Crap Throwing Monkey

The phrase "cat quick" was invented for a reason, though. I've been around some of the dog breeds you mentioned...still haven't seen one that's quick as a cat.

My cats like to watch TV. They love the baboons in Lion King, all of Finding Nemo...but their favorite movie is Das Boot. They love the battle scenes... No, I am not making this up. They're friggin' weird animals...

I thought boomers were mainly out of Bangor in the east? At any rate, New London's web site says they have attack boats there...I am willing, however, to admit that the site may very well be incomplete or even wrong...

While reading my Scientific American... Yes, the little freak was reading a magazine, I swear...not today, though, she's too hung over...

I can't believe no one's mentioned the inarguably most evil character ever...Bert. http://www.bertisevil.tv

One could argue that Stalin was worse than Hitler, if only by a hair. Stalin had more blood on his hands...but he wasn't nearly as systematic about it as the Nazis. And Jingis Khan was no slouch, either. The remarkable devestation the Mongols wrought through Southwest Asia is still evident eight centuries later.

I forget the actor's name, but he was also The Kurgan in Highlander - another very good villian.

You sure that was cheetahs? I've heard of lions showing hunting behavior that complex (and even more so...like complex ambush tactics). But cheetahs are EXTREMELY solitary, and because they rely so much on speed are actually hampered by cooperative tactics.

Like I said, dogs are pack animals, and are usually more appealing because of it. Cats are solitary, and hence standoffish, which doesn't sell nearly as well. Dogs are also more easily trainable, since their pack instinct makes them want to please the pack leader (i.e. the owner). Cats aren't nearly as easily trainable - you CAN train one, but since they don't aim to please, you need to use different techniques and LOTS more patience. Ideally, though...own both.

As I said before, Manx's have some dog-like qualities. Territoriality and a willingness to defend their owners are two of them. Mine wouldn't, but there have been more than a few cases of Manx's aggressively defending their owners from harm.

Nothing against dogs (I like both), but cats are more subtle and complex. You really can't appreciate a cat until you own one (I didn't really)...or better yet, two. As someone else pointed out, it's very entertaining watching two cats play.

That was the reasoning in the book. The inventor of HAL named it such to stay one step ahead of IBM...

but...but...but...Bush is bad! Why are you even bothering with all this?

Tom Donahoe, of course. I've never seen a 30-page thread dedicated to Darth Vader.

The thing that really sets apart dogs and cats is pretty simple: dogs evolved as pack animals, cats evolved as solitary. It makes for very different personalities. Even so, there are independent dogs out there, and one of my cats is of a breed (Manx) that's known for being extremely loyal and affectionate, almost to the level of your average dog (she's curled up on my desk next to my keyboard right now. If I go upstairs she will follow. She's as dedicated to me as any dog I've ever owned). And there's even decent evidence that the domestic house cat has evolved under domestication to be less solitary and more of a pack animal over the past five millenia... Now if I could just get my cats to stop raiding the liquour cabinet...

Don't forget North Korea...Bush is ignoring that too, isn't he?

Even better...Clinton's foreign policy w/r/t Afghanistan was in the hands of one organization: Unocal. A friggin' oil company dictated foreign policy to the State Department...to the point where the Taleban actually believed Unocal was a US Government organization. Unocal only stopped determining Afghanistan policy when, as a practical matter, Hillary Clinton decided to cave in to Mavis Leno's (wife of Jay) censure of Taleban's treatment of women. It's not so much Clinton "ignored" warnings, as much as he didn't even have a policy in which any warnings could be addressed at all - either acted on or ignored. But it must be Bush's fault...because fixing eight years of directionless and incoherent foreign policy should happen overnight...

And you don't fail to disappoint... You REALLY need to go out and educate yourself. This is extraordinarily and demonstrably far from the truth. I can recommend a good six or eight books, if you ever decide you want to pursue having a clue on this subject.

And yet, just the other day, I caught my cat reading Scientific American. Never seen a dog that could do that... (Of course, I don't know that she understood it...but I swear she was friggin' reading. Just prior to settling down to lick her own ass, of course...)

You must be wrong. CNN told me otherwise.

But...but...but...I thought we were brothers? Trust me, if you want to argue national security with "Ghost of BiB", your best bet is to tuck your tail between your legs and beat a hasty retreat, maintaining whatever shreds of whatever random synapse firings pass for "dignity" in a brain donor such as yourself may remain. Or, you can just stick around and entertain us with your ignorance. Personally, though a sense of decency makes me want to protect you from your own idiocy and suggest the former, I'd find the latter vastly more fun to watch...

But you're wrong, because Bush is bad. Kerry, on the other hand, now he had a plan.

Trust me...you're way, way, WAY out of your depth on this topic. Not that that's going to matter to a hydrocephalic moron like you. I should just go make some popcorn and sit back and enjoy watching you get B word-slapped around over this...

Watch it...he's going to accuse you of not thinking for yourself now...

We see that from the Republicans as well...