Crap Throwing Monkey

Wow, do you ever post anything unique, or do you only twist what everyone else posts. Unique thoughts would be a good thing.

I didn't say he did a wonderful job, I just said he didn't lie. Maybe. Actually, as indicated by the question mark, I was asking.

BF, stop posting and give VABills back his user account...

No, not really. I might if it were somehow unusual, but they all !@#$ing lie. The last President that regularly told the truth was...Carter?

Funny. The rest of us detected a notable improvement when you stopped obsessing over the pay phone example...

Hey, the eight page spying thread turned into a decent discussion. Sadly, that's probably only the fourth one this year...

Wow. Stupidest thread ever. I mean, Wacka's original that Simon parodied was stupid as well...but it didn't devolve into such a ridiculous argument...

The press, by and large, loved Clinton...but they love a salacious story even more. Ultimately, they don't let their personal feelings for someone get in the way of knocking them off a pedestal.

What part of "you" didn't you understand?

Favre's old and needs to retire, no doubt...but he's getting no help on the field, either.

Uh...no. I pointedly avoided criticizing your grammar.

I thought "Because he is a religious man and says "God Bless America" he is using god to justify the war?" was particularly brilliant, in that he himself introduces by implication the premise that Bush's religion is nothing but empty rhetoric to somehow disprove the idea that Bush uses empty rhetoric. No...but we're used to that.

No doubt bigger than you, you pansy-ass.

Re-read his post. He really didn't even do that right.

De nada. For what it's worth, I enjoyed it...simply for Wacka's otherworldly reply it inspired.

Relentlessless.

Yeah, it sounds familiar...it sounds just as !@#$ing stupid as that Tokyo Rose analogy...

I've got no problem with that. Oft times it's better to be lucky than good. The Patriots are the living example of that.

Or write one letter per poster, get three or four people to carry them in separately, then pass them out to the whole row. At the very least, you get to see the front office sink to unheard-of depths of pettiness as security tries to confiscate individual letters...

If only it were. Some people still insist the First Amendment applies. Whether ownership "should" or not...it's petty and stupid regardless. And if you don't like the fact that they take your "Donahoe Sucks" sign at the game, don't go. Or go, but leave the sign at home. Or go with the sign, and get it taken away. Those are the conditions of the ticket sale that you accept when you shell out your money (namely: you accept the condition that management is entitled to act petty and stupid if they so choose).

What the First Amendment says: What people actually read:

Not too hard, I imagine...if TD thinks Mike Gandy and Bennie Anderson are athletes, how !@#$ing incompetent do you think his "winged angels of death" are?

My personal view is that the line should have been drawn before they got to the point of illegal wire taps. It was not uncommon in past precedent, though, for every action of an administration to be considered in the interests of national security and ergo extra-legal - I recall Lincoln was routinely criticized for even worse excesses than Bush has been. Bush, at least, has not suspended habeus corpus, last I checked. Look, I'm not saying I agree with it - I don't; I believe that the freedoms given to us in the Constitution require certain trade-offs in security, one of those being the possibility of gomers flying planes into buildings and killing thousands. C'est la vie. Speaking as someone for whom 9/11 was a very concrete and real event (given that my apartment at the time was right next to the Pentagon, and I witnessed the whole thing first hand) and not an abstraction, if that's the price of the Constitution, I'm okay with it. But I understand the opposing point of view, based on my knowledge of military history and intelligence, that the level of security perceived necessary in this day and age and war is not provided for by the guarantees of the Constitution. The Law - the arena in which the Constitution resides - is not meant nor designed to provide for security, it is intended to provide for justice. Two very different things, with two very different approaches, that in the arena of asymmetric warfare (i.e. terrorism) mix very, very poorly. How do you combat an opponent who uses the very freedoms guaranteed by a society to attack said society? You do it one of two ways: the Clinton method - guaranteeing society's protections, and thus allowing the terrorists to operate under a certain measure of freedom, or the Bush method - stomping all over the terrorists, but compromising society's protections. The problem is that either way, you're !@#$ed...either the terrorists operate largely unmolested and successfully (as al Qaeda did under Clinton), or they're greatly hindered but you lose guaranteed freedoms (as under Bush). Pick your poison. My preference is somewhere between the two (strict adherence to Constitutional law inside our borders, "anything goes" outside) - and is notably insufficient as well. The problem, at its most fundamental level, is that our legal and social systems are not set up to fight this kind of war.

You're deriving a perverse pleasure from watching me bang my head against a wall, aren't you?

Like I said: I thought SHE divorced HIM.