Crap Throwing Monkey

Like they needed all 45 days to figure out they were dealing with ragheads.

AND I just heard where UAE is considering putting strict limits on US Navy basing and port visitation rights. Yeah, I can see how blocking this deal is REALLY benefiting national security.

It's safe to say his answer wasn't something like "Good idea. My other girlfriend has them, they're great!"

Just looking at the pictures makes me feel as though I should go out and get a 10-day course of penicillin. Geez, what a trio of skanks.

He did that when he answered "no".

Which is, of course, not even remotely what he said. And soon it'll be a moot point. UAE is ready to kill a multi-hundred million dollar deal with Boeing for airliners. Which I suppose is a good thing, because more Boeing aircraft were involved in 9/11 than UAE nationals, so Boeing's clearly a major security risk...

Nope. If he's western-educated at all, it was in Britain...and I don't even think that much is the case.

Osama couldn't care less about the 4th Amendment. He's probably never heard of it. Osama's main concern is the US as a world superpower standing in the way of recreating the Caliphite.

Actually, if you want to argue the proper transliteration of Arabic script to Roman, it's either, and a slew of other options.

Yeah, it's "analyse"...if you're a !@#$ing Limey, you dumb jarhead.

I don't know what's sadder, the reduction of the 4th Amendment to toilet paper, or that fact that hearing it from you makes it difficult for me to take it seriously.

A statement which is a HELL of a lot more effective than trying to analyse the context of a 225-year old comma.

Yep, pretty much. Although, the pain of what I think is torn cartilige in my knee right now is pretty much overwhelming the paresthesias. But...yeah, numbness and tingling in my legs will keep me up or wake me up at night on occasion. And I still can't elevate that to the level of "disease" (I particularly can't if the manner in which that site characterized it is accurate). Just as I never could elevate "I'm depressed" to the level of disease until it started to interfere with normal life functioning. As I said...maybe I have to see a real RLS sufferer (i.e. someone a LOT worse than me), then I'll admit I'm wrong.

Why would it matter? According to you, the two aren't even related.

Actually, I couldn't possibly care less about how political partisans view other political partisans. Good or stupid policy is no less good or stupid because someone who's labelled as agreeing with the president doesn't agree with him. Unfortunately, you're usually right. And I consider it one of this administration's few strengths, the degree to which they outright ignore popular and usually uninformed opinion in the formation of policy. I don't always agree with their policy, mind you (usually - but, as most people seem to forget, I thought the invasion of Iraq was stupid and misguided regardless of the WMD question), but I can respect that their formulation of policy is affected less by popular opinion than it is by geopolitical reality. This, by the way, is almost completely antithetical to the Clinton administration's foreign policy process, and if you read my posts on Clinton foreign policy you'll see it's just about the biggest complaint I have about it - even when I agreed with it. So I'm nothing if not consistent. Actually, I think the first question should be "SHOULD it matter what these people say?" Or even "Is it possible that some people's opinions are worth more than others on issues?" (Which I'd answer: hell yes. If 60% of Americans say that Columbia burned up on reentry because of sabotage by evil gnomes, I don't give a sh-- what they think, I want to know what the top NASA engineers think. Similarly, if 60% of American say the invasion of Iraq's "bogged down" at the Karbala Gap, or 60% say that the Katrina relief was screwed up...so what? What do the people who know how to move large masses of resources through hostile terrain in a coherent fashion think. Being able to HAVE an opinion doesn't mean you're right.) And I also have no doubt it'll have a measurable effect on policy...at the very least, come the next presidential election (at the earliest, in this whole legislative vs. executive powers pissing contest going on right now). Doesn't mean I have to like it, and won't B word about it at every turn. The reality is, geopolitics pretty much goes on without much concern over Republican vs. Democrat, and ignoring reality for the sake of partisan politics, as SO many people do (including at the CATO institute) is errant bull sh--.

And "one of" the meanings of "bear arms" is to have the visible characteristic of having limbs on the upper torso. It doesn't matter what "one of" the meanings is, it matters what THE MEANING is. The British Army was not a militia. And the Second Amendment does not guarantee the population's right of rebellion against the military.

How ironic. I built a great invention once, but have absolutely no idea what it is or what it does. Maybe we could team up...

Same way they justify everything: "it's in the public interest". Like their raises a few years back.

It wouldn't surprise me if they were right-leaning when Clinton was in office. I only got down here towards the end of his term, though, and wasn't really paying attention. And bias either way pisses me off...that WTOP doesn't even try to put a veneer of objectivity on it is ridiculous.

The British Army was not a militia in the Revolutionary War. Plus, by your argument, if the 2nd refers specifically to the military, it therefore is against private gun ownership. When you start arguing over the proper interpretation of commas, you're probably at the point where it's time to step back and reconsider the direction your argument is going in.

Just as a point of clarification: I was criticizing WTOP, not Hillary Clinton. True, my criticism involved a none-too-subtle ad hominem attack on "Queen Hillary"...but that was hyperbole to emphasize my criticism of WTOP. Not that I wouldn't criticize Hillary (I do, frequently and vocally). But I'd do so with rational arguments, not with something as stupid as "WTOP and Hillary are both liberals, WTOP sucks, so Hillary sucks!"

I laugh at your Room 101.

And that's the link I was using when I said earlier that I apparently have RLS. When I see my doctor next week, I'll ask him to do a formal diagnosis, and see if I can get medication for it. And then - no disrespect intended - I'll be sure it's BS, as there's no way my inability to sit still constitutes any sort of illness. (The flip side being, of course, that if I'm NOT diagnosed, I'll be sure to admit the possibility I'm wrong. I won't admit definitively I'm wrong until I see an actual RLS patient, though - either myself or someone else.)

"What does security have to do with security?" If Dubai Ports running American ports is such a security risk, why aren't Middle Eastern airlines? If we won't let Raghead Ports operate in the country...why do we let foreign-owned and -operated Sand !@#$ Air fly in? You're only as secure as your weakest point. Which I'm pretty sure was his point. And which I'm pretty sure you didn't need to be told.

From the article entitled "At Conservative Forum on Bush, Everybody's a Critic". Somehow implying that, because it's a conservative forum, everyone there's somehow more informed? A good chunk of those phrases are crap. A good many are actually true. A good many I've said before myself. So what? And by the way...I'm not a Republican.