Ghost of BiB

Letchworth too far. We barely made it to Como Park.

Happy smilies are good things.

I heard he runs an Al Quaida cell, but that may only be a rumor.

I guess he didn't pick up on the part where I was pretty well whole heartedly agreeing with him. But, I can't speak for anyone's understanding of nuances and editorial commentary. It's all about the confrontation.

You're going to be struck by lightning now, you know that - right?

We allowing girls in the clubhouse?

You can join the Rich/BiB draft pariah club. Looking at everything, trading down (maybe/maybe not taking best available with first pick, depending on the order) or taking Huff/Davis at #8 just really feels like the best move. As Rich says in a prior thread, a lot depends on what the Bills can get for the 8. And, like I said in the same thread-these are all hopelessly redundant statements, so I'll shut up now until I can think of a new angle.

Guess we can be draft thread party-pooping pariahs together, Bubba.

Has this one just made the daily media thingy? Or has this been going on and I simply missed it? I don't have a problem at all if they are offered credit for attending TWO rallies, in order to get perspective on the issue from both sides. "Field Trip". Attending one or the other for credit is sort of a scary precedent, to me at least.

Nothing I can really add that hasn't been said a hundred times, but looking at what the Bills need vs the depth in this years draft, and the "position" we might be paying number one money for, I can't see how one could miss. Assume only 25-50% of the picks actually pan out - isn't it better to have more to pick from?

Specifically, schools giving actual extra credits for those kids attending a pro-immigrant rally. Isn't that well, sort of fronting a slight bias?

BTW, has the nuclear missile ever gotten around to landing anywhere yet?

Not always a popular view, here. But I'm a member of the trade down club, unless Davis is available and the Clements thing screws up and somehow forces a pick for Huff (assuming they are available).

And once again, there isn't anything that is a falsehood here, especially taken in the context of what was going on 10 months ago, and earlier. The local militants have only fairly recently begun to divorce themselves from the Zarqawi influence, but many are still taken up with the ideology and are affiliated with organized and in some cases state sponsored terrorist movements. Many of these movements are affiliated through the overall network with various Al Qaida affiliated factions. I think part of the issue is here might be a not fully understood nature of the enemy. How would you approach this at an "event" speech? Are you going to make it an educational symposium on the intricacies of trans-national terrorism movements and their influence on operations within Iraq? Or are you going to try to get across an overall philosophy vs an ideological movement?

But, as long as it's working it gives a lot more time to post. So, it does have it's upside.

Go back and re-read the entire speech with an eye on the radical Islamic ideology and movement, rather than an emphasis on "Bush lying to drum up support for his war", and see if you get a slightly different take.

In fairness, I'm pretty sure this has been brought up more than once already.

I'd have fired him already. Obviously a shirker.

And, at the risk of sounding apologetic, none of this is false, either. Especially something from close to a year ago. Whether it's right to do or not, I don't see the admin putting their own spin on things as a major shock considering their opposition never passes up an opportunity. There's two articles at the top of the board today that are definitely spun to put them in the worse light. The devil is in the details. The details aren't that hard to Google. I wouldn't expect anything different out of a Democratic administration. I also don't think at this point in time that very many people are buying the Iraq=War on Terror argument. There was a time during the conflict where that was very true. It's not that true anymore. A lot of that has to do with success in that area. Now, it can get turned around into a liability. Conditions have changed. You can go back and re-read my take on whether we are accomplishing anything in Iraq, if you think I'm sticking up for Bush here. What constantly gets irritating is this the disinformation that everyone is willing to buy at face value from the anti-Bush side of the arguments. For some reason, the same leeway doesn't hold true from their side.

You got me at the "gist of the article" part. I don't think that was the primary intention of the article. In fairness, I don't listen to Bush's speaches. Who would? Is he actually using the phrase Al Quaida predominantly? Or is he using the phrase "terrorists" generically? Currently, the more worrisome outside influence is coming from Iran, but I don't know how politically correct it is right now to go there.

Because Coli only saw what he wanted to see?

I'll bet...

How bad are you growling right now?

Field is too big.

China airlines recruit there for cabin crew. Surprising how tall and leggy many of them are. Glad you're back safe, post pictures when you can.