PastaJoe

It's on the top banner on MSNBC.com, but no details yet.

Where else are they being shot at and killed with no end in sight? Even with Bosnia, the differing political parties were brought together and came to a political solution that ended the fighting, with minimal casualties to the U.S. military. Why hasn't there been a push for a political solution by our government in Iraq?

Democrats called for a change long before McCain. He called for change when it was unpopular within his own party, but popular with a majority of the country. But he never said the basic premise of occupying was wrong, and he wants to continue it. And it hasn't paid off because the Iraqis still haven't resolved their political differences which was the purpose of the surge, and as long as our military is there without an end in sight they won't have the urgency to do so.

What a stupid thing to say, that anybody who disagrees with your opinion wants failure. The military's done what it could, they won't be humiliated no matter what happens politically. The Bush administration is already humiliated, that ship has sailed. Now we have to decide how best to move forward, and select the best of only bad options.

He should at least be given a chance to speak at the RNC. He won 35 delegates and even beat McCain in the last caucus in Montana. Someone should be able to represent the anti-Iraq Republicans at the convention.

As soon as al-Sadr gives the word to resume attacks, it will hit the fan and the stablility will be gone. Which points out that he and the Iraq gov't have to come to a political resolution to resolve the issue, which was the purpose of the surge. So if the political resolutions don't take place, then the surge will have failed in its goal, and the U.S. military will be stuck with their fingers in the dike, just holding back the eventual flood. If that's the case, then we need to get out and let the Iraqis deal with it.

You were misinformed about US troops, they're still leading raids. And it looks like things might be heating up again soon. BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is establishing a new fighting force to battle U.S.-led troops in Iraq, he said in a letter read in some Iraqi mosques Friday. Muqtada al-Sadr says his new group will focus exclusively on battling U.S.-led forces in Iraq. Al-Sadr's letter said that "the resistance will be exclusively conducted by only one group. This new group will be defined soon by me." Al-Sadr's longtime militia, the Mehdi Army, has a strong presence in Shiite cities, towns and neighborhoods. Since last summer, the mainstream Mehdi Army has been in cease-fire mode, which dramatically reduced violence in Iraq. During that time, however, some Mehdi Army members have fought with U.S. and Iraqi troops, with much of the battles this spring in the southern city of Basra and Baghdad's Sadr City neighborhood. The U.S. says it is fighting Iranian-backed "Special Groups," or rogue Mehdi Army members who flout the cease-fire and conduct insurgent acts. Those Mehdi Army members say their military activities are in reaction to the Iraqi government or American aggression. Sources familiar with the issue said they believe al-Sadr's move is an embrace of the Special Groups. In the latest fighting overnight, American-led coalition forces killed five and arrested two Special Groups members near Hilla, south of Baghdad, the U.S. military said. http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/13/...sadr/index.html

And you're the reason inbreeding is discouraged if you want to play that game, so it's not suprising that you offer no solutions.

I've been in I.T. my whole career (programmer, BA, system analyst, staff analyst), never been in a union. Went to night school to get my MBA. Worked for Carrier for 21 years before they moved the manufacturing I supported to China and Singapore, not because they were losing money, but they wanted to make more money with cheap labor and lax regulations. I make more at my current job than I ever have, but job security is a bigger issue for me than how much I make. And I worry about all the other people who are worse off than me with less options. No country has tried true socialism, they end up having some people "more equal than others".

Capitalism is overrated, the gap between rich and poor is growing. The major corporations give us the illusion that we have equal economic opportunity, and try to pacify us with cheaper Tupperware at Walmart, but it's all smoke and mirrors. I think it's time we try some socialism.

Did you verify that all the people that saw the stripper were 18? If someone under 18 was there, you'd be open for some delinquency of a minor charge (disregarding the drinking), or possibly some sex offender charge.

Time to nationalize the oil companies. Give all the stockholders $80 a share and a free carwash, and turn the oil companies into Not For Profit corporations.

I find it very troubling that some here take the attitude, "they're going to do it anyways, so why not supervise it". Anyone who's been in high school knows there's the "cool kids" who do the dangerous stuff and have the permissive parents, the "nerdy kids" who don't do anything and have controlling parents, and then the great majority of kids who are looking to fit in and feel the peer pressure to try to be like the cool kids even if they're not comfortable with what it takes. And parents making it harder to not have an excuse to resist the pressure is wrong.

I'm pointing out that teenage drinking should not be encouraged, and that parents who enable it are adding to the problem. Kids that might not otherwise drink are more likely to if some parents give the OK, and then will continue to do it when the parents aren't around. The dog incident could have happened even if the parents were there; the bottom line is bad things are bound to happen when a kid's judgement is impared.

So why not hand them out and offer bedrooms to them, it's the same as a "safe" drinking party.

Teaching them isn't the same as encouraging them. And it doesn't take much for someone who isn't used to drinking to get drunk. Just a couple weeks ago in Syracuse a bunch of kids had a drinking party at a parent's home (who weren't home), and a drunk girl put her face up to the family dog to kiss it and the dog ripped her face up pretty bad. Cops came, the girl's now disfigured, and the senior boy who had the party faces charges and got kicked off his playoff lacrosse team.

A couple I rented recently that exceeded expectations were 30 Days of Night and The Mist.

Prom night does not give kids a license to drink, and parents shouldn't give them that license. Yes some kids will drink, or toke, or have sex. So why stop at booze? Why didn't they hand out safe joints with no PCP and condoms too if it's safer to supervise them. Part of parenting is teaching kids that just because you want to do something doesn't mean it's the best choice. They have enough to deal with from peer pressure without the additional problem of parents acting irresponsibly and enabling the wrong choices.

Teenagers are going to do dumb things, but parents shouldn't be encouraging it. The fear of getting our ass kicked by our parents may be the difference between being alive or in the ground. But as a parent with a teen, I also have to trust that when he's at a friend's house, they're going to act like parents and not be enablers and make the peer pressure harder to resist.

The basic difference is that in general Republicans want to give tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations, under the assumption that they will invest the money in businesses that will stimulate the U.S. economy and create jobs. The problem with that is that they are not obligated to invest in businesses in the U.S., and can invest that money in another country for more profit, or take the tax cut and still move their manufacturing overseas. While it's their right to invest their money where they want, the gov't shouldn't be giving them a tax break to do it. I'm all for tax incentives if it goes directly to creating more U.S. jobs. In general Democrats prefer to stimulate the economy by giving tax breaks to the middle class and investing in public work projects like infrastructure that will directly create more jobs and demand for supplies, which then creates more jobs, especially if there is a preference given to domestic suppliers.

I think the main issue is the "not in my backyard" argument. Who wants a nuclear plant or an oil refinery built in their neighborhood. And the questionable government oversight of industries lately makes the public nervous about whether they would be built according to guidelines.

Because the wives aren't voting on this poll.

Anybody from either side who votes for their candidate primarily because of their ethnicity is a racist. I don't buy the excuse that blacks voting for a black candidate because he's black isn't racist because of historical oppression. If they do that, they're discriminating against the non-black. It applies both ways. That doesn't mean all blacks voting for Obama are racist, or all whites voting for McCain are racist. But the one's voting primarily because of race are.

They're treating the first one like a Mulligan, and restarting

Pulp Fiction John Travolta Samuel L. Jackson Uma Thurman Bruce Willis Harvey Keitel Tim Roth Amanda Plummer Maria de Medeiros Ving Rhames Eric Stoltz Rosanna Arquette Christopher Walken