CheesalaIsGood

If I remember right, there was some documentary called "Bushs Brain" all about Rove. In it they gave some example of ANOTHER time during his run in Texas that he leaked some info to Novak. I don't recall what it was exactly, but it was used as a "he did it here" maybe he did it to Joe Wilson and his wife. Then again it was prolly more HE DID do it. But yanno how it goes.

Couldn't we do it yanno... just for fun?

Actually, I will be very pleased if some sort of trial takes place for the detainees. I have my doubts about it happening. Maybe we an hope for at least some for the ones charged with "lesser crimes" for lack of a better wording. I would doubt anyone directly in with Osama will get a trial or even a chnace.

Well considering most politiks actions on immigration most americans can't see the difference between the partys either. So very sad.

That was really funny. Didn't see THAT coming.

Another reason I love Canada. Boy are they gonna be mad on the radio tomorrow. What will we tell the children???

Justice. I understand this might sound like flamebaiting. But in the last Gitmo thread you accused me of being (paraphrasing) "all worked up by the lies and distortions of the media". That it was the medias fault for my being "misinformed". Yet you have posted a article from the AP. The same media who lied to me before? The same media who squashes conservative point of views? But you post this article? Why? Only because its is generally postive towards your position on Gitmo? So how, using your point of view previously, am I supposed to take any of this seriously?

Last time I checked, bombing a country to the ground wasn't "helping them". Giving Saddam WMDs in the first place wasn't helping anyone either, except Saddams regieme of course. Not to mention placing sanctions on Iraq that led to the starvation of millions. Things were all chummy-chummy with Saddam till he invaded Kuwait, after his worst atrocities were behind him and nobody cared (gassing the Kurds for example). Yup, helping people alright. And yeah, everything else CheesalaIsGood covered. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> C-Bacon. This is really nothing new. Saddam was fighting a proxy war for us against Iran. We did it in Afganistan as well against the Solviets. Often times its like picking the lesser of two evils. So there were definatly reasons for selling weapons to Saddam. Not GOOD reasons, but reasons nonetheless. It's like thinking: "Hey, he's a thug. Maybe he'll kick their ass for ruining that SHAH thing on us!" Instead these types of policies have come back to bite us in the ass. If the Pentagon wasn't so determined to play RISK from puppet strings we wouldn't be in this quagmire to begin with. You think with positions in Iraq AND Afganistan the Russians aren't sweating just a bit? Especially in these days of Pre-emptive strikes? You know those conservatives sure do seem really concerned about those commie types. Regardless, we ARE there. And we need to insure that as many of the soldiers come home safe as we can. THIS is the real prize to keep an eye on from now on. EXIT PLAN!

Jingus I agree with you on everything you said. Saddam is an asshole. His fall from power IS a good thing. My problem is with the Bush admin. and how they run the war. They have no exit plan! I knew they wouldn't have one. Which again raises the questions about THEIR motives for being there. OK, whatever though. My biggest beef is that there were no WMDs and generally how we treat our soldiers after the war is over. These guys can walk on water while they are fighting. But once they get home they might as well get a job as toilet paper cuz they get treated like shit. Sorry to the rest of the world, but if OUR troops are not taken care of afterwards then I don't agree to send them in the first place. No matter what the threat is. Hell, I think the terrorists WANTED us to go out there. Its easier to kill americans when they are closeby.

I thought it was a VERY good PPV. Carlito v. Shelton was what it needed to be. A hot opener that didn't overshadow everything else that was selling the PPV. Surprised to see Shelton not win it back though. Hopefully these two can make a feud out of it. **3/4 Hemme v Victoria was okish. They tried really hard and nobody really screwed anything up. Which is about what you can hope for out of this roster of women. *1/2 Edge v Kane really caught me off guard. The crowd was really into it and I was surprised again by who they put over. Edge of course is in postion for a huge push but I guess they figure they can push him via the title shot still owed him. Really all it'll take for Edge to get it back would be to wrestle somebody and win by outsmarting them. A nice surprise from these guys doing it well. ***1/4 The Triple Threat match was alot of fun. One of Cena's best matches and made him look better than the shitty JBL "I Quit" match ever did. The powerbomb suplex was a great highlight. ***3/4 Angle v HBK was everything I wanted it to be. Wrestling, wrestling, and more wrestling. Just as good as the Mania match IMO. These are two guys who can do it in the ring with no bullshit. Now for a rubber match. Hopefully an Iron Man Match. ****1/2 The HIAC match was a good time too. Batista is growing up in wrestling, and much like the Cena match from earlier this is exactly what he needed. The last two matches with HHH never really clicked for me, but this hit almost all the right notes. I was diggin it. Hopefully, HHH goes away for awhile to sell the injuries. **** Thats two PPVs in a row that I enjoyed ALOT. I don't watch TNA so I can't compare. But between this and the ECW PPV I'd give Vengence the slight edge due to the better wrestling overall.

good ole fashioned bigotry sure can win a guy some votes. GOOD GOLLY, TARNATION!

Hogan had got the beatdown from Bossman on the Brother Love Show. Tugboat prior to that had been introduced (ala Hillybilly Jim) as this big guy who Hogan approved of and was going to try and give thr ub to. So after the beatdown Tugboat was played as trying to inspire a down in the dumps Hogan to return by handing out "friendship" bracelets to the fans. They would shoot the crowd wearing them and Hogan was supposedly going to see the support and make his return reinvigorated. Fasinating eh?

Thanks for your input. I think both sides are pulling as many political strings as they can to try and make hay for themselves. Its disgusting. I'm not going to bother keeping score like some folks do. Its not worth it. Both sides do it. Not a whole lot of good comes from these PR power ploys regardless of how many good points their are. That Durbin guy is a moron for saying that shit. As is Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. But really, does it change anything? Anything important? Does it get us any closer to a solution to where we can get our troops home sooner? Shouldn't the media be making more of a big deal about a timeline rather than stupid remark by some ignoramous?

Yeah, he should just let it go. However, anything that happens to Bradshaw that is bad... I am all for.

Okay, this has to be one of the funniest speeches I've ever fucking read. Just hilarious. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If you think that is funny you should see Charlton Heston reading the lyrics to Body Counts "KKK Bitch" to the stockholders at Warner Bros. Pure entertainment.

It's just another excuse for Corporations Uber Alles. It sucks. Least when they muscled people out of some of the neighborhoods around here while expanding the local airport, folks got PAID! I seriously doubt that people won't get a good chuck of change in the futrure. But some folks are just plain stubborn and won't move. I can just see now, people chaining themselves to their houses while big wrecking equipment bearing down. Somebody should make a movie.

Yup, Batista loses on Sunday. Then off to Smackdown with him. Dammit, I want to be more into this but YAWN!

Bumping this thread up a bit but I wanted to hear an opposing view to what this guy had to say. The picture he is talking about is shown in the link. http://eightballmagazine.com/diatribes/volume02/032/656.htm Reality tends to freak Conservatives out "I'm Juxtaposing" by Eightheadz, creator of 8BM.com Reality tends to freak conservatives out. I don’t know why. I am not conservative. You would have to ask them. This photograph appeared in the associated press yetserday, but the photo was posted on a message board I go to and the reader that posted this photograph also added this comment above it... *** Warning, Graphic Content *** It would appear that the Associated Press editor who approved this photo wants to assist in the Terrorists’ goals in Iraq by releasing this photo from a Baghdad bombing. Is there another explanation? This of course started a flame war with someone else adding that “Terrorists can not accomplish their objectives if nobody knows what they have done. They need the press to get their message out.” Huh? ”Clearly the AP editor is a liberal who hates our soldiers,” another flamer posted. So essentially they are saying that press coverage of terrorist acts advances the terrorist agenda. So our duty, as a free press in a free society is to not cover terrorist acts so that we can be responsibly ignorant of the particulars of war, and or the real dangers that they pose? Conservatives said the same thing about Ted Koppel and ABC news when they read off the names of the soldiers that had given their lives defending this country in Iraq. Naming off our dead was aiding the enemy. When people questioned Dubya and Cheney about the suspect evidence they had against Saddam Hussein to justify this war against Iraq we learned from our conservative friends that being against the war is aiding the enemy. We already know that not supporting Bush is aiding the enemy. Criticizing Bush is aiding the enemy. Even not voting for Bush was aiding the enemy. Now showing pictures of war is aiding the enemy. So my question is, what if, if anything are we allowed to know about the war that isn’t aiding the enemy? We can’t know how many US soldiers are dying? We can’t know any particulars about the war, and I am not even talking about things like strategic maneuvers and secret bases, I am just talking about even the most basic stuff like "how things are going". By the way, how long are we going to be over there? I am sure they would have no problem about it telling us everything about Iraq if things were going well, but since they aren’t, well, I guess that is when knowing what is going on is aiding the enemy. I guess we are supposed to be assured when Dubya tells us ”not a day goes by that I don’t think about Iraq.” Well no shit asshole. We are in a war and as much as I regret having to acknowledge this fact, you are the commander and chief. I hope you do think about Iraq everyday. I assumed that you do asshole. That is what you are supposed to be doing. It seems that the more conservative are the more censorship appeals to them. I think one of the most dangerous and subversive tactics that the neo-cons have pushed on Americans is this idea that reality, in this case Americans thinking about the consequences of war is actually aiding terrorism somehow. I’m not surprised that they would say that. These are the same people that believe that asking questions about religion is not showing faith in God so why wouldn’t they use that same logic that asking questions about the war or about the government is being a traitor to your country? They will argue that terrorists want you to be afraid and knowing what they are doing is making you fear them so they are actually using our freedom of press to spread terror. You don’t see that? What's wrong with you? If you don’t see that its because you are a liberal dog that hates America. No. I don’t see that because I am not afraid. I am not naive. I understand that terrorist cells are here, they are planning attacks against us and that they want to make us afraid to live our lives. But hey aren't the only ones that want us to fear them. Bush has basically remained in power by keeping you afraid. Neo-cons want us to fear terrorist so much that we willingly hand over our freedoms in order for our government to better protect us. Neo-cons want us so afraid that we will relinquish our right to bear arms so that terrorist can’t arm themselves. Neo-cons want us so afraid that we will relinquish our right to assembly so terrorist can’t hold meetings, our right to information so that terrorist can’t have access to books and schematics. Neo-cons want us to give up our right to privacy so that terrorists can be bugged. Neo-cons want us so afraid that will hand over our rights to freedom of speech so that terrorist won’t be able to post terrorist propaganda and push terrorist agendas across the Internet. That is how terrorists win.That is how the Neo-cons have won. You are afraid of them. And through your apathy, your ignorance and fear you are willingly giving them everything that they want. Showing pictures like this doesn’t aid the enemy anymore than showing the skeletal remains of Auschwitz Jews aided the Nazi. Showing emaciated Jews pissed people off. It hardened their resolve. It made them want to crush the Nazi. The difference between that war and this war is that with this war you don’t have any clear cut moral or legal mandate behind it. This war is perceived as a personal vendetta of one man against another and the reason you want to play this “aiding the enemy” card is that the more we know about this suspect war the less inclined we will be to continue fighting it. same difference What happened to All the Terror Alerts? Evidently Terror alerts have served their purpose. racism our number one defense against terrorism The marshal had evidently been timing how long it should take a man of Middle Eastern decent to take a shit. AIn’t that a bitch? web design qigong cannon beach movie If giving up one of these freedoms could ensure your safety which one would you reliquish? freedom of speech freedom of press right to privacy right to trial by jury Source: Iraqi car bombs kill 17, Rumsfeld stands firm, Reuters, Thursday June 23, 2005

Plus, its not like there is rampant flag burning going on. This is kind of like one of those FARK articles that start with "Having solved all the worlds problems..."

So let me get this straight. People dying at the WTC = Go to jail for burning a flag? Yanno, I have never burned a flag. Never plan on it. But I don't think you should have to go to jail if you do. If burning a flag reminds people of of just how much sacrifce has gone into making us who we are then damn the symbol lets give more money to the VA and the VFW THEN we'll show them real respect. By taking care of our own. Priorites are a bitch ain't they?

Wow, talk about moral relativism here. Oh, what are we ignoring? Oh yeah: The oppression of women, the abject poverty the populations are forced to live in, the absolute power and control by theocratic governments to stop new and modern reforms and, of course, the propagation and acceptance of the islamofacist terrorist culture by the governments. I suppose by asking for all those to end, I'm simply imposing Western culture values on them, right? Sorry, this is moral relativism at it's worst. To try and say that "We can't change this because this is how this culture is and it's wrong to enforce our values" is simply a wishy-washy way of playing to the status quo. Sorry, but the Middle East has to change: It's political structure is destabilizing to the entire world, it's view on human rights is atrocious (Even if you don't like the US's record, there is no comparison here), and it's governments refuse to change any of it. No, your ignorance of what's wrong with the Middle East is. I don't mind the Muslim culture, but there is a more modern and tolerant version of it out there. To try and defend reasons for these governments to abuse and warp it with archaic views does more to destroy the Muslim culture than anythign else. This is logically flawed due to hindsight bias. What makes the war just or not is not the reaction judged against information we have later, but the information available at the time the decision was made. Example: By your 'logic', a cop shooting a man committing a bank robbery is wrong because after the robbery is stopped, he finds out that the gun was a convincing toy. His action is not any less justified than it was before because he could only act on the information at hand. The US acted on information not only from it's own intelligence agencies, but the UN, various international watchdog groups, and other intelligence agencies. There was no dispute that Iraq had them, even with the UN. The only dispute was how to handle the situation. But... whatever. Your bias lies into the fact that you never define what makes an invasion 'logical' or 'illogical', based on your own morals. To you, the prospect of Iraq having weapons did not warrant a war, thusly the war was not warranted. So be it. But your 'logic' reeks of 'bias' just as mine 'does', because it requires you to make an arbitrary decision on the quality of the reasoning. The problem is that you are trying to find definite logic in a political argument. You'll never find it because politics is completely arbitrary and the line of logic will differ from one person to another. Oops, I guess that screws that argument all up. Oookay. This is wrong because your own reasoning hinges on new information not available at the time the decision was made. So this is effectively moot. "CONCORENTLY! VIS A VIS!" This is like watching Will Ferrell playing the architect. You are basically trying to cover up the argument that "Well, we didn't find any WMDs anyways, so the war is unjust and you are wrong" by busting out a thesaurus and trying to baffle the fuck out of anyone reading it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The only one baffled is YOU.

Wow, way to twist stuff. We aren't exactly 'friends' with the House of Saud. We tolerate them because, quite literally, we can't just remove them. If they are against us, they make things that much harder for us to do anything in that reason. We are gonna have to change the Muslim world around Saudi Arabia to put pressure on the Sauds to change. Secondly, every report confirms that they were trying to create the weapons. The problem was that they no longer had any. If you ever bothered to actually read things like the Kay report you'd realize that he was still pursuing stuff and that the programs were still fully intact, we just never found any completed projects. So technically, under your reasoning, this information isn't enough to go to war over. Oops. Thirdly, whatever pressure is, it probably wouldn't be enough for you because, well, you don't care how much pressure the US puts on anyways. You just stated that the entire article was basically a way to bash the US. If we were demanding to bomb them if they didn't, you'd still think it wasn't enough because it's not about how much pressure we put on them, it's just about finding another way to attack the US with you. You trying to question what 'pressure' is is just your way of trying to cover up your mistake. And finally: Your solution to this, because, as per usual, you critize without giving any thought into what you would do. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You're argument is a totalitarian unapologetic view from the west, and flies in the face of conventional wisdom. It resorts to a malicious use of war against the "Muslim" world and validates the authority of American influence in a region alien to Western traditions. It's fucking sickening. C-Bacon contradicts his use of terms, because there's no "logic" to impose war unilaterally, as for the war in Iraq post-2004 a.d. If there wasn't any use of nuclear weapons to be found in Iraq, therefore the war is unjust. There's no logic behind the invasion to suggest that logic existed. C-Bacon has no primary knowledge as his argument is moot. Justice on the other hand, irrelevantly makes an argument that supports a war on C-Bacons faulty reasoning and illogical value. Therefore, Justice's bias is parallel to the notion that the US invasion of Iraq is purging all counter arguments that exist... even though there are no "logical" grounds for unilateral invasion of Iraq. Justice is exploiting the inferences drawn from something absolutely baseless. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Lets also not forget that everytime this admin is undone the P.R. dept has to two step carefully over to a NEW REASON for us being over there. They SAID they knew where WMDs were. The SAID they would find them. They SAID there was a connection between Saddam and 9-11. These are things I have seen and heard them say. The last time I saw the Sauds they were HOLDING HANDS with the president of the United States. Did I mention how careful their P.R. dept. is in sending messages out about what they believe? About WHO the bad guys are and who the good guys are? Yet I am supposed to believe that when it comes to putting pressure on these assholes that Bush is actually going to come through? That they are NOT going to sweep this under the rug? "WE" are indeed NOT friends with the Sauds, that is if you are refering to americans. But the president sure as hell IS friends with a group of people that so many of us believe were somehow involved with the worst attack we have ever experienced here. Considering the circumstances they cannot be trusted to do what is right. But it is nice to know that apparently SOME people have faith that BushCo. can turn the Saudis around.

Shouldn't there be a 2005 in there somewhere? As long as you don't like it I must be doing something right.

Wow, way to twist stuff. We aren't exactly 'friends' with the House of Saud. We tolerate them because, quite literally, we can't just remove them. If they are against us, they make things that much harder for us to do anything in that reason. We are gonna have to change the Muslim world around Saudi Arabia to put pressure on the Sauds to change. Secondly, every report confirms that they were trying to create the weapons. The problem was that they no longer had any. If you ever bothered to actually read things like the Kay report you'd realize that he was still pursuing stuff and that the programs were still fully intact, we just never found any completed projects. So technically, under your reasoning, this information isn't enough to go to war over. Oops. Thirdly, whatever pressure is, it probably wouldn't be enough for you because, well, you don't care how much pressure the US puts on anyways. You just stated that the entire article was basically a way to bash the US. If we were demanding to bomb them if they didn't, you'd still think it wasn't enough because it's not about how much pressure we put on them, it's just about finding another way to attack the US with you. You trying to question what 'pressure' is is just your way of trying to cover up your mistake. And finally: Your solution to this, because, as per usual, you critize without giving any thought into what you would do. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The only thing YOU have to offer is putting words in other peoples mouths. How the fuck do YOU know how much he does or does not care about PRESSURE? What the hell does that have to do with ANYTHING. Truth is it has nothing to do with what C-bacon posted. It's just a typical diversion tactic trying to take away from the actual subject. As long as you attack C-Bacon, me, or whoever personally, the real debate itself is lost and so much the better for the rest of the kool-aid drinkers who don't have to justify their crap. Sorta like citing a source and having a certain somebody shit all over it cuz they don't like where the report came from. Then suddenly they are a lying asshole. Which THEN becomes the debate. Well big whoopity-doo. Thanks for opining Justice. Another one hit out of the park.