blzrul

Maybe they limit their reading to Spy vs. Spy and the Sunday funnies.

Yeah my husband's on his way to London for a couple of weeks. It wasn't a planned trip, so his last-minute holiday shopping (that is, his normal routine) is now an issue. Because I told him if he bought ANYTHING over there that I could possibly get here (cheaper) I would annihilate him. And he knows I mean it. So, when he returns Christmas Eve he won't have time for jet lag, he's gonna go shopping!

You have no knowledge (1) how informed the spouse is (2) what the spouses's REAL opinions are (3) what the spouse actually SAYS (4) how receptive the candidate is to the spouses's opinions. That being the case why would ANYONE weight a spouse heavily one way or another? One doesn't know how influential - or not - the spouse's opinions are. So if you want to ASSUME, well go right ahead.

So what? Who cares?

I don't think the Ugly American stereotype will ever be dispelled as long as there are Americans.

Actually I didn't see your post, sorry. And no I never paid much attention to Hillary either. I never heard of Clinton until he ran for President, I don't pay attention to Arkansas and never will, and didn't care who he married or anything else. I know people who know Hillary, now, and who like her. If I don't give a rat's ass what after shave a celebrity wears, or what car he/she drives, why would I care about the spouse of a politician? The sad fact is these days Eleanor Roosevelt would be put on an ice floe. And you were nicer but I don't have to be nice to CJ because he is always just looking to attack anything I say.

I'm not attacking you but we were discussing the devaluing of the dollar and what it could mean. You are correct, it IS expensive to vacation in Europe.

Simplistic you mean not simple. Or perhaps for simpletons because it's NOT that simple. Our government is borrowing $1m A MINUTE ... mostly from Asia .... have you considered what that could mean if we don't slow it down and start to pay down some of that debt? "Vacationing at home" won't even be an option...

Would you please point out to me where I said ANY OF THAT in my post?! Unlike you, I do not PRESUME. Certainly I believe that husbands and wives talk. But as an outsider who doesn't know EITHER person or the dynamics of their relationship outside what they feed to the public through the press, making a decision based on a spouse would be a very shallow judgement indeed. If that's part of your judgement process, that's you, not me.

As I woman I can honestly say I NEVER consider a candidate's spouse. Never. It's immaterial and a non-issue. It's a judgement based on superficialities, no different than judging by the candidate's hair color, cut or suit or personal mannerisms. I don't adore Mrs. Bush and I don't hate her. I never think of her just like I never thought of Pat Nixon, Lady Bird Johnson, Nancy Reagan, Roslyn Carter, Barbara Bush, Hillary, etc. I likewise don't adore either Karen Hughes or Condi Rice. They are both smart women, no doubt about it, but I wouldn't want to be like either one of them. And by the you'd find that anyone who ever met me, and quite a few who haven't, consider me to be a VERY strong woman. So I guess I am in a better position to judge than some.

Oh come on you don't think gov't jobs go to QUALIFIED people do you?! Certainly I'd choose you over this blowhard. If that's any consolation....

They fear that if the people knew just how absolutely confusing and chaotic and (often) senseless war really IS, they'd never want to have another one.

The IRA is definitely Christian. The Weathermen - may have been Marxist but as Americans were probably Christian in name at least. Same with SDS. And let's not forget those folks in South America; they have no problem blowing each other to kingdom come but many still attend Mass. I guess it's also depending on how one defines "Christian". There are an awfully lot of people who claim to be Christians who are going to have a BIG surprise when their time comes...but I would venture to guess that most Westerners at least nominally consider themselves Christians.

A big adjustment could be perhaps not getting flagged so often. Sheesh, what a sloppy performance.

So he was a better person with more moral fibre than you but the fact that he was killed by his own guys in crossfire doesn't make him any more of a hero than the other 1100+ who have been killed in the Middle East. MOST people give up SOMETHING to join the military. It may not be great and grand like Tillman, but to THEM it's important. In the end there is only one being who will judge sacrifice and it ain't us. Anyway I have no issues with anyone's personal heroes, so worship Tillman if you wish, but let's not forget the rest of them who have died or lost limbs and the families that have been torn up over George's Splendid Little War Against The Man "Who Tried To Kill My Dad".

Come to think of the original question, what if most terrorists were Christians, it occurs to me that up until fairly recently, they WERE. Basque separatists....the IRA...SDS...The Weathermen....all sorts of nutso groups that blow stuff up, and of course let's not forget McVeigh, the wackos who blow up clinics and all that. Probably taken together they would either outnumber or equal the Muslim wackos. So there you go.

I thought of our old buddy the Bhagwan last night after casting about in my mind for more cults. Remember what they found in that compound after the raid? I remember seeing the first 60 Minutes segment on them in their early days and it frightened me, but many people didn't take them seriously at all. The idea of using bioterror in the 70's to begin to take over the system was brilliant. Of course voter fraud, fixing and intimidation is less invasion and proven to be more effective.... So if the Koreshis may have been terrorists who just hadn't finalized their evil plan, we owe our government a great big thanks for saving our ass instead of a load of crap because the Koreshis wouldn't free their children and therefore let them be killed. I am sure that the people who were there and involved in the thing don't go a moment without feeling badly over that; just as I'm sure had Koresh lived he would have absolved himself from all responsibility.

It all depends on how far back you go and who's mind your examining I guess. If person A feels threatened by person B and says nothing to B ... B could be blindsided by A's action. To B, the strike is preemptive and to A it's a response to a threat. So one must rely on A's integrity, honesty and clarity of mind in making the judgment to determine the truth. And B is not faultless. You see it here. Blzrul makes a general post which takes a position that some wingnut doesn't like. The wingnut feels threatened and lets Blzrul have it. In the old days Blzrul's feelings would be hurt because she didn't mean anything by it - so there really was no cause for the strike and therefore it was not a response but preemptive. That was then, however. NOW Blzrul often posts things designed to freak out wingnuts, so the response is expected and definitely not preemptive. But on the occasions when Blzrul posts something in sincerity, the wingnuts are conditioned to be suspicious and by nature are some are vindictive, so no matter WHAT the content of the post they assume a defensive position and lash out in preemptive strike that they perceive is a response to something Blzrul surely must be thinking. And round and round we go.

One could argue that given the cache of weapons they had, and had their little plot not been foiled they could very well have become terrorists. I don't see who they'd terrorize though - going on the offensive against society seems out of character for a cult, which generally just wants to be let alone. Considering the weapons they had and the "bunker bus" it appears as if they were settled into a defensive position. Once they performed a preemptive strike that defensive position became a reality. So the question then becomes, did they plan the strike therefore choosing the time, place and manner of operation? It seems silly to me that they'd do so, but then again religious fanatics or cultists don't always make a lot of sense to normal people. These people are no different that those pathetic followers of Jim Jones - the deaths are on the head of the "leader", not the government or anyone else. Because THAT is what the leaders probably had in mind all along in one way, shape or form. The ultimate homage.

Now Diane, you're surrounded by Southern Baptists down there, you mean you haven't figured out yet that "personal saviour" means THEIRS not everyone's?

As far as I can tell this guy's main credentials include -kissing up to Guiliani -telling people who disagree with him to shut up or "get whacked" (his words) -campaigning for Bush Sounds like a good guy to run a prison but I'm not sure about DHS

Uh excuse me, they killed for government agents. What's the difference between them and the insurgents in Fallujah who put a populace at risk? Are you saying that the US military is therefore responsible for the deaths of the innocents AS OPPOSED TO THE PEOPLE WHO INITIATED THE VIOLENCE?

You da MAN!

Good point. Then again the ignoramuses which seem to dominate our society cannot get it through their heads that there is a difference between the two.

I believe Clinton replaced 7- 9. Cabinet resignations are not that unusual. NPR did a report on in when the first wave gave notice, go search their site.