Ghost of BiB

But biting sociological and informed humor is so much funnier now. And Dean Martin had Joey Heatherton, too. Do we have any just plain laugh humor combined with gorgeous women we'd like to meet?

And still, what do they really affect on a day to day basis that is so important? Unless one is a legal scholar, who can readily discuss their decisions over the last month? I'm sorry (not really, I lied) but R vs. W, gay marriage, etc are not issues critical to the preservation of the constitution nor the union. Lots of hand wringing over SCJ's but unless it's an issue that makes CNN or FOX, generally unimportant, it's under the radar anyway. I think it means more to lawyers, than anyone else. And it should. Executive powers seem to be a big thing right now, but I also have enough respect for the wisdom of that court to have some sense. The most right wing among them is not going to make monumental decision that will also give carte blanche to the left in the future, and vice versa. That would be pretty stupid. I don't think they are stupid, or they wouldn't get to be even nominated to be SC Judges. I'm out of my territory here, so I'm just going on gut opinion.

Who cares? And, like I said, I've gone that route too. There's no rule I can't change my modus and approach. I've shifted more to appreciating peoples own thoughts on their own merits, rather than selectively picking someone elses to make their point for them. And yeah, I WOULD go up against Buckley, or any of them if it were something within my lane. Just because they have a wider forum doesn't make me stupid on the subject. There's also a few female Republican pundits I'd like to nail.

I bet you're a lot of fun at parties.

That could work, but be careful on overdoing the pouch.

Spud bars don't fold in and out and have an attractive little pouch.

Nothing in his life Became him like the leaving it; he died As one that had been studied in his death To throw away the dearest thing he owed, As 't were a careless trifle.

Are we jumping the shovel shark or should we simply continue to pick on Bill because after all...he's Bill? Yeah, you're right. Pick on Bill. I say the 12 ouncer folding camp pooper scooper with the serrated fighting edge that really makes it an adjustable headed battle axe if you are a suicidal idiot. Braveheart was on last night, too.

Match game was pretty good too, because the panel was always drunk.

Lynde was the master, but you had to appreciate the deadpan of Goebbles and Wally Cox.

LOL. Paul and Charlie. We don't have anything resembling that kind of quick comic mind anymore. I remember those.

When William F. Buckley starts posting. Why should I discuss what a columnist thinks with another poster, when I can discuss what they think. Yeah, I've fallen into the trap, but when you think about it, isn't it kind of dumb?

Rookies. THIS is how you dig a hole. My concept of entrenching tool.

OK. I'll solve this. What are the GPS coordinates for that intersection? I'll make a couple calls.

But to debate or discuss the numbers is directly related to the validity of the information. Since no one is going to ever know what the true "validity" is, no one is going to go back and discuss it later. As for your first point, no - that doesn't answer my question. Are we talking about an E-4 Combat Engineer on his second tour of duty? Or an 0-6 S-3 on his second tour of duty? I can virtually guarantee a different basis of analysis even if the conclusions are the same. So, I can't really discuss what it means in so far as policy concerns, which in some ways is moot as the people in uniform once again are not in a democracy, they are in basically a dictatorship and I have no fears that they would ever start sabotaging the mission because they personally disagree with a lot of it. That, to me would be the only really significant issue to discuss and I simply don't think that will happen.

I'd agree with that. I also think that you are not going to hear that coming out of 3 out of 4 of them, even if that is what they think. Especially out of careerists. Also, a good military leader at least verbally supports the mission or he/she can't lead. Not an environment for democratic thinking. (I mean democratic thinking, not "democrat") Another factor is that very few soldiers in theater, with a mission have a really broad grasp of the overalls. By design and necessity, they have a pretty narrow focus. So, their ideas and opinions are very much colored by their immediate surroundings. I've also met very few military leaders who at sidebar didn't have a better plan than the one they were working. I also work with military leadership that I personally know and consider many of friends who are very liberal in their thinking, vote democrat, have many reservations about what is going on, as well as ideas, but they support the mission and do the best they can. None advocate "just pulling out".

All of which, IMO are so off based that I take them much more as personal POV's than partisan. It's guised as partisan. Same to be said for extreme liberal views, like the Iraq thingy is all about Cheney lining his pockets off oil money.

I saw that. I can't imagine what they could have been thinking. Talk about becoming an instant pariah.

I'd be interested in seeing some more on their demographics, such as rank, years in service, military occupational specialty, etc. Not an opinion on the numbers, but "The Military" is definitely a population where one can get some pretty diverse views based on the factors that are unique to it. This is to me, the fault of just about any polling. Not even to cheat, but unless one is meticulously careful in their target, one can get the right numbers to support any POV.

I've long since figured out that the multi-tool just might be a little too complex in some circles. Shovel folds in... Shovel folds out. Shovel folds in... Shovel folds out.

I get the same picture. And it's a folding shovel. I'd rather hit someone with the multi-tool.

So, VABills works part time in the mortgage loan industry?

Requires a lot of repetitve training and a manual.

Does that mean he has dynamic rarely observed below average speed?

Not that I can think of. "Regulars" anyway. I also vote for VA's comment but fault their secrecy for a lot of that.