Justice

A fairly good listing of the connections between Iraq and al Qaeda. Most links nowadays come from captured Iraqis, who have things like this to say: And right now I'm sure your trying to dig up the 9/11 Commission, which is irrelevent: They only concentrated on whether Iraq helped out in 9/11. This is even stated by the Chair. Nice try, but it really doesn't work. All in all, there was a decent link between the two. They might not have been the closest of allies, but an ally is an ally nonetheless. Oddly enough, for all those who thought that the Iraq War was JUST about WMDs, let's check out the bill that was passed to let us go in: Wow, that's the second listing. Before anything on Al Qaeda, even.

Only because you've had twelve. Are we still talking theme songs here? Yes, Muzz has had many, many different songs.

Only because you've had twelve.

Well then, how can you argue with that overwhelming logic? Also, an AK-47 is not a gun, it's a rifle. Uh, I never said it was. Recheck up there: I said "Submachine Guns". I referred both times to the AK as a rifle.

Best. US Champ. EVER.

I only ever used "Testify" by RAtM, and J&R only used "Sleep Now in the Fire" by RAtM. Ejiro had a dozen themes, though, specifically tailored to get more and more heat.

As with you, I could have seen I saw an article saying they couldn't bolt it on fast enough. I know that conversion right now is a problem.

I drove from Albion, Michigan, to Miami (OH) University for a meeting I had to attend. This was at the very beginning of the storm at like, 1:30 AM. It took 8 hours to get there. Of course, the ride back the next day (Fuelled by energy drinks) was much better as there was a lot more light and much less snow.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Boy, are you out of touch. You've clearly never spoken with someone going over there telling you that their armor is "good if I'm going to get hit with a 2x4 or something, but shit out of luck for anything more deadly than that." You've clearly never chipped in to help buy armor. Uh, okay. Considering I've met a ton of soldiers and military men, I think I know what the fuck they are wearing. Their body armor is meant to take small arms fire, block shrapnel, and provide some shielding from burns and such. Body armor vests have ALWAYS had problems with rifles since their power is much stronger than pistols and submachine guns (Which use pistol rounds). Most vests out there won't deflect or stop an AK round all that heartly, so it's not like this is anything new. So, to relate: They'll block most shrapnel (Which is what generally hurts soldiers most in battles), protect somewhat against momentary blasts, and will stop most pistol and submachine gun rounds. That's a BIT more than just a 2x4. At any rate, there is a new type of body armor that just got into production that will stop such a round. As with all the other military objections in this thread, this isn't a spending problem. It's a production problem. The other problem is they've been trying to fix a cracking problem with the vests (They are made from a type of ceramics, interestingly enough. Same stuff that our Hummers are beign outfitted with), which presents a pretty bad defect which is why the Army hasn't outfitted as many people as they probably could. You can only produce so many of these things so quickly and the better vests are relatively new tech. But... we'll ignore that so you can have some semblence of an argument. So, in conclusion: Shut up.

Uh, are you serious? The tax cut was across the board. There is pretty much no denying this. It's not "Only the rich", it was everyone.

Wow, and Clinton's was 30 Million. I doubt that the Democratic one would have been any less extravagant. I doubt they would hold too big a party since he was pretty much on his DEATH BED. It's not good for a guy who is living on borrowed time to really party it up. That's what really kept the cost down, not the war. If you actually knew anything about the story, the cost and buying the Humvees wasn't the problem. The real problem was the time it took to buy and update the current Humvees. Nice Straw man, though. So, with the 350 Million we are giving right now, we are saving 180 million people. Cool, thanks for proving how generous we really are. Uh, Kevlar is sort of, well, standard issue with our troops. The whole "We're buying body armor for our son" thing was pretty much out-of-context crap. I'm sure you knew this, though. So you want to give 290 to people who wantonly kill Iraq citizens, oppress their rights, and torture them without reason or mercy? Wow, now there's a 180. It's so cool that you can support the troops right now, yet shit all over them in just abuot every other post you make. *Thumbs up* Wow, he still won 51%. Hell, Washington rarely pays for anything, anyways. Most of the stuff they get is funded by private donors. Look at the new baseball stadium they want: Inkeeping with tradition, the city is refusing to pay for half of it. I really don't weep for those in D.C.

But who will fight the dangerous uncovered nipples that threaten to jump out our T.V.s and rape our children!?

So... if I go on a cooking show to talk about cooking at the inauguration, that gives me free reign to spout off bullshit at the surprised anchor? Seriously, she just spouted a bunch of "Fashionable Liberal" cliffnotes at the taken off-guard anchor. Talk about an ambush. Did she end up actually talking about the actual gala or did she keep going on?

82%, 125 Seconds, Average Error 30 miles.

Believe it or not, this shit has happened before. Around days when the largest anti-war protest is planned, the feds raise the color chart, and of course, they'll never tell you why straight to you. Then, at the big public hearing before the protest, someone inevitably says "We're at code orange now, isn't it inappropriate to hold a large protest?" Largest protest ever? Thousands of people in the streets, with little to no protection? Hey, that sounds like an EXCELLENT target to me.

Could it perhaps be the fact that generally you guys schedule massive protests around important and well-known dates, making them fairly large, slow-moving targets? Lord knows that it being Inauguration Day might be the reason that a terrorist attack is being cited.

There's always an exception the rule, but that doesn't make it any different. Most news networks are left, despite the possible right-leanings of their owners and parent companies. Fox News does not an argument make.

I think in economics they tend to lean to the right, actually. For instance, I've read heated arguement after arguement about Bush's social security plan in newspapers, but little resistance to it on TV. In general, people in TV news make good money and typically don't have to worry about their jobs being done by people in other countries. Ditto tax cuts until the Democrats managed to have a spine. Sure, socially they lean a bit to the left but so does the general public, as a lot of people on the right are there for the war policy or the fiscal policy, and don't have any interest in the social agendas. They're the kind of people who will continue to support Bush but acknowledge they get a little creeped out every time they hear how tight he is with the man upstairs. Also recognize that the leadership of the social right is considered by many to be, uh, a bit off their rocker. So, representative of the nation whole, they do a reasonable job. IMO. Eh, that's a matter of perspective. I'm not saying that the media is massively left, but enough for one to notice. I'd argue that more staffs, journalists, editors, and directors are left than anything else. You can bitch about CEOs, but CEOs often aren't deciding what will be going on the air at 8.

Or it just shows you that, well, the owners don't have as much effect on the political leanings of a network as you'd like. *Shrugs*

It's Lenin. Get your leaders right.

I know, which is why I didn't mention them.

Congratulations, you too believe the big lie. Exactly when has all the networks coordinated an attack on a Republican politician or program? Where exactly is your proof? Does it necessarily need to be a concentrated attack? I don't believe it's an "OMG OVERARCHING CONSPIRACY", but if you look at almost all the major news network anchors, almost all are fairly left leaning. Watching people like Wolf Blitzer and others on CNN often enough take a left-leaning side. Most people on news staffs tend to lean left, as do editors and directors. And I don't care about the owners. The owners weren't different in the 90s than today, so why is it all of a sudden gone? It's still there. It's not a massive influence, but I'd say it's tilted.

Yeah, Newspapers are arguably the most pure bastion of liberal media left. It goes from: Left: Newspapers Leaning/Neutral: T.V. Right: Radio I'd say that's a pretty good way of looking at bias in media.

I'd say it still runs fairly true. Most of the staff at CNN, along with most networks outside of Fox, tend to lean to the left to varying degrees.

OMFG! THINGS MAY NOT BE AS THEY SEEM~!