Crap Throwing Monkey

"It's still an entrenching tool to me, dammit!"

Not that I know of. Very well could be...but if it is, it's an unconscious on. And regardless...it applies.

What the !@#$? And you accused me of double-talk? It's directly on point, since you clearly don't know the meanings of the words "proactive" and "reactive". We have to give you a basic education in English vocabulary before we can even think about discussing foreign policy with you.

I wouldn't trade a weeping goiter for TO.

I'd have traded Ramsey for a 4th a few years ago. Not now, though. His confidence is shot, after what he went through in DC. And even before his confidence was shot, he was never quite the guy you wanted behind a porous offensive line...which is one of the significant contributors to his confidence being wrecked anyway.

Could be worse. You could be attacked by a telephone pole. But only if you provoke it.

I don't know, Ed. I've lived in three different places in New Jersey, and I've never seen Scraps knocked out...

I think we need a KTFABD ruling on this. Kelly...Stern, funny or not funny?

Oops... Still, he probably made enough off his Sirius interest to pay CBS back painlessly...unless the SEC goes after him for securities fraud, which, judging by CBS's suit... ...isn't out of the question.

And Losman split wide, with Bennie Anderson in motion.

For example: Newbie, your response to the above is wrong. I don't even know what your response is yet, but based on the fact that you're an idiot, I can anticipate it being wrong, and thus proactively tell you you're wrong. But what I haven't done is reacted to your oncoming stupid-ass post, because you haven't made it yet. Got it? Or do I need to explain it with some (*^*&%^$^#clown and beach ball analogy?

But if you drove over to pick that someone up, it would be reactive too. You'd be reacting to their desire to visit you. Of course, their desire to visit you might be in response to your invitation, in which case they're being reactive as well. And your invitation might be because they treated you to dinner last month...so you're being reactive again. Gee...is anything proactive?

I only read George Will's column. He has an amazing talent for pissing me off, to the point where, if he's espousing a position I also hold, I end up disagreeing with him and myself on the principle that an !@#$ like him can't possibly be right. Helps me to understand why people disagree with me.

You know you're not going to win this argument, right? Oh, sure, you'll feel you're making headway for a while with your argument based as it is in reality and sanity...but before you know it, the commies have Antarctica, clowns are balancing on boards on beach balls, and you're asking yourself "Why? Why? For the love of God, why???"

I wouldn't say Mickey digs deep holes. Just a hell of a lot of shallow ones. VABills has certainly earned a nomination in this category. As has Newbie. But really...no one's ever managed to dig as deeply as quickly as BF ever did. Not even ICE.

Good God, I hope you're joking.

Or you can put clowns with lasers at the South Pole to preempt the Chinese.

Yeah. And they'd be just as !@#$ing stupid.

Yes. No, it's policy, IMO. Simply: politics vs. policy, policy is not required to be political or partisan. I do dismiss Buckley's comments as having no impact on Iraq policy. What media pundit's comments have had an impact on Iraq policy? None that I can think of...though the debate on policy is heavily partisan (and needlessly, I think - it's entirely possible to discuss the policy on Iraq in and of itself without getting into the whole "Democrats suck!" "No, neo-cons suck!" nonsense. It just never happens.), the policy itself seems pretty damned politically agnostic - particularly in that it now seems to be pissing off everyone. Maybe I'm being too idealistic about it...but ultimately, Republican vs. Democrat isn't going to make a damned bit of difference in the outcome of events in Iraq, so why link the two? Good topic. I'd say usually, but not always (it doesn't now; this administration's attitude seems to be "Here's our policy, all y'all can !@#$ off." Clinton's policies, on the other hand, were excessively driven by politics, to an inarguably unhealthy degree in some cases - such as Afghanistan.) I think an even better topic would be: should policy be driven by politics, and under what circumstances is it appropriate and inappropriate? I can certainly think of situations where letting politics drive foreign policy is a bad idea - hell, this whole port issue right now is a perfect example: the world's perception that we're trying to control and block the economic activities of independent foreign entities, one of whom just happens to be affiliated by name with Arabs and Islam, could end up making us less secure in the long run than just letting the deal go through would have done...and the main drivers of that are exclusively political: Congress wanting to look tough on national security going in to mid-term elections, and Congress getting into a pissing match with the executive over separation of powers.

Everyone else understood what I was saying. Leads me to believe your problem is with you, not me.

It's an entrenching tool, you friggin idiot!

Never has before. Anywhere. Every time I hear something like that (a partisan commentator breaking ranks with his party on an issue) brought up, the discussion is invariably about the commentator and his partisanship, not the issue. Relevent to what? Iraq? Hardly. I don't see where it's relevent to anything except partisan politics...which is how this whole stupid thread started out, with Mickey discussing partisanship and not any real or substantive issues.

"Change" of course being defined in this context as "interpreting it in a way I disagree with." Waaah, waaah, waaah!

Yes, you emphasized his "credentials" in a sarcastic manner...and, in discussing Buckley, failed to actually discuss the topic of Buckley's article yourself. Thus my point, you !@#$ing idiot.

It wasn't even a reasoned post ON the article to begin with. Again: I don't give a sh-- about Bill Buckley. He's a popuous idiot. If people want to post about Bill Buckley, as Mickey did, I don't care. I do, however, care about Iraq...so if people want to post about Iraq, as Mickey didn't, I'll at least read respectfully, and not say anything if I have nothing to add. But if people want to be whiny little ***** and use puerile bait-and-switch tactics to achieve some sort of glorious martyrdom, as Mickey does and did...well, I'm going to lay into them. It's what they deserve.