:09 amI like how ThinkProgress buried “below the fold” the big story that Rep. Murtha has admitted he was wrong and that the Bush/Petraeus surge is a success….(TP buried it behind the “expand the post” link)
Here is more on Murtha’s reversal and how it presents a major political problem for Speaker Pelosi:
Murtha’s comments on ’surge’ are a problem for House Democrats
The Politico
Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), one of the leading anti-war voices in the House Democratic Caucus, is back from a trip to Iraq and he now says the “surge is working.” This could be a huge problem for Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other Democratic leaders, who are blocking approval of the full $200 billion being sought by President Bush for combat operations in Iraq in 2008.
Murtha’s latest comments are also a stark reversal from what he said earlier in the year. The Pennsylvania Democrat, who chairs the powerful Defense subcommittee on the House Appropriations Committee, has previously stated that the surge “is not working” and the United States faced a military disaster in Iraq…
But Pelosi, who is scheduled to speak to a Democratic National Committee event in Virginia on Friday, will surely face tough questions from reporters regarding Murtha’s statement on the surge.
“This could be a real headache for us,” said one top House Democratic aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “Pelosi is going to be furious
http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/1107/Murthas_comments_on_surge_may_be_a_big_problem_for_House_Democrats.html
November 30th, 2007 at 10:09 amYou dope smokers will believe anything.
Comment by Age of Rifles — November 30, 2007 @ 10:07 am
What’d he say? It’s hard to understand him when he’s got… something… in his mouth like that.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:09 amAnd yeah, I think they’re a joke, too, though not for the same reasons you do, I suspect.
I agree that we would disagree on why we don’t like CNN. Would you agree to that disagreement or would you disagree on whether we would agree on our disagreement?
November 30th, 2007 at 10:10 amI missed Scarborough this morning (usually flip between that and CNN in the mornings), and it was probably not the best idea to call them idiots, but seriously. Just the fact that she’s in trouble for letting students name a bear Mohammad, which is the most common name in Sudan by the way, is preposterous. The fact that these people are protesting that she didn’t get more punishment, and are calling for her execution is absurd. These people are idiots… But I’m not a nationally broadcasted morning show host saying that to millions of TV viewers.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:11 am“You dope smokers will believe anything.”
Says Mr. “OMIGODMOBILEBIOLOGICALWEAPONSLABS!!!!!!”
November 30th, 2007 at 10:11 amTens of thousands of people flooded the streets of Caracas Thursday to oppose a referendum that would eliminate term limits for President Hugo Chavez and help him establish a socialist state in Venezuela. http://www.breitbart.com/ article.php?id=D8T7H9BO0&show_article=1
Comment by cold_hard_left — November 30, 2007 @ 9:59 am
That referendum will pass by a large majority. This is what the people of Venezuela want. And this is why Bushco is attempting yet another coup. It is not our place to interfere. How would you like it if other nations tried to interfere in our affairs? You wouldn’t have it for a second. We have Senators and Congresspeople who serve for forty years. If the Venezuelans want a President to have unlimited terms that’s there decision. So who the hell are we to dictate how other democracies should be run. You conveniently left out any of the information I included in my post #48. I guess you’re in favor of CIA sponsored coups?
November 30th, 2007 at 10:12 amWould you agree to that disagreement or would you disagree on whether we would agree on our disagreement?
Comment by Age of Rifles — November 30, 2007 @ 10:10
Ha!
:D
November 30th, 2007 at 10:13 amComment by Exley — November 30, 2007 @ 10:09 am
##
Most of our military commanders disagree with Murtha. They feel that the reduced violence is due to Muqtada Sadr’s cease-fire, and when that ends, it won’t matter how many troops we have there.
“American commanders have said that they are aggressively negotiating with Sadr officials to help keep his militia, the Mahdi Army, in check. But if the cease-fire ends, if Mr. Sadr’s whims shift, that could push violence up again–no matter how many troops are here.”
http://www.vetvoice.com/userDiary.do;jsessionid=A5471587529C68482B69921A81F43E7E?personId=27
November 30th, 2007 at 10:13 amThe esteemed Murtha also acknowledged that the timeline offered by the House was unrealistic — unless America abandons its heavy equipment and bugs out like the Democrats apparently desire.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:14 amFrom Exley’s link. The T#rd in the Proverbial Punchbowl:
To be fair, Murtha has pointed out that there has been a lack of poltical progress within Iraq to bring about permanent reconciliation between competing Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish factions, despite the decreased violence within the country following Bush’s decision to send 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq. Even vocal war supporters like Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), who is just back from a trip from Iraq himself, has complained about that situation as well, and Graham warned this week that unless there is tangible political progress within Iraq within the next two months, the United States may be forced to withdraw its support for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:15 amComment by cold_hard_left — November 30, 2007 @ 9:59 am
##
So, let me get this straight, you want us to bomb Sudan and Venezuela, but leave Pakistan and Saudi alone, because they are the radical Muslims with nuclear weapons that love us?
November 30th, 2007 at 10:16 am2millionlightyears: Send this link to every fascist media whore in the country!
Comment by Veritas — November 30, 2007 @ 10:06 am
I wrote Olbermann yesterday (not a fascist). He’s the only person I can possibly think of who’d cover this story on TV.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:16 amLooks like of Ron Paul get in , the democrats will lose the election
Comment by Bush Cover Ups — November 30, 2007 @ 9:35 am
I doubt that. Right now, Ron Paul is very popular because of his position on the Iraq war, which sets him apart from the rest of the GOP pack. He also advocates barring evidence obtained as a result of torture, creating a way to challenge signing statements, and eliminating the Military Commissions Act. All good things that are very popular with people who are completely fed up with the hijinks of our current administration.
However, if he gets the nomination, he will get hammered on his other libertarian positions — abolishing the federal income tax and cutting spending by abolishing most federal agencies. These radical positions will be major sticking points for voters not ready for a true libertarian to be in charge.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:17 amComment by Age of Rifles — November 30, 2007 @ 10:14 am
Why is it that you refuse to listen to the one congressman who actually served more than a year in Iraq? You are happy to listen to someone who has never been there, but NOT the ONLY congressman who has ever served in Iraq?
November 30th, 2007 at 10:17 amThanksgiving break must be over at the RNC–all the trolls have reported for duty.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:18 amChris L
November 30th, 2007 at 10:18 amThey feel that the reduced violence is due to Muqtada Sadr’s cease-fire
I’m sorry, I thought he was a power in the south, not in Baghdad, where the majority of the decrease in violence has been. Am I incorrect in this, or at least missing something?
Was there ever any coverage on here of the woman in Sudan who is imprisoned for letting students name a teddy bear Mohammad??
Comment by Poop on Republicans — November 30, 2007 @ 9:54 am
Really, this issue pisses me off. They are a lot of us who want to counter the Christian Conservatives and say: hey, look, Islam is just another religion. Islam isn’t necessarily violent and extreme.
But what do the Islamists do? Get their panties in a wad over naming a stuffed animal?
I know I’m making generalizations here, but these people need to hire a PR firm to help them make rational decisions about what to get pissed off about.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:19 amWe keep putting our hopes on allies like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Saudi Arabia, which produced 14 of the hijackers who slaughtered Americans on 9/11. Pakistan, which was the political sponsor of the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and continues to have ties to radical Islamic terror organizations. These are our allies? And we call Iran the enemy? We’ve got it backward. The Iranians are actually the ones we should be working with to oppose dictatorships like Pakistan and irresponsible governments like Saudi Arabia’s.
-Scott Ritter, Former UN Weapons Inspector
November 30th, 2007 at 10:19 amIf we started today, it would take at least 18 months to move all of them out with their equipment.
Comment by Chris L — November 30, 2007 @ 10:02 am
and i say – LEAVE ALL THAT EQUIPMENT BEHIND…
call it a gift, whatever… we owe them so much, after destroying their world…
AND it would mean more jobs HERE rebuilding that equipment…
just sayin’…
November 30th, 2007 at 10:20 amAge of Rifles,
Nice moniker by the way,
Whatever you do,
don’t ever listen,
to these guys.
After all, they have served, and some of them are still there.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:21 amTrollshit, Bushit and strawmen abound this morning; must be Friday.
Aged Rifles & Hardly Left Cold are pot-shotting Jimmy Carter, for God’s sake! Will this evolve to replace Clinton did it, too? Stay tuned to get a first hand look at the paid trolls new talking points…only on TP.
1?…which Republican Presidents or VP’s have won a Nobel prize?
Stay tuned, you may win a free Ipod & not have to vote in ‘08!
November 30th, 2007 at 10:21 ambut these people need to hire a PR firm to help them make rational decisions about what to get pissed off about.
Comment by dim wit — November 30, 2007 @ 10:19 am
Makes me wanna market a whole line of teddy bears w/ names like Muhammed, Jesus, Buddha…
November 30th, 2007 at 10:22 amThe Iranians are actually the ones we should be working with to oppose dictatorships like Pakistan and irresponsible governments like Saudi Arabia’s.
-Scott Ritter, Former UN Weapons Inspector
Comment by 2MillionLightYearsToAndromeda — November 30, 2007 @ 10:19
Our government always does what is politically and economically viable at any time, long term consequences be damned.
History, however, has shown repeatedly that supporting dictators for our own short term gain is a loser in the long run. Always.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:24 amAfter all, they have served, and some of them are still there.
Comment by Chris L — November 30, 2007 @ 10:21 am
Although I do visit VV from time to time (they are mentioned on my local morning radio show too) they are not the only voices out there.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:25 amI’m sorry, I thought he was a power in the south, not in Baghdad, where the majority of the decrease in violence has been. Am I incorrect in this, or at least missing something?
Comment by Squegeeboo — November 30, 2007 @ 10:18 am
##
Sorry, but you missed a lot. He controls Sadr City, just south of Baghdad, Basra, and Najaf. But he is a member of the Iraqi government with six ministries under him, and control of 32 seats in the parliament. He is also the only anti-Iranian influence in the Shia government, which is why the Iranian government has been arming the Badr militia to fight against Sadr’s Mahdi Army. If the Badr militia loses this battle, Sadr will then be able to focus his attention on US soldiers.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:25 amI know I’m making generalizations here, but these people need to hire a PR firm to help them make rational decisions about what to get pissed off about.
Comment by dim wit — November 30, 2007 @ 10:19 am
You mean “to tell them what a secular Westerner thinks they should get pissed off about.” I’m sure all 1.3 billion Muslims will appreciate your input.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:25 amChris L
Ah thanks, I had forgotten he was part of the gov’t, and hadn’t heard of the Badr militia at all, thanks.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:26 amwhich Republican Presidents or VP’s have won a Nobel prize?
Speaking of the company you keep, Arafat won a Nobel too.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:27 amI’m sure all 1.3 billion Muslims will appreciate your input.
Comment by toasterhead — November 30, 2007 @ 10:25 am
How many of that 1.3 billion think the woman should be put to death, like they do in Sudan this morning? (NY TIMES front page…)
November 30th, 2007 at 10:27 amYou mean “to tell them what a secular Westerner thinks they should get pissed off about.†I’m sure all 1.3 billion Muslims will appreciate your input.
Comment by toasterhead — November 30, 2007 @ 10:25 am
I agree with Bill Mahr on this. I refuse to be tolerant of intolerance.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:27 amSpeaking of the company you keep, Arafat won a Nobel too.
Comment by Age of Rifles — November 30, 2007 @ 10:27 am
So did Kissinger. Go figure.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:27 amAlthough I do visit VV from time to time (they are mentioned on my local morning radio show too) they are not the only voices out there.
Comment by Age of Rifles — November 30, 2007 @ 10:25 am
#
I know, that is why I provided all of those other links. You have your own radio show? This surprises me, honestly. I thought the media was all liberal – just ask Coulter, Malkin, Hannity, Rush, Dr. Laura, Fox News, Lars Larson, Glenn Beck, and those other guys with radio/tv/websites.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:28 amThese people are idiots… But I’m not a nationally broadcasted morning show host saying that to millions of TV viewers.
Comment by Poop on Republicans — November 30, 2007 @ 10:11 am
exactly…
November 30th, 2007 at 10:28 amSpeaking of the company you keep, Arafat won a Nobel too.
Comment by Age of Rifles — November 30, 2007 @ 10:27 am
##
So did Mousillini. And General Petraeus was nominated for one too.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:28 amThe Iranians are actually the ones we should be working with to oppose dictatorships like Pakistan and irresponsible governments like Saudi Arabia’s.
Sure, because we can trust ‘responsible’ Shiite governments like that of Iran to help us wipe out their Sunni opponents.
Just be sure not to mention Hezbollah around our new regional allies the Iranians, they don’t like to be reminded in public.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:30 amAnd General Petraeus was nominated for one too.
Comment by Chris L — November 30, 2007 @ 10:28 am
Don’t forget Limbaugh…
November 30th, 2007 at 10:30 am“which Republican Presidents or VP’s have won a Nobel prize?”
Comment by Zimzone — November 30, 2007 @ 10:21 am
Theodore Roosevelt won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1906 for his efforts to bring about the end of the Russo-Japanese War.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:31 amAhh, Teddy Roosevelt. What I wouldn’t give for another Roosevelt…
November 30th, 2007 at 10:32 amMakes me wanna market a whole line of teddy bears w/ names like Muhammed, Jesus, Buddha…
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — November 30, 2007 @ 10:22 am
I love the Buddhists. There really isn’t anything that pisses them off. You can already go to Bennihana and drink your maitai out of the back of the Buddha’s head. The Buddhists don’t even get pissed off when you reduce their holy people to porcelian drinking vessels.
(and if any of you are Buddhists, yes I know this isn’t THE Buddha (Siddhartha) but it is A Buddha)
November 30th, 2007 at 10:33 amI agree with Bill Mahr on this. I refuse to be tolerant of intolerance.
Comment by Frosty Cupcake — November 30, 2007 @ 10:27 am
Fair enough, but we have our own intolerant to deal with – we shouldn’t be involved with Sudan’s intolerant. There is an ongoing debate among Muslim scholars about the role of religion and society, and they need to settle these issues on their own, without Western interference.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:34 amTheodore Roosevelt won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1906 for his efforts to bring about the end of the Russo-Japanese War.
Comment by Exley — November 30, 2007 @ 10:31 am
Roosevelt was also an ardent conservationist who left the GOP because they wouldn’t give women the right to vote.
What did Mann Coulter say earlier this year? Something about women shouldn’t be allowed to vote? What’s next, Mann, burkas in public?
Geez, it’s gittin’ harder ‘n harder ta tell the fanatics apart.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:35 amwhich Republican Presidents or VP’s have won a Nobel prize?
Speaking of the company you keep, Arafat won a Nobel too.
-Comment by Age of Rifles
Yeah, Aged Rifle, I completely forgot Arafat had been a Republican President or VP. Thanks for that reminder. Nice guy. That worked out well for you folks.
Exley, thanks. I didn’t know that. I suspect the ‘old roughrider’ deserved it, too. Was he the last Republican to support conservation?
November 30th, 2007 at 10:35 amZimzone
Exley, thanks. I didn’t know that. I suspect the ‘old roughrider’ deserved it, too. Was he the last Republican to support conservation?
I think Nixon might have been one, can’t recall for sure.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:37 amSo did Mousillini. And General Petraeus was nominated for one too.
Comment by Chris L — November 30, 2007 @ 10:28 am
So was Stalin and Hitler. Yet Gore and Arafat won. Wow.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:37 amI love the Buddhists.
Comment by dim wit — November 30, 2007 @ 10:33 am
I by and large REFUSE to have anything to do w/ any organized religion, but when people ask about affiliation, I usually say I’m most comfortable w/ Buddhism. I have nothing against buddhists, I just wanted to be inclusive here (wouldn’t wanna be accused of discrimation, would we???). ;-D!!
November 30th, 2007 at 10:38 amYet Gore and Arafat won. Wow.
Comment by Age of Rifles — November 30, 2007 @ 10:37 am
And both deserved it. So what’s your point?
November 30th, 2007 at 10:39 amSo was Stalin and Hitler. Yet Gore and Arafat won. Wow.
Comment by Age of Rifles — November 30, 2007 @ 10:37 am
Stalin and Hitler? Was I asleep? When did Bush and Cheney get nominated?
November 30th, 2007 at 10:39 amI think Nixon might have been one, can’t recall for sure.
Comment by Squegeeboo — November 30, 2007 @ 10:37 am
Nixon can’t really be called a conservationist (not like TR), but he DID sign the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, which did much to protect our environment — making him come closer than more recent Repubs who have been trying to weaken these laws ever since.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:40 amSo was Stalin and Hitler. Yet Gore and Arafat won. Wow.
Comment by Age of Rifles — November 30, 2007 @ 10:37 am
##
Hmmm. Amazing what you learn each day, I had no Idea. So, Stalin, Hitler, and Petraeus were all nominated?
November 30th, 2007 at 10:40 amI think Nixon might have been one, can’t recall for sure.
Comment by Squegeeboo — November 30, 2007 @ 10:37 am
The EPA was started under Nixon.
I wonder if “conservatives” even understand what “conserve’ means anymore?
November 30th, 2007 at 10:40 amYeah, Aged Rifle, I completely forgot Arafat had been a Republican President or VP. Thanks for that reminder. Nice guy. That worked out well for you folks.
Hate to break it to ya but touting a Nobel, when guys like Arafat can win one too, doesn’t suddenly make you good POTUS material and can’t erase personal and professional ineptitude.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:41 amI suspect the ‘old roughrider’ deserved it, too. Was he the last Republican to support conservation?
Comment by Zimzone — November 30, 2007 @ 10:35 am
Be careful w/ language like ‘roughrider”, Zimzone. You’ll get AoR all aflutter.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:42 amand can’t erase personal and professional ineptitude.
Comment by Age of Rifles — November 30, 2007 @ 10:41 am
Geez, are you talking about Kissinger again? Or is it Limbaugh this time?
November 30th, 2007 at 10:43 amwe have our own intolerant to deal with
Comment by toasterhead — November 30, 2007 @ 10:34 am
So true!
As far as western interference goes, don’t we (western governments, western corporations) interfere like mad all over the place? It would be nice if our interference were more like true support for democracy and human rights and less like resource grabbing.
Not your point, I know, but it’s my chief complaint with how US interference/influence is used in the world. Sorry to veer off onto a tangent.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:43 amThere is an ongoing debate among Muslim scholars about the role of religion and society, and they need to settle these issues on their own, without Western interference.
Comment by toasterhead
No intervention is the principle of international law. Which is broken every time by superpowers.
BTW, at least Sudanese extremists are not hypocrite about what they truly want. They want to see that teacher shot. Meanwhile, the almighty and peaceful people from the West talk about peace and freedoms while carpetbombing kids.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:44 amHmmm. Amazing what you learn each day, I had no Idea. So, Stalin, Hitler, and Petraeus were all nominated?
Yah (breathless)…and the nomination process is so incredibly restricted.
These three guys were nominated, Arafat and Gore actually won.
Maybe Gore will wear a holster next time he harangues an audience?
November 30th, 2007 at 10:44 amHate to break it to ya but touting a Nobel, when guys like Arafat can win one too, doesn’t suddenly make you good POTUS material and can’t erase personal and professional ineptitude.
Comment by Age of Rifles — November 30, 2007 @ 10:41 am
##
I’m betting you wouldn’t feel the same way if Petraeus would have won it.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:45 amStalin and Hitler? Was I asleep?
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity
It is amazing how these trolls throw around these names thinking they are the ultimate evil completely unaware of all the people and events that put them there in the first place. Oh, I forgot about Castro and Hugo Chávez. Evo Morales is still waiting in the next talking point troll memo.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:47 amMeanwhile, the almighty and peaceful people from the West talk about peace and freedoms while carpetbombing kids.
Not only that but tanks intentionally run down toddlers and infantrymen are trained to bayonet babies.
How exactly do our planes manage to carpet bomb only the kids? Now THAT is some precise targeting, a tactic which belies the term “carpet bombing”.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:48 amYou mean “to tell them what a secular Westerner thinks they should get pissed off about.†I’m sure all 1.3 billion Muslims will appreciate your input.
Comment by toasterhead — November 30, 2007 @ 10:25 am
Your point is noted. However, I think you understand mine as well. I’m just saying its becoming increasingly difficult to justify my tolerance of their religion.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:48 amHate to break it to ya but touting a Nobel, when guys like Arafat can win one too, doesn’t suddenly make you good POTUS material and can’t erase personal and professional ineptitude.
Comment by Age of Rifles — November 30, 2007 @ 10:41 am
Hate to break it to you but Arafat and Rabin deserved to win their Nobel. It’s extremely unfortunate that Jewish terrorists prevented Rabin from furthering the peace process. Just because you don’t like the winners doesn’t make their contributions to peace at the time any less valid.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:48 amI’m betting you wouldn’t feel the same way if Petraeus would have won it.
Comment by Chris L — November 30, 2007 @ 10:45 am
Unfortunately, Petraeus didn’t win it, did he?
I’m not even sure some of the “nominations” are real. I thought only members of the Nobel Committee could make nominations. People can put someoen like Petreau or Limbaugh up, but isn’t it really just a PR stunt?
November 30th, 2007 at 10:49 amAge of Rifles
How exactly do our planes manage to carpet bomb only the kids? Now THAT is some precise targeting, a tactic which belies the term “carpet bombingâ€.
HOORAY for useless semantics debates used to dodge/avoid comments.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:50 amHow exactly do our planes manage to carpet bomb only the kids?
Comment by Age of Rifles — November 30, 2007 @ 10:48 am
He didn’t say that, you insufferable idiot.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:50 amI’m betting you wouldn’t feel the same way if Petraeus would have won it.
If a guy holds up a Nobel with the claim that it bolsters his credentials to be POTUS or that his past or present ineptitude no longer mattered, I would laugh in his face no matter which party he represents.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:50 amwhich Republican Presidents or VP’s have won a Nobel prize?
Speaking of the company you keep, Arafat won a Nobel too.
Comment by Age of Rifles — November 30, 2007 @ 10:27 am
Along Shimon Peres and Yitzhah Rabin you dishonest piece of human garbage
November 30th, 2007 at 10:50 amIt’s extremely unfortunate that Jewish terrorists prevented Rabin from furthering the peace process.
Comment by toasterhead
Unfortunate? That was extremely on purpose! :)
November 30th, 2007 at 10:51 amHow exactly do our planes manage to carpet bomb only the kids?
Comment by Age of Rifles — November 30, 2007 @ 10:48 am
##
They use the same method that suicide bombers use when they target only the innocent.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:51 amAs far as western interference goes, don’t we (western governments, western corporations) interfere like mad all over the place? It would be nice if our interference were more like true support for democracy and human rights and less like resource grabbing.
Not your point, I know, but it’s my chief complaint with how US interference/influence is used in the world. Sorry to veer off onto a tangent.
Comment by Frosty Cupcake — November 30, 2007 @ 10:43 am
Totally. It’s my chief complaint with U.S. and European foreign policy and something I talk about a lot. And it’s a context we really need to keep in mind when stories like this, about a British teacher committing a major religious faux pas in a Muslim country and former colony, occur.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:52 amHe didn’t say that, you insufferable idiot.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — November 30, 2007 @ 10:50 am
Yes he did, ya maroon.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:52 amThey use the same method that suicide bombers use when they target only the innocent.
Comment by Chris L — November 30, 2007 @ 10:51 am
Ah, I see, so our planes are now targeting ONLY civilian populations in an effort to kill ONLY civilians? I must have missed that part, though I am in esteemed company along with the major news outlets.
You would think we could have saved quite a bit of effort in the Iraq war by simply leveling Baghdad from the air.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:55 am“A New York Times analysis found that “Medicare spends billions of dollars each year on products and services that are available at far lower prices from retail pharmacies and online stores.†For example, Medicare spends more than double the drugstore price on oxygen tanks.”
——————————————–
And even with this, Medicare still operates far more efficiently and at lower cost than its private sector for-profit competitors.
Still, Medicare would do well to check this out. If Walgreens is getting oxygen tanks cheaper than Medicare is, Medicare needs to have a chat with their suppliers.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:55 amNot only that but tanks intentionally run down toddlers and infantrymen are trained to bayonet babies.
Comment by Age of Rifles
In some cases. Also, they have used nukes. They have used chemical weapons since WWI (mustard and chlorine gas), they have used WP, and DU, harming their own soldiers. One of their tanks attacked journalists killing 2, in Hotel Palestine. They raped a 14 y/o Iraqi and burnt her. They tortured people in Abu Ghraib, they have displaced 4 million (maybe more) people for a lie. They have killed one million people or more. Yes, the other guys have commited henious crimes as well, but we can hardly claim any high moral ground.
How exactly do our planes manage to carpet bomb only the kids? Now THAT is some precise targeting, a tactic which belies the term “carpet bombingâ€.
It’s jerk off time, I guess.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:56 amAnd it’s a context we really need to keep in mind when stories like this, about a British teacher committing a major religious faux pas in a Muslim country and former colony, occur.
Comment by toasterhead — November 30, 2007 @ 10:52 am
Hold on here. You seem to suggest their outrage as being acceptable. Was their outrage against the Danish cartoons acceptable? Under your basic premise, since the Denmark is not a Muslim country, then the Muslims would have to conform to Danish values.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:57 amYour point is noted. However, I think you understand mine as well. I’m just saying its becoming increasingly difficult to justify my tolerance of their religion.
Comment by dim wit — November 30, 2007 @ 10:48 am
I do – and I agree with you. But there’s a distinction between “tolerance of their religion” and “tolerance of the wingnuts of their religion.”
I strongly believe that the major world religions would be much better off without the fanatics, be they Wahhabists or Evangelical Zionists or Hindutvas or Haredic Jews. But I also feel strongly that it’s not my place to tell Muslims or Hindus or Jews that they need to clean up their own house when there are so many Christian whackos in mine.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:58 amYes he did, ya maroon.
Comment by Age of Rifles — November 30, 2007 @ 10:52 am
No, he didn’t, you cretin, and that doesn’t mean you’re from Crete even though you prolly do “speak Greek” fluently.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:58 amAh, I see, so our planes are now targeting ONLY civilian populations in an effort to kill ONLY civilians? I must have missed that part, though I am in esteemed company along with the major news outlets.
Comment by Age of Rifles
Note to Age of Rifles: There are no death civilians. They are collateral damage.
And furthermore, so if they are not attacking ONLY civilians, I guess that’s ok.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:58 amAlong Shimon Peres and Yitzhah Rabin you dishonest piece of human garbage
Comment by Blue Stater — November 30, 2007 @ 10:50 am
Thanks for chiming in, ding dong, but it doesn’t change the fact that terrorist Arafat won a PEACE prize, right along with Comrade Gore.
Maybe you need to stick to scribbling on the wall since debate is obviously beyond your simple capabilities.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:59 am“Danish values…”
Comment by dim wit — November 30, 2007 @ 10:57 am
Would this involve worshipping delicious, buttery pastries?
November 30th, 2007 at 10:59 amWas their outrage against the Danish cartoons acceptable?
Comment by dim wit
That was a provokation. The cartoons were there a long time ago.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:00 amWhen you visit Iran and you see the Iranian people and you get the chance to talk to them, you realize that these are peaceful people. These are highly educated people. They are more like us than we can possibly imagine. They are very Western in their approach, although they reject the term Western because they say think those in the West are Neanderthals compared to the Persian culture. But they are very modern in their approach. They are a very modern people.
- Scott Ritter, Former UN Weapons Inspector
November 30th, 2007 at 11:01 amHold on here. You seem to suggest their outrage as being acceptable. Was their outrage against the Danish cartoons acceptable? Under your basic premise, since the Denmark is not a Muslim country, then the Muslims would have to conform to Danish values.
Comment by dim wit — November 30, 2007 @ 10:57 am
I see it as understandable, but not necessarily acceptable. The outrage against the Danish cartoons in part was due to a perceived double standard in Danish anti-Semitism law that would have punished publishers for similar slights against Jews.
And from what I recall, Danish Muslims were not the ones violently protesting. Their organizations sent a few stern letters to Jyllands-Postal expressing their disapproval, but the violent protests that made the news were in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and places far from Denmark.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:02 amLook at this moron.
First:
Thanks for chiming in, ding dong, but it doesn’t change the fact that terrorist Arafat won a PEACE prize, right along with Comrade Gore.
But then:
Maybe you need to stick to scribbling on the wall since debate is obviously beyond your simple capabilities.
Comment by Age of Rifles
Oh, so serious debate with those adjectives.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:02 amWould this involve worshipping delicious, buttery pastries?
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — November 30, 2007 @ 10:59 am
Ha! At least there is evidence for the existence of such pastries!
November 30th, 2007 at 11:03 amAnd furthermore, so if they are not attacking ONLY civilians, I guess that’s ok.
Chris equated the tactic to the methods used by suicide bombers who intentionally attack civilians. When WAS the last time the “peaceful western powers” carpet bombed a civilian population with the intent to slaughter ONLY the innocent?
November 30th, 2007 at 11:04 amYou would think we could have saved quite a bit of effort in the Iraq war by simply leveling Baghdad from the air.
Comment by Age of Rifles — November 30, 2007 @ 10:55 am
##
Have you been to Baghdad? I have. We DID pretty much level it. That is part of the reason it is taking so long to rebuild it.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:04 amComment by toasterhead — November 30, 2007 @ 11:02 am
Understood. We’re on the same page.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:05 amOh, so serious debate with those adjectives.
Comment by Juan C. — November 30, 2007 @ 11:02 am
I never used the word “serious”, juan. How could I when the detritus of humanity are my opponents?
November 30th, 2007 at 11:06 am“Roosevelt … left the GOP because they wouldn’t give women the right to vote.”
That is not correct. Roosevelt temporarily left the GOP to form the Bull Moose Party in 1912 after he was unsuccessful in capturing the Republican nomination for president that year from his successor William Howard Taft. Roosevelt, who hand-picked Taft as his successor, was disappointed in Taft’s economic policies (tariffs and anti-trust issues).
Roosevelt did not permanently leave the Republican Party. Indeed, he was considered a favorite for the GOP nomination in 1920, but died in 1919.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:07 amChris equated the tactic to the methods used by suicide bombers who intentionally attack civilians. When WAS the last time the “peaceful western powers†carpet bombed a civilian population with the intent to slaughter ONLY the innocent?
Comment by Age of Rifles — November 30, 2007 @ 11:04 am
Suicide bombers don’t consider the people they’re slaughtering to be “innocent.” From their perspective, they are targeting the enemy just like pilots on a bombing run. The only difference is level of technology.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:08 amThanks for chiming in, ding dong, but it doesn’t change the fact that terrorist Arafat won a PEACE prize, right along with Comrade Gore.
Maybe you need to stick to scribbling on the wall since debate is obviously beyond your simple capabilities.
Comment by Age of Rifles — November 30, 2007 @ 10:59 am
You don’t debate, you make stupid and dishonest points. For example, you like to throw Arafat’s name around always neglecting to mention that he was a co-winner with Peres and Rabin. That’s dishonest, but that is all conservative cowards like you can do, because your positions cannot not be suppoted by facts
And Comrade Gore, is that supposed to be some communist reference? The Soviet Union fell nearly 20 years ago, get some new material you 24% moron.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:09 amWhich years was Arafat the Republican President?
I know Reagan was a joke, but I had no idea Arafat was ‘behind him’.
BTW, Teddy Roosevelt may just have been the greatest ‘R’ we’ve had.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:09 amWhen WAS the last time the “peaceful western powers†carpet bombed a civilian population with the intent to slaughter ONLY the innocent?
Comment by Age of Rifles
You really were sleep during the Contra/Nicaragua issue, right?
Who do you think the Contras were attacking and killing? Sandinistas? Hardly, they were torturing and killing civilian population that was in favor with Sandinistas to teach them a lesson: Don’t support Sandinistas. Remember the American nun that was burned by Contras? Do you remember a great outrage from Reagan because of that? Neither do I.
Fallujah, the whole city, was attacked and its civilian population burned with WP and killed, in order to retaliate the hanging of 4 Coalition Soldiers.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:11 amComment by Blue Stater — November 30, 2007 @ 11:09 am
I couldn’t care less that Arafat had to share his prize, the fact that a terrorist could achieve a PEACE prize is ludicrous; Alfred must be rolling over in his grave right about now to see how his namesake has been corrupted.
Gore shared his prize too so hopefully that will shut up the fools who believe that he is beyond reproach.
You are a fool and a follower of fools, sadly you are too stupid to realize it.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:15 amGood to see you again, Juan…Nice to see you are still clinging to your discredited myths. You are consistent, I’ll give you that.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:15 amYou are a fool and a follower of fools, sadly you are too stupid to realize it.
Comment by Age of Rifles — November 30, 2007 @ 11:15 am
And you support the worst president ever, who is stupid, stupid?
November 30th, 2007 at 11:17 amComment by Exley
You keep on your Kissinger’s bio for facts, buddy. :D
Now, good to see you too, sincerely.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:19 amI couldn’t care less that Arafat had to share his prize, the fact that a terrorist could achieve a PEACE prize is ludicrous; Alfred must be rolling over in his grave right about now to see how his namesake has been corrupted.
Comment by Age of Rifles — November 30, 2007 @ 11:15 am
I’m sure the inventor of dynamite would have been just fine with the award to Araft, Rabin, and Peres. The Nobel Peace Prize is an award for a specific work – in this case the peace process they began in 1993. It’s not a lifetime achievement award.
Nobody suggests that Tom Hanks should be stripped of his two Academy Awards because of Bosom Buddies, do they?
November 30th, 2007 at 11:20 am#105 RoS,
You are also incorrect when you claim the Republican Party did not support women’s suffrage. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Actually, starting in 1896, the Republican Party became the first major party to officially favor women’s suffrage. That year, Republican Sen. A. A. Sargent of California introduced a proposal in the Senate to give women the right to vote. The proposal was defeated four times in the Democratic-controlled Senate. When the Republican Party regained control of Congress, the Equal Suffrage Amendment finally passed (304-88). Only 16 Republicans opposed the amendment.
When the amendment was submitted to the states, 26 of the 36 states that ratified it had Republican-controlled legislatures. Of the nine states that voted against ratification, eight were controlled by Democrats. Twelve states, all Republican, had given women full suffrage before the federal amendment was finally ratified.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:20 amYou are a fool and a follower of fools, sadly you are too stupid to realize it.
Comment by Age of Rifles
You voted for a guy who can’t talk… let alone define sovereignity.
Oh, but I guess that if you think it is a guy who you can have a beer with, then he sure is prepared to be the President of a freaking country!!
November 30th, 2007 at 11:21 amComment by Juan C. — November 30, 2007 @ 11:11 am
Bullshat juan and you know it; Fallujah would be a parking lot now if the strategy had been to kill civilians and the bodies would have been stacked for miles.
The mightiest military ever to walk the earth wouldn’t have sent the infantry into Fallujah when MOAB’s couldn’t have done the job better and at less cost.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:21 am#161,
Juan, I like to think I cite a rich and varied tapestry of sources! :)
So, how have you been?
November 30th, 2007 at 11:23 amYou voted for a guy who can’t talk… let alone define sovereignity.
Who did I vote for again? Please provide a link, though whoever it is I’m pretty sure the person wasn’t a mute.
Oh, but I guess that if you think it is a guy who you can have a beer with, then he sure is prepared to be the President of a freaking country!!
Why not, democraps are getting ready to vote for a candidate whose only redeeming quality is that she has a famous last name. So in that respect I guess we are even.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:25 amThe Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by a committee of six Norwegains, appointed by the Norwegain parliament. How relevant is that, except to tell us who Norway likes?
Comment by cold_hard_left — November 30, 2007 @ 11:13 am
You’re absolutely right — Nobel Prizes (for peace or for any other category) are only relevant to the people who care about such things. Which appears to include a great many conservatives, since the general whining about Gore’s award has hardly let up since he got it.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:26 amFine, Ex, thanks for asking. I should be going to get a book, but here I am, laughing at toaster posts and waving my head side to side every time I read you. Heh.
You’ve been busy? You have not created too much havoc around here lately? :)
November 30th, 2007 at 11:26 amWho did I vote for again? Please provide a link, though whoever it is I’m pretty sure the person wasn’t a mute.
Comment by Age of Rifles
Bush. You voted for Bush. There.
Why not, democraps are getting ready to vote for a candidate whose only redeeming quality is that she has a famous last name. So in that respect I guess we are even.
Hillary will be the next Pres of the US. I think that’s the worst thing that can happen to your great country.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:29 amFine, Ex, thanks for asking. I should be going to get a book, but here I am, laughing at toaster posts and waving my head side to side every time I read you. Heh.
Comment by Juan C. — November 30, 2007 @ 11:26 am
I do hope you mean “laughing with toaster posts” :)
November 30th, 2007 at 11:31 amBush. You voted for Bush. There.
I asked for a link, please provide one.
Hillary will be the next Pres of the US. I think that’s the worst thing that can happen to your great country.
Then we agree on one point and disagree on the other, though I shudder to think who you might desire to see take the office.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:35 amWhy not, democraps are getting ready to vote for a candidate whose only redeeming quality is that she has a famous last name. So in that respect I guess we are even.
Comment by Age of Rifles — November 30, 2007 @ 11:25 am
democraps Did you dream that up all by yourself, that’s really clever for someone who probably barely graduated high school?
November 30th, 2007 at 11:35 amHa! At least there is evidence for the existence of such pastries!
Comment by dim wit — November 30, 2007 @ 11:03 am
Indeed, but usually not for long, especially if they’re sited in the vicinity of steaming hot coffee. First come, first served!
November 30th, 2007 at 11:36 am#169,
Glad to hear you are well, Juan…Yeah, I haven’t posted here as often as I used to…Work has been extraordinarily busy. Plus sometimes you just get tired of making the same points over and over again. Very rarely is anyone’s mind changed. But there are still enough interesting posters and good discussions here to keep me coming back.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:36 amdemocraps Did you dream that up all by yourself, that’s really clever for someone who probably barely graduated high school?
Comment by Blue Stater — November 30, 2007 @ 11:35 am
Yes, I coined the term and you must now send me five bucks as a royalty fee for using it in your post.
Five bucks…hmmm…that will about tap-out your allowance for the week. What the hey, I’m a nice guy, make it three bucks and have some dough left over for your gumballs.
You’re welcome.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:38 amRoosevelt was also an ardent conservationist who left the GOP because they wouldn’t give women the right to vote.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — November 30, 2007 @ 10:35 am
You are also incorrect when you claim the Republican Party did not support women’s suffrage. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Comment by Exley — November 30, 2007 @ 11:20 am
Teddy Roosevelt actually left the Republican Party and organized his own third party (the Progressive Party) in 1912, when it appeared he would not be able to get the GOP nomination away from Taft. His rift with Taft (originally TR’s hand-picked successor) had far more to do with tariffs, anti-trust suits, and dealing with American business in general than women’s suffrage.
It’s true that Republicans supported women’s suffrage more than the Democrats did. But remember, the GOP were the progressives back then, and the Dems were the conservatives. That changed with the other Roosevelt — FDR.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:39 amComment by Age of Rifles — November 30, 2007 @ 9:52 am
And yet another troll adopts a violence-themed handle. Interesting.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:43 amSo much compensation, so little time.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:45 amTwelve states, all Republican, had given women full suffrage before the federal amendment was finally ratified.
Comment by Exley — November 30, 2007 @ 11:20 am
And once again, Li’l Ex-lax, you only tell the part of the story that makes you look “correct” **cough**.
The Bull Moose Party of 1912 and Women’s Suffrage
Guest Author – Linda Sue Grimes
In 1912, women could vote in several Western states, but not in any state east of the Mississippi River, and during the presidential election of that same year, neither the Republican candidate William Howard Taft, nor the Democrat candidate Woodrow Wilson called for women’s suffrage at the national level.
WOMEN AND THE PROGRESSIVE PARTY, 1912 – 1916
It may seem strange or ironic that women played such an important role in a party nicknamed the “Bull Moose Party,” but the Progressive or Bull Moose Party welcomed women into leadership positions as no major party had before. The high status of women in the Progressive Party reflected the party’s strong advocacy of women’s suffrage and women’s rights, and the emphasis that Theodore Roosevelt, the party’s presidential candidate in 1912, gave to women’s issues.
Yes Repubs called for it 1896, but their presidential candidate in 1912 wouldn’t support it. (I’m from upstate NY, dumdum – Liz Stanton??? Women’s suffrage??? Ring a bell???)
So once again, you shoot yerself in the foot.
Yes, Repubs, a long, long , long time ago, actually were PROGRESSIVES!!!
A long, long, long, long time ago.
WTF happened? How those guys turn into freaks like Mann “Women shouldn’t vote” Coulter and Rush Limbaugh?
How did Conservatives go from caring about conservation to just being CONS???
November 30th, 2007 at 11:46 amNobody suggests that Tom Hanks should be stripped of his two Academy Awards because of Bosom Buddies, do they?
Comment by toasterhead — November 30, 2007 @ 11:20 am
Some of us have… **cough**…
November 30th, 2007 at 11:49 amToasterhead,
“Bosom Buddies,” especially the second-season, was an incredibly funny show!
November 30th, 2007 at 11:52 amAnd yet another troll adopts a violence-themed handle. Interesting.
Comment by VerbalKint — November 30, 2007 @ 11:43 am
Not only that but it also refers to a great computer game that, alas, was never updated to work on newer systems.
http://home.austin.rr.com/normkoger/aor.html
Not that I would expect you to play the game (it has “Rifles” in the name and guns are bad and mean) but it couldn’t be beaten for pure tactical warfare, especially against a human opponent and if you are a fan of that age in history.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:53 amHow did Conservatives go from caring about conservation to just being CONS???
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — November 30, 2007 @ 11:46 am
A better question is how liberals went from the likes of FDR, Truman and JFK to the spineless military-haters they are today.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:56 amRoS,
Actually, I am quite familiar with Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony…Moreso than you, it appears, since you did not know this:
November 18, 2007
On this day in 1872, Susan B. Anthony was arrested for casting a ballot in the election two weeks before. In a letter to another famed suffragist, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Anthony boasted of having voted for “the Republican ticket — straight.” Starting with the 1860 election, both Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton campaigned for Republican candidates
November 30th, 2007 at 11:56 amA better question is how liberals went from the likes of FDR, Truman and JFK to the spineless military-haters they are today.
Comment by Age of Rifles — November 30, 2007 @ 11:56 am
And you love the military by supporting an administration that has gotten nearly 4,000 killed tens of thousands wounded, and allows Walter Reed to be a cesspool. You really have some love for the military??? Why do you hate our troops?
November 30th, 2007 at 11:59 amComment by Blue Stater — November 30, 2007 @ 11:59 am
So you don’t deny you hate the military? Good, at least you fit the mold of today’s democrap party (don’t use that term unless you want to lose another week of allowance to me).
Now get back to your mop, boy.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:01 pmMoreover, RoS, as interesting as your posting #180 may have been, it provides absolutely no support for your misstated claim that TR left the GOP in 1912 because of GOP opposition to women’s suffrage. As I pointed out, Roosevelt formed the Bull Moose Party only after failing to secure the GOP nomination, which he was seeking because he disagreed with Taft’s economic policies.
Nice try though.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:05 pm“Roosevelt formed the Bull Moose Party only after failing to secure the GOP nomination, which he was seeking because he disagreed with Taft’s economic policies.”
And split the ticket, allowing Wilson to be elected. Strange times those must have been.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:09 pmSo you don’t deny you hate the military? Good, at least you fit the mold of today’s democrap party (don’t use that term unless you want to lose another week of allowance to me).
Now get back to your mop, boy.
Comment by Age of Rifles — November 30, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
I work on Wall Street, where do you work?
November 30th, 2007 at 12:10 pmI bet JulieAnnie really liked that show “Bosom Buddies”.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:11 pmthe spineless military-haters they are today.
Comment by Age of Rifles — November 30, 2007 @ 11:56 am
Ah yes, another irrational, meaning less insult.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:13 pm“Bosom Buddies,†especially the second-season, was an incredibly funny show!
Comment by Exley — November 30, 2007 @ 11:52 am
Okay then, how about The Polar Express? Or You’ve Got Mail?
November 30th, 2007 at 12:20 pmOkay then, how about The Polar Express? Or You’ve Got Mail?
Comment by toasterhead — November 30, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
Or Joe Versus the Volcano, Volunteers, Hanks has actually been in a lot of bad movies.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:22 pmA better question is how liberals went from the likes of FDR, Truman and JFK to the spineless military-haters they are today.
Comment by Age of Rifles — November 30, 2007 @ 11:56 am
If you are going to engage in that kind of name-calling, please provide an explanation as to why it’s warranted. And calling somebody “spineless” because they refuse to get sucked into a foreign policy disaster (or, finding oneself already sucked in, trying to get out) reminds me of a “triple dog dare” to lick a frozen flagpole — a stupid challenge best walked away from.
As far as being “military-haters” — I don’t think that label is deserved merely because we’d rather not use our military to invade countries left and right to grab oil and secure contracting jobs for political friends. In fact, we have a better record of supporting our military than the conservatives do. If you’ll notice, we have been the ones screaming for decent conditions at Walter Reed, supporting the Webb amendment, fighting for decent equipment and protection for our military personnel to do their job more safely, calling for decent pay for them, and attempting to vote for representatives who will get them out of the insanity in Iraq and home where they belong — preparing to defend our country when needed.
So what have conservatives done to support the military lately? Yellow ribbon magnets on SUVs don’t count.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:25 pmYou’re right, Carter just sat in the Oval Office, stunned and sh!ting his pants, while the best response he could muster to the embassy takeover was a half-hearted, doomed and far too late rescue mission.
He left office with those hostages still in the hands of the terrorists.
Comment by Age of Rifles — November 30, 2007 @ 9:57 am
Yeah, dude – that was because Ronnie Raygun had made a deal with those terrorists to sell them weapons if they waited until after he was elected to release them.
That’s most definitely NOT something to be proud of.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:31 pmAge of knuckleheads with rifles: “A better question is how liberals went from the likes of FDR, Truman and JFK to the spineless military-haters they are today.”
I think if you go over to the website of Iraq and Afganistan Veterans of America and take a look at their account of which lawmakers support the troops, you might get a second opinion on that from people you ought to respect – veterans.
November 30th, 2007 at 1:16 pmhttp://www.whowouldtheworldelect.com/
You can vote once
WHO THE WORLD WOULD ELECT
RON PAUL THE WINNER SO FAR
Comment by Bush Cover Ups
On how many threads do you plan to post this? It’s pretty obvious to me that this is a Ron Paul website. Considering the lack of press the Ron Paul presidential bid has garnered, I find it very hard to believe that people outside the USA even know who Ron Paul is. It’s obvious that you are a Ron Paul supporter and are spamming every thread to try to get us to believe that the rest of the world thinks that Ron Paul is the world’s choice for President of the USA.
November 30th, 2007 at 1:16 pmRon Paul is a great choice for all those who think that we actually need LESS regulation of large corportions. If you believe that, Ron Paul is your man!
November 30th, 2007 at 1:20 pmRon Paul is a great choice for all those who think that we actually need LESS regulation of large corportions. If you believe that, Ron Paul is your man!
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — November 30, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
On the other hand, Mitt Romney is the candidate Americans would most like to get in a bar fight with:
November 30th, 2007 at 1:23 pmhttp://www.theonion.com/content/video/poll_mitt_romney_is_candidate
Hey computer rifle-kid: if we had taken Jimmy Carter’s lead on energy independence, we wouldn’t be in the mess we are today.
November 30th, 2007 at 1:24 pmtoasterhead, just don’t hit him on the hair – it will likely crack your knuckles.
November 30th, 2007 at 1:26 pmAge of knuckleheads with rifles: “the spineless military-haters they are today.”
Hey knucklehead! I think if you take your head out of your keester and take a look, you’ll find far more veterans among the ranks of Dems than Repubs.
November 30th, 2007 at 1:32 pmSorry, I don’t want to confuse the little knucklehead with the computer rifles. I meant among lawmakers.
November 30th, 2007 at 1:33 pm“Age of knuckleheads with Rifles” feels evidently feels very courageous when he’s playing phony war games on his PC, but when confronted by facts, he heads for the nearest foxhole and buries his head as deeply in the mud as he can. Hey knucklehead – hear are a few of the grades that Iraq and Afganistan Veterans of America give lawmakers for their support of the troops BASED ON VOTING RECORDS, NOT RHETORIC!
Repub Norm Coleman: D
Repub John Cornyn: D-
Repub Denny Hastert: F
Repub Duncan Hunter: C
Repub John Doolittle: C-
Dem John Kerry: B
Dem Nancy Pelosi: B+
Dem Teddy Kennedy: B+
Take a break from your exciting war game and go take a look at how they give these grades. It’s based on voting records, not opinion.
November 30th, 2007 at 1:43 pmToasterhead, BlueStater…
Yeah, “You’ve Got Mail” and “Joe Vs. the Volcano” are pretty brutal….I guess the lesson for Tom Hanks here is do NOT make movies with Meg Ryan!
November 30th, 2007 at 2:22 pmVery rarely is anyone’s mind changed.
Comment by Exley
mmm…still missing the real point here, Ex. We are here in order to learn and discuss. When I first got in here I thought US people were the most ignorant, lazy, fat a$$es, agressive people in the world.
Well, I was awfully wrong. I am thankful for that lesson.
Some of us have… **cough**…
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity
OMG!!! That was hilarious!!! Thank you!!!
November 30th, 2007 at 2:28 pmTom Hanks is a wonderful actor. The bad thing is that he has to play the good, tender and dumb guy, otherwise he sinks. Pacino can play everything, Denzel Washington is IMHO, one of the best actors, along with DeNiro, Gene Hackman and Edward Norton.
November 30th, 2007 at 2:31 pmJuan,
I agree with you on Pacino…The greatest actor of our time (and a paisan!).
I am not a super-big Denzel fan, but he is EXCELLENT in “American Gangster” (as is Russell Crowe) — If you haven’t seen it, I highly recommend it. Best movie of 2007.
DeNiro has made too many stinkers in the last 10 years
November 30th, 2007 at 2:39 pmWith a serious shortage of housing, particularly of rental housing, ad critically of low-income retnal housing, the geniuses in Washington have decided on this criminally stupid enterprise:
http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-9/1196404143178840.xml&coll=1
Demolition of housing complexes approved
$31 million in contracts doom St. Bernard, Lafitte, Peete, Cooper
Friday, November 30, 2007
“The Housing Authority of New Orleans on Thursday approved nearly $31 million in contracts for demolishing vacant brick buildings at five developments, part of its sweeping plan to transform the city’s public housing.
“Demolition will begin Dec. 15, HANO spokesman Adonis Expose said, with more than 4,000 apartments headed for extinction in the first phase.”
People should know what is being destroyed by the worst president ever:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/22/arts/design/22hous.html?fta=y
“One of the complexes scheduled for demolition, the Lafitte housing project is ranked by some among the best public housing of its era. ”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/19/weekinreview/19ouroussoff.html
“Built at the height of the New Deal, the city’s public housing projects have little in common with the dehumanizing superblocks and grim plazas that have long been an emblem of urban poverty. Modestly scaled, they include some of the best public housing built in the United States. ”
http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-02-23ng.html
November 30th, 2007 at 3:08 pm“The Bush administration has proposed to demolish New Orleans’s four largest public-housing projects, shuttered since Katrina, and replace at least some of their nearly 5,000 apartment units with the “mixed-income†housing popular today with the subsidized-housing crowd. But if New Orleans really hopes to become a thriving city again someday, it won’t let the federal government knock down valuable, and much-needed, housing. Instead, Mayor Ray Nagin and the feds should open the perfectly decent project apartments to new middle-class homeowners.
“Further, the buildings are basically in good shape structurally, says MIT architecture professor John Fernandez, who has visited each complex since Katrina. While they do need full-scale renovations, it seems folly to tear them down, especially since they withstood Katrina so well, when many of the city’s newer single-family private homes did not.”
It almost pains me to say this because he’s such a crackpot, but after seeing “We Were Soldiers” I’d have to say one of the most underrated actors these days is Mel Gibson. But, of course all these other actors you guys have mentioned are absolutely brilliant.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:09 pmBut, of course all these other actors you guys have mentioned are absolutely brilliant.
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — November 30, 2007 @ 6:09 pm
Rove has poisoned the American psyche so thoroughly that it is difficult to appreciate the art and craft of people with whom we have political disagreements. This is, of course, a huge shame. Bush the “uniter”, what a disaster.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:36 pmTHE HUMAN- WORLD MUST THINK AND ELECT A PERSON WHO MUST HOLDS
INNUMERABLE INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES FOR OVERALL DEVELOPMENTS IN
PEACE-PROGRESS, RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS, EDUCATIONAL
WIDESPREAD, TECHNOLOGYCAL IMPLEMENTATIONS FOR RAPID
DEVELOPMENTS OF THIS HUMAN WORLD AND WHO MUST CREATE A WORLD
RECORD FOR CREATING $ 10 TRILLIONS LUCRATIVE RESULTS FOR THIS
HUMAN-WORLD THROUGH AMERICAN SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT, I WOULD
PREFER THIS PERSON TEHN THE WORLD AND I MUST SAY THAT THE HUMAN
WORLD MUST ELECT UNIQUELY THIS PERSON AS NEW SYSTEM OF
PRESIDENCY AND WHOSE NAME : SYEDISHTYAQ URRAHMAN ZULKHARNAIN
ABDUL MOID.
HIS EMAIL ADDRESS IS :sir_abdul-moid@hotmail.com
HE IS AN INDIAN WHO HOLDS OVERALL CAPACITIES AS HIGH PROFILE CALIBRE FOR THE BETTER RESULTS OF THIS HUMAN WORLD.
from an admirer
M.CARTER
20043 NY. USA
SO THE WORLD WOULD ELECT HIM FIRST
December 1st, 2007 at 8:54 am