tennesseeboy

no kidding. been there. done that.

In Viet nam it was ears and noses. God knows what they'll be doing in the next war. You had better believe humans become very very unappealing in combat...on either side.

you hit the nail on the head with LeMay...but he had been an advocate in Europe as well. Hiroshima was picked and "saved" from our carpetbombing campaign specifically because it had NOT been a military target but rather a major cultural capital. The thing about the carpet bombing in Europe (official or not) is that it was designed to kill civilians en masse. The fact that there were legitimate military targets was simply not all that relevant. As to Tokyo, the surprising thing is that great pains were taken to AVOID the major military and government areas.

I think an important point is being missed here. Sometime in the middle of the invasion of Europe a decision was made to target large civilian populations with carpet bombing. The firebombing of Dresden and later the firebombings of Tokyo and other cities caused far more civiliam casualties than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. The fact is that suddenly civilian non-military casualties became much more effective than traditional military targets. Unfortunately I think this is accepted thinking as our and our nuclear enemy's targets are primarly large civilian populations. For what its worth both the carpet bombing of Tokyo and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary given what happened more on Okinawa than Iwo Jima.

Saw Milk, saw the wrestler, sas the Vistor and Frost Nixon and Benjamin Button Penn was the best actor.

Boy..how could someone conceivably NOT defend President Bush for the wonderful way he handled 9/11 and the aftermath in Iraq? Especially given the stellar way he handled Katrina and the economy while defending us from being invaded by Iraqis. idn't Bush get rated between lincoln and washington in that recent poll by historians? Oh...wait a minute .... the other board....hmmmmm

Linemen are the interesting bunch for us this year. What we put in the trenches will determine whether we make the playoffs or not.

What is this world coming to? I don't any kid should shoot his step-parents before they are at least twelve.

poojer...ya gotta realize life doesn't revolve around ya buddy! Your friend probably has a family to feed and bills to pay and I doubt if your former employer had a litmus "disloyalty to Pooj" oath that your friend has to sign. If a guy steals your girl, actually gets you fired, roots for the dolphins...shiv the mofo...but I think you'd be making a mistake laying sh-- on this guy.

That's kind of the silver lining to most tragic events. Normal people tend to step up to the plate and help others.

He actually wasn't all that great a basketball player in high school or in his freshman year at Bona. He was better know as a great baseball picture. Big feet that guy. He was at Bennet when I was at south park. Calvin Murphy at Niagara, Randy Smith at Buffalo ...hell we had a lot of great basketball going on in the day.

geez...normally they just spit in your coffee.

Fair enough. As the bard says..Let us do as adversaries do at law..strive mightily but eat and drink as friends!

Three of the posters on this board work for the IRS. (KIDDING!) I hope.

You are right that this creation of government jobs by the previous administration and building of a deficit and wasteful spending (how do you spell Iraq?) is bad. But the stimulus bill i've been looking at seems with the tax break not to be increasing govt jobs. With the state assistance it will barely keep essential functions running, with the infrastructure and energy portions it would necessary create bricks and mortar not government jobs. I understand your point and share your concern...but the stimulus bill just doesn't wash as a socialist program.

The only things that Congress do..by definition..are the things it is allowed to do under the constitution. The income tax provides for the government to to take a disproportionate amount of money from me than from someone making less( in fairness it allows them to take more from the person (C, I guess) who make more than me. This is then reallocated throught various programs (bank bailouts, social security, spending for the military.) I hate to paraphrase Oliver Wendell Holmes, but the Constitution is what the Courts say it is (John Marshall kind of usurped that prerogative for the S. Ct.). We could go through a lot of Court cases involving income tax, sick chickens, the commerce clause and a whole passle of justices...but the fact is that under beerball's..and maybe my...definition we seem to be a socialist country by our own constitution. Which is "what the court says it is."

The sixteenth amendment allows for an income tax, taking from, as Beerball says, person a and reallocating it to some unknown person b (I'm getting to like beerball's definition) and that is the constitution, whether we like it or not. If the income tax makes us socialist (and there are people who think that.) thenwe are a socialist country...at least using beerball's (and maybe even my) definition.

I think of Mike as more a Conrad Dobler kind of gaurd, biting off fingers, ears, whatever.

I agree with you. Our government has been more and more socialist since we instituted the sixteenth amendment to the constitution...which I suppose makes our constitution a socialist constitution....so there we are. The stimulus doesn't have all that much to do with it.

Actually we're borrowing most of it from the Chinese. That's another story but its not socialism and its certainly not something new to this administration. I'll defer to the geniuses on the nazi board to figure that one outl. Hey..I'm getting a tax cut. I give a shyt where the money comes from. Got most of my money in gold and the rentals are full and I've got a years worth of mac and cheese.

yup...a little like flushing a toilet to the septic tank!

Came from me. they take a hunk of it from me every year, that's the socialism part of it for me if we are using the person a (me) to person b (whoever the government has been giving it to) theory.

Okay...who is person A? and who is Person B? Using your definition, doesn't the government of US at least in our lifetimes take our property every April 15 and give it to a whole number of persons B (Haliburton, foreign aid, Pell grants, GI Bill, our military etc.?)...sounds like we were always socialist under that definition. The stimulus plan I'm looking at takes money from the govt (OK..it was in fact my money to start with) and is giving some of it back to me. Sounds pretty non-socialist to me.

Bullfight critics rank in rows And crowd the large arena full But in the crowd there's one who knows And thats the man who fights the bull! Have fun in the stands eryn!

Got me...the definition I gave is from wikipedia, hardly the authoritative source, but it gave a pretty good nutshell definition of apretty vague concept. Its pretty close to what I thought socialism was, but I'll defer to the PhD's in the field. The Bush Bailout of the Banks sound more like the giving POS's money for bad decisions than anything I'm seeing in the stimulus. www.recovery.gov I don't see that in the stimulus package. The biggest piece of the stimulus package is tax relief and the second business is bailing out financially strapped states...not private business. The infrastructure and energy allocations should encourage private industry, not take it over. Now if the banks and auto industry come begging and there is a decision to give them billions (I wasn't in favor of the bush giveaway and I'm not sure I can buy bailing out the auto industry.) I want them to put restrictions on them compensation and expenditure wise to protect OUR loan, grant, gift or bailout. That's common sense, not socialism. http://www.whec.com/article/stories/S793499.shtml Lets look at the new york part of the stimulus package. That's about 215,000 jobs. I think that does a lot more for me than the bank bailout...but hey... I must be a "socialist"