Bungee Jumper

YOU'RE the one that said it's okay to federally subsidize companies that provide a service. That you're too damned stupid to know that includes McDonalds but excludes drug manufactures is not my goddamned problem. I just pointed it out to you; don't shoot the messenger.

And of course it took six YEARS for the Clinton administration to even formulate a policy for the Balkans beyond "It's Europe's problem, not ours". You'd have been better off pointing out that the US contingent to Kosovo was a small part of a coalition, which is the one thing the Clinton administration did right in the whole mess, and the one thing the Bush administration should have done in Iraq (the laughable "Coalition of the Willing" notwithstanding). And that itself is above and beyond the fact that, whereas we didn't create the mess in the Balkans, we sure as hell have in Iraq...so sure, let's go ahead and exacerbate it by doing the absolute worst possible thing that will ensure that a maximum number of Iraqis die in both the short- and long-term. What do you people think that's going to do for American foreign policy? For perceptions of American leadership and motives in the world? Do you really think the entire Middle East and Islamic world is going to say "Oh, thank you for leaving Iraq a singular mess and killing millions of Iraqis..." That'll really improve relations with the Islamic world.

You're right...because drug companies are MANUFACTURING companies and fast food companies are SERVICE companies. However - and here's the important point you keep missing - it was your comparison, not mine. You're the one that called drug manufactures service companies. I merely demonstrated your breathtakingly stupid comparison was, in fact, breathtakingly stupid by taking it to its logically idiotic conclusion for you. I never argued that. I argued that your breathtakingly stupid idea of subsidizing service companies was, in fact, breathtakingly stupid because that includes subsidizing McDonalds, but not Pfizer. It's not a moral or ethical "delema" [sic]...it's a logical dilemma: you said you want to subsidize industrial sectors that don't even include the companies you want to subsidize.

Yes, complete BS. The Navy's been preparing against this kind of threat for 30 years, the Navy knows this, had they bothered to interview more than on Navy officer for the article, they may have twigged to this. "The Navy" isn't worried...a bunch of appointed civilians who understand as little about this sh-- as you do are as worried as you for the same reason you are: a complete lack of understanding of the naval battle space.

But I think peanut storage is a service...unless they're making and selling peanut storage crates or something, in which case it's manufacturing, which is still service if it helps out people moslon_goldfish doesn't want to live anywhere near...

I thought for sure Sundin scored on Miller. I still don't know how he didn't.

Like I'm going to believe a guy named "Fife Symington". That's almost as bad as believing "Scooter" Libby.

1) It's "Kari". 2) Kari could be covered in raw sewage, and still somehow make it look hot.

Enough so they can be taxed at a high rate, and their money used to subsidize the drug company that paid them so much.

MY inane and non-real world logic? You're the one that said he wanted to subsidize service companies, not having the FIRST clue what that meant, or what drug companies are.

I'm all for that plan, as long as we start with PETA.

I was studying both nuclear physics and nuclear weapons strategy and effects before you were born.

"At one point"? They were down 4-1 five minutes into the third. 14 minutes in, they were winning 5-4. Four goals in nine minutes. Golf, Leafs, golf!

Maybe, with respect to places like Rwanda or Somalia, you might have a point. I would submit, however, that we as a nation took responsibility for the welfare of the Iraqi people the moment we invaded them. Is it worth the money? Maybe, maybe not (there's other national security issues above and beyond the simple moral issues I've focused on here). But if we didn't want to spend a trillion dollars (yeah, it's only half a trillion...it'll be a full trillion at least before we're done) on the Iraqi people, we shouldn't have invaded their country to begin with. But - and here's the real thing people keep tripping up on - pulling up stakes and leaving isn't going to fix our mistake. No matter how much the idiots in Congress beileve it possible, you can't retroactively fix the original error with new legislation. You can't "deauthorize" something that's already happened, and you can't arbitrarily declare something complete with legislation. The idea that withdrawing US troops equates to ending the war is absolutely ludicrous, and not a solution to anything. It's just another attempt to retroactively address the original mistake by burying it as deeply as possible, without solving anything.

"New-found"? Save it for Wacka and his ilk, don't spew that sh-- with me. You know better. And will you think the same way when, by September 2009, two million Iraqis have died in genocidal pogroms? Because that's not even half the current estimate for the shitstorm that'll hit Iraq if we pull out and leave the country destabilized. Of course, it's the standard Democratic response to genocide: ignore it and call it someone else's problem. But hey, if you're satisfied with it...

Eyebrows...lopsided...

So what happens to the Iraqis in September '08?

I have no problem with that...

Lopsided...

Her nose is lopsided.

"Without appropriate training"? Where did this stupid new talking point come from?

Isn't that what HA calls "science"?

Don't know why he doesn't just ignore the deadline, since IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

Quite a few, actually. Of course, every second-grader I meet, I try to teach algebra. Parents don't much like me around their kids...

That's what I said: they asked the wrong !@#$ing question.