CheesalaIsGood

Fuck that noise. You serve, you get the benefits. Otherwise, never send another soldier to war to possibly die, get wounded, or end up disabled. If we do not take care of our soldiers past their tour then don't expect them to do any fighting and just say fuck you whenever the powers that be feel they gotta start killing people again. Then again, you could have been being sarcastic. If so.. sorry 'bout that.

Good thing Rather isn't the one running for president otherwise he'd be fucked. In fact it's a REAL good thing.

Sad but true. Which was my best reason for not going to Iraq in the first place. We have a long history of not treating our soldiers with the respect and benefits they deserve post-war.

So far no vote of support for our soldiers from our right wing friends here at TSM. Wow, I guess the best way to REALLY support OUR good men and women of the armed forces IS BRING THEM HOME! Now, it seems more and more of them want to come home. Who would deny them? The terrorists?

GIs claim threat by Army Soldiers say they were told to re-enlist or face deployment to Iraq By Dick Foster, Rocky Mountain News September 16, 2004 COLORADO SPRINGS - Soldiers from a Fort Carson combat unit say they have been issued an ultimatum - re-enlist for three more years or be transferred to other units expected to deploy to Iraq. Hundreds of soldiers from the 3rd Brigade Combat Team were presented with that message and a re-enlistment form in a series of assemblies last Thursday, said two soldiers who spoke on condition of anonymity. Advertisement The effort is part of a restructuring of the Army into smaller, more flexible forces that can deploy rapidly around the world. A Fort Carson spokesman confirmed the re-enlistment drive is under way and one of the soldiers provided the form to the Rocky Mountain News. An Army spokesmen denied, however, that soldiers who don't re-enlist with the brigade were threatened. The form, if signed, would bind the soldier to the 3rd Brigade until Dec. 31, 2007. The two soldiers said they were told that those who did not sign would be transferred out of the 3rd Brigade Combat Team. "They said if you refuse to re-enlist with the 3rd Brigade, we'll send you down to the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, which is going to Iraq for a year, and you can stay with them, or we'll send you to Korea, or to Fort Riley (in Kansas) where they're going to Iraq," said one of the soldiers, a sergeant. The second soldier, an enlisted man who was interviewed separately, essentially echoed that view. "They told us if we don't re-enlist, then we'd have to be reassigned. And where we're most needed is in units that are going back to Iraq in the next couple of months. So if you think you're getting out, you're not," he said. The brigade's presentation outraged many soldiers who are close to fulfilling their obligation and are looking forward to civilian life, the sergeant said. "We have a whole platoon who refuses to sign," he said. A Fort Carson spokesman said Wednesday that 3rd Brigade recruitment officers denied threatening the soldiers with Iraq duty. "I can only tell you what the retention officers told us: The soldiers were not being told they will go to Iraq, but they may go to Iraq," said the spokesman, who gave that explanation before being told later to direct all inquiries to the Pentagon. Sending soldiers to Iraq with less than one year of their enlistment remaining "would not be taken lightly," Lt. Col. Gerard Healy said from the Pentagon Wednesday. "We realize that we deal with people and with families, and that's got to be a factor," he said. "There's probably a lot of places on post where they could put those folks (who don't re-enlist) until their time expires. But I don't want to rule out the possibility that they could go to a unit that might deploy," said Healy. Under current Army practice, members of Iraq-bound units are "stop-lossed," meaning they could be retained in the unit for an entire year in Iraq, even if their active-duty enlistment expires. A recruiter told the sergeant that the Army would keep them "as long as they needed us." Extending a soldier's active duty is within Army authority, since the enlistment contract carries an eight-year obligation, even if a soldier signs for only three or four years of active duty. The 3rd Brigade recruiting effort is part of the Army's plan to restructure large divisions of more than 10,000 soldiers into smaller, more flexible, more numerous brigade- sized "Units of Action" of about 3,500 soldiers each. The Army envisions building each unit into a cohesive whole and staffing them with soldiers who will stay with the unit for longer periods of time, said John Pike, head of the defense analysis think tank Global Security. "They want these units to fight together and train together. They're basically trying to keep these brigades together throughout training and deployment, so I can understand why they would want to shed anybody who was not going to be there for the whole cycle," Pike said. But some soldiers presented with the re-enlistment message last week believe they've already done their duty and should not be penalized for choosing to leave. They deployed to Iraq for a year with the 3rd Brigade last April. "I don't want to go back to Iraq," said the sergeant. "I went through a lot of things for the Army that weren't necessary and were risky. Iraq has changed a lot of people.'' The enlisted soldier said the recruiters' message left him troubled, unable to sleep and "filled with dread." "For me, it wasn't about going back to Iraq. It's just the fact that I'm ready to get out of the Army," he said. Soldiers' choice at Fort Carson WHAT THE FORM SAID • "Elect not to extend or re-enlist and understand that the soldier will be reassigned IAW (in accordance with) the needs of the Army by Department of the Army HRC (Human Resources Command) . . . or Fort Carson G1 (Personnel Office).'' WHAT IT MEANS • Soldiers who sign the letter are bound to the 3rd Brigade Combat Team until Dec. 31, 2007. • Soldiers who do not sign the letter might be transferred out of the brigade and possibly to Iraq. http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/state/ar...3185596,00.html Yeah, you kinda had to figure it was gonna come down to this. Assholes.

Yeah, its an assumption for sure on my part. Is it so hard to imagine the translators having an agenda when writing it out?

Think about this for a second.... Tommy Stinson started playing with "the Mats" when he was 12 YEARS OLD! They hit their stride in popularity around the time he was 16-17 or so. Plus, he was the guy in the band that the girls consdiered cute. THAT sounds like a good life my friends. Oh how he must have gotten laid.

well if you want C-list Kari Wuher is a good choice. I think you could prolly get her to do it too.

Well considering that I can't say one way or another if there IS some "thing, being, GOD" that created everything. I can vouch for my disfavore of the bible being legit. Translated too many times, through too many languages, through too many MEN. I can see why somebody would take a leap of faith if for no other reason then to provide themselves with an ANSWER to at least SOME of lifes mysteries. I'm just skeptical of having the foundation of my faith being a book thats 1000s of years old.

One of the pics seems to suggest the game might feature SWARMS of zombies to kill not just small groups of them ala Resident Evil. That could be messy. If so I'm sold.

Awesome. I love chaos. At least it'll make those meatshits who run things there know they are vulnerable. Bitches.

Has Ann Coulter ever made ANYTHING more interesting? She's as big a media whore as Moore himself. She's smarter and far more interesting than Moore has ever dreamed of being. Besides, she ain't physically repellant, either. -=Mike Coke whore! Yeah, I'd bang her.

Don't forget the "unmitigated bullshit" portion of his babbling. None of this means anything.

Not THIS "liberal". No matter, your cute little brigade can bitch about whatever you like. Back to the topic of the deserter guy. This is old news. Sorta like Iran/Contra. It was years AGO! Drop it already! Right? RIGHT? Dosen't the military have BETTER things to do with its time? "Operation: The Rest of the Brown Ones" isn't getting done any quicker this way. Come ON!

.

Says you and the rest of the conservative blowhards. BTW, you owe Websters 10 fucking cents for use of the word "bloviating". Yeah! "BLOVIATING" "I'll RUE the day? Who talks like that?" - Real Genius

This story sounds familier. Something about somebody deserting. Hey, there he is giving a speech on TV! Hi Mr. President! <3

Well for what is worth here is what CBS is saying at the moment. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/06/...ain641481.shtml (CBS/AP) The controversy continues over the authenticity of memos obtained by CBS News that show President Bush's National Guard commander believed Mr. Bush at times shirked his duties and used his political influence. The network is adamantly defending the authenticity of the memos, which were obtained by CBS News' "60 Minutes," saying experts who examined the memos concluded they were authentic documents produced by Mr. Bush's former commander, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian. In a statement, CBS News said it stands by its story. "This report was not based solely on recovered documents, but rather on a preponderance of evidence, including documents that were provided by unimpeachable sources, interviews with former Texas National Guard officials and individuals who worked closely back in the early 1970s with Colonel Jerry Killian and were well acquainted with his procedures, his character and his thinking," the statement read. "In addition, the documents are backed up not only by independent handwriting and forensic document experts but by sources familiar with their content," the statement continued. "Contrary to some rumors, no internal investigation is underway at CBS News nor is one planned." In a report on Friday night's "CBS News Evening News," Dan Rather reported that many of those raising questions about the documents have focused on something called superscript, a key that automatically types a raised "th." Critics claim typewriters didn't have that ability in the 1970s. But some models did, Rather reported. In fact, other Bush military records already released by the White House itself show the same superscript – including one from as far back as 1968. Some analysts outside CBS say they believe the typeface on these memos is New Times Roman, which they claim was not available in the 1970s. But the owner of the company that distributes this typing style told CBS News that it has been available since 1931. Document and handwriting examiner Marcel Matley analyzed the documents for CBS News. He says he believes they are real. And he is concerned about exactly what is being examined by some of the people questioning the documents, because deterioration occurs each time a document is reproduced. And the documents being analyzed outside of CBS have been photocopied, faxed, scanned and downloaded, and are far removed from the documents CBS started with. Matley did an interview with "60 Minutes" prior to Wednesday's broadcast. He looked at the documents and the signatures of Col. Killian, comparing known documents with the colonel's signature on the newly discovered ones. "We look basically at what's called significant or insignificant features to determine whether it's the same person or not," Matley said. "I have no problem identifying them. I would say based on our available handwriting evidence, yes, this is the same person." Matley finds the signatures to be some of the most compelling evidence. Reached Friday by satellite, Matley said, "Since it is represented that some of them are definitely his, then we can conclude they are his signatures." Matley said he's not surprised that questions about the documents have come up. "I knew going in that this was dynamite one way or the other. And I knew that potentially it could do far more potential damage to me professionally than benefit me," he said. "But we seek the truth. That's what we do. You're supposed to put yourself out, to seek the truth and take what comes from it." Robert Strong was an administrative officer for the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam years. He knew Jerry Killian, the man credited with writing the documents. And paper work, like these documents, was Strong's specialty. He is standing by his judgment that the documents are real. "They are compatible with the way business was done at that time," Strong said. "They are compatible with the man I remember Jerry Killian being. I don't see anything in the documents that's discordant with what were the times, the situation or the people involved." Killian died in 1984. Strong says the highly charged political atmosphere of the National Guard at the time was perfectly represented in the new documents. "It verged on outright corruption in terms of the favors that were done, the power that was traded. And it was unconscionable from a moral and ethical standpoint. It was unconscionable," Strong said. The president's service record emerged as an issue during the 2000 race and again this winter. The Killian documents revived the issue of Mr. Bush's time in uniform after weeks in which Democratic challenger John Kerry, a decorated Vietnam combat veteran, has faced questions over his record as a Navy officer and an anti-war protester. The questions about Mr. Bush's service center on how Mr. Bush got into the Guard and whether he fulfilled his duties during a period from mid-1972 to mid-1973. What the Killian memos purport to show is that Mr. Bush defied a direct order to appear for a physical exam, that his performance as an officer was lacking in other ways and that Mr. Bush used family connections to try to quash any inquiry into his lapses. In a separate development, the Boston Globe this week reported that Mr. Bush promised to sign up with a Boston-area unit when he left his Texas unit in 1973 to attend Harvard Business School. Mr. Bush never signed up with a Boston unit. Mike, you may resume your normally scheduled liberal bashing. Cuz, we are ALL liars and Bush is the second coming making us "safer" everyday.

Speaking of the current state of religious thought.... According to the same site bootlegs of The Passion are selling quite well in the Middle East. Go figure. A healthy dose of Jesus? "I'm Juxtaposing" by Eightheadz, creator of 8BM.com After watching Passion of the Christ I have a few questions. One. Why did the “Jewish religious establishment” feel that they needed to pay Judas to find Jesus anyway? Was Jesus preaching in secret? Was he a fugitive of the law? I never got the impression that he was teaching in back rooms and in poorly lit basements under a whisper. He was supposed to be out in the open, standing on a hill and gathering hundreds if not thousands of people around him. But if he was so open about his teachings, then they wouldn’t have had to pay anyone to tell them where he was going to be now would they? They could have just arrested him after one of his sermons. Not only did they have to pay Judas to find him but they didn’t even know what Jesus looked like. Judas had to kiss him on the cheek so the thugs that the "Jewish religious establishment" sent to arrest him would even know which hippie to rough up. They actually asked Judas, “how will we know who he is.” That is when Judas came up with the homoerotic idea to plant big wet one on Jesus. So it is safe to assume that Jesus wasn’t some superstar pop icon like some people would want you to believe. The fact is that people didn’t even know what the fuck he looked like. Not even his enemies. Think about that for a second. If you let Christians tell the story he was the most popular thing since Manna. If he had it like that I doubt it would have been a problem to just arrest him whenever he was out and about preaching to thousands of disenfranchised Jews hanging on his every word. If he was that sweet they wouldn’t have needed Judas’ help in finding him and could’ve saved 30 silver pieces? Two. This brings me to my next problem, the beat down. Seriously Mel, are we supposed to walk away from that thinking that the Romans put a little something special on that ass whupping that they served Jesus that day? I am sure Jesus wasn’t the first or the last criminal to catch an ass kicking like that. In terms of beat downs, people have gotten much worse around the world before Jesus and since Jesus for much less. Genghis Khan once poured hot silver in someone’s eyes and ears for stealing his tribute. That was worse. Stealing Genghis Khan’s shit I think is also much worse than just saying that you have a better way of looking at things and turning over a few tables at a synagogue. Hell, African American slaves were beaten to death not just beaten bad enough to still have the strength to carry a 500 pound cross a few miles on his back through the streets then up the side of a friggin mountain. How can others go through much worse than Jesus ever did and yet Jesus’ ass kicking is enough to cleanse us of our sins? I guess when you are the self-proclaimed son of man you’ve earned the right get off light. Hell, at the rate that we charge up debt for being inhumane towards one another humanity would have been right back where we all started before they pushed that thorn crown into his forehead. Three. Another problem I had with the movie was Jesus’ arrogance. Actually this was a huge problem I had. That is right, I said arrogance. After the first wave of beat downs with those sticks, did you notice that they quit beating him once he fell to his knees? They only brought out the heavy artillery (cat o-nine-tails) once Jesus stood up defiantly like, “what? That’s all you’ve got?” In the immortal words of Marsellus Wallace talking to Butch in Pulp Fiction … “Fuck pride.” Jesus should have just acted like he passed out. That’s what I would have done. In my opinion standing up after all of that was the equivalent of playing "Fuck the Police” at volume ten when you get pulled over by the police for drunk driving. I’m sorry. It’s hard for me to be sympathetic towards someone when I see that. That is what I call “asking for it.” Then again I am not the savior of mankind. Maybe being the savior of mankind dictates that you flip your nose up at the establishment every chance you get. This would go along way to explaining why I am not the savior of mankind. I kept yelling at the screen, “stay down…stay down…”. Then again I was saying that and I know how the story ends so what does that say about me? To me it seemed like Jesus had umpteenth opportunities to get out of that whole situation if he wanted but it looked like his ego kept getting in the way. How many times did people ask him simple, direct questions where if he would have just opened his mouth and explained himself, instead of acting like he was too good to answer them, they could have cleared all of this up in no time? I know he wanted to be all defiant in front of the guys that were railroading him but give me a break. Pride is a motherfucker ain’t it? Apparently even for Jesus. See that is why I was a little confused when he said, “God why have thou art forsaken me” it was like it was just sinking in that he was pretty much fucked. It took getting nailed up on a cross for that? If I were Jesus I would've said that "why have thou art forsaken me” line right about the time that I saw the crowd cheering for Bar'Abbas over me. It was almost like he thought God would have saved him way before he was nailed on that cross. Like that whole time he was expecting the cavalry to arrive and now he realizes once he is up there that they ain’t coming. Maybe that is why he was acting so defiant, he must’ve been expecting God to strike everybody down with lighting bolts the whole time he was being biggety with everyone. Well maybe God did give him an out. God gave him Pontius Pilot and Herod. What bigger out did you need? God could have given him for Los Angeles Police chief Darryl Gates. See where I am going with this? Both Pontius and Herod found no reason to harm. If Jesus would have just sucked up his pride a little bit and explained himself he could have be released unscathed, but he didn’t say anything. He just sat there defiantly and let things follow their course. Which is fine, if that is how you wanted things to go down, but then why are you crying about it on the cross once the end is near like someone (God) was “forsaking you”? Read the Bible, Herod was actually a fan of Jesus. All he wanted was to see Jesus perform a few magic tricks. Read him a fortune or something. Herod definitely would have let Jesus walk. Four. My last problem with the film is that the story of Jesus seems to be, at least from my view, a condemnation of capital punishment. And I know that wasn’t Mel Gibson’s intent considering he’d kill anything but an unborn fetus. I am sure the conservatives of the world would disagree with me, but what I felt appalled people in that film, at least the people that were appalled, was not that this was being done to Jesus per se, but that this level of inhumanity was being done to anyone. When homey got pissed off at the Roman thugs mercilessly kicking Jesus he stopped the Roman soldiers by declaring that he wouldn’t carry the cross a step further if they didn’t stop kicking Jesus ass. He didn’t know who the fuck Jesus was. He just knew that what they were doing was pretty fucked up. See that film was pretty accurate in my assessment as to how we feel today about our convicted felons today. When it comes to convicted felons, whether it was in Israel 2000 years ago or in any state penitentiary anywhere in the world we feel like we have the right to do anything we want to someone once they have been convicted in the eyes of the law. How many conservatives complain that convicted criminals have televisions when they shouldn’t, books when they shouldn’t, three meals a day when they shouldn’t? How much sympathy does a convicted felon get when he complains about getting raped in jail? That all comes with the territory, right? The court said that they were guilty. Even if you are innocent of these particular charges you must’ve done something otherwise you wouldn’t be in this position right? Isn’t that the line of logic they use? The story of Jesus , or at least the story of Jesus told by Mel Gibson is about how inhumane we can be to the people that we judge. It is a condemnation of capital punishment as much as it is anything else. I would say that this is especially true for the Passion of the Christ which really isn’t so much a story about anything after 30 minutes into it. What really confused me was at the end of the movie when a tear drop from God comes falling down to the earth and starts an earthquake. What’s God sad about? If God didn’t want Jesus to be killed then he could have done something about it. Better yet, if he didn’t want Jesus to be killed he could have chosen some other way for Jesus to pay for our salvation. He was a carpenter. He could have repaired front porches for people for no charge or something until the humanities debt was paid off. God is God after all isn’t he? God by definition means that you get to make the rules as you see fit. And if he (God) chose not to do anything to prevent what Jesus went through from going down because what happened to Jesus had to be done then what the hell are you crying for? Surely God had the gift of foresight. He knew exactly how it was going to go down. What, it just hurt to see it all play out? That is what foresight is. You see it ahead of time. The Rabbis and the Romans were just doing his bidding. They were fulfilling prophesy. They were just playing their role. Without them, Jesus doesn’t die for our sins and everyone is still fucked. I’d say that they deserve a star on the Hollywood walk of fame. Without them, I wouldn’t be able to tell a priest on my death bed that I am sorry for writing this article and be forgiven and still get into heaven. Besides, you’re crying for only son and all you could muster up was one single tear? It must be a man thing because mother Mary was totally fucked up about it. She had snot coming out of her nose and everything. She was crying so hard that her eyes were red. I guess mothers take the execution of their sons a lot harder than fathers. Either that or what they say is true, “Mother’s baby, father’s maybe.” http://eightballmagazine.com/diatribes/vol...iatribes483.htm

Patronise all you like, however, Buchanan just wants GW to act like the conservative he claims to be.

These days it seems like ole Pat is the only conservative making any sense. Go figure!

Fuck it. If the shoe fits....

Fuck corporations. Our feudal lords can kiss my ass.

Bringer of Blood makes me laugh.

and THATS a bloody nose! Ka-Pow!