Johnny Coli Posted July 25, 2006 Posted July 25, 2006 If she was there for 5 hours, that is more than a photo-op and more than "nothing." You still did not answer my question, so I will repeat it: How long does she need to be there before it is an acceptable amount of time? If all she needed to do (in your mind) is call for a cease-fire, then why even spend 5 hours there. You can get that done in a matter of minutes. Take a couple of pictures and you can be out of there in 30 minutes max.728971[/snapback] A hell of a lot longer than five hours. Other than Isreal holding off on the bombing until she skeedaddled, what did she accomplish? They've had two weeks to set up something, and instead they wave a check and mention humanitarian aid. A handshake and a bribe to make the Lebonese think the Bush admin gives a damn about them? A photo op to reassure the world that they're willing to burn the midnight oil two weeks later and not call for a cease-fire? 20,000 blankets? Laughable. You guys are always going on about shiney things and distractions. Oooh! Condi makes a surprise visit to Beirut! Oooh! Rummy makes a surprise visit to Baghdad! Oooh! Bush makes a surprise visit to Afganistan! They're really working hard! Diplomacy is on the March! Unbelievable. I guess that only you are allowed to have an opinion and I just need to keep mine to myself. I will keep that in mind. (Note to self: Coli can say anything he wants, but it is verboten to question him on it.)728971[/snapback] I never said that. Like you, I try to back my opinions up more often than not. Sometimes, though, you've just got to call a turd a turd. I think the Bush policy wrt NK qualifies as a turd. I'm not changing your mind, you're not changing mine. What, no overtime? Slacker. 728971[/snapback] They've got me from 6AM to 4PM. Plus, I'm salary, so no OT anyway. I haven't posted much because I'm trying to get stuff done before heading out for vacation next week. So you won't have Coli to kick around for two weeks.
erynthered Posted July 25, 2006 Posted July 25, 2006 A hell of a lot longer than five hours. Other than Isreal holding off on the bombing until she skeedaddled, what did she accomplish? They've had two weeks to set up something, and instead they wave a check and mention humanitarian aid. A handshake and a bribe to make the Lebonese think the Bush admin gives a damn about them? A photo op to reassure the world that they're willing to burn the midnight oil two weeks later and not call for a cease-fire? 20,000 blankets? Laughable. You guys are always going on about shiney things and distractions. Oooh! Condi makes a surprise visit to Beirut! Oooh! Rummy makes a surprise visit to Baghdad! Oooh! Bush makes a surprise visit to Afganistan! They're really working hard! Diplomacy is on the March! Unbelievable. I never said that. Like you, I try to back my opinions up more often than not. Sometimes, though, you've just got to call a turd a turd. I think the Bush policy wrt NK qualifies as a turd. I'm not changing your mind, you're not changing mine. They've got me from 6AM to 4PM. Plus, I'm salary, so no OT anyway. I haven't posted much because I'm trying to get stuff done before heading out for vacation next week. So you won't have Coli to kick around for two weeks. 729042[/snapback] Dont forget your sun screen, you liberal wanker!!!!
Johnny Coli Posted July 25, 2006 Posted July 25, 2006 Dont forget your sun screen, you liberal wanker!!!! 729047[/snapback] I will not liberally apply sunscreen or drink liberally on vacation. I plan on coming back with a ghostly complexion, and a ghastly liver.
/dev/null Posted July 25, 2006 Posted July 25, 2006 He has a plan dude.... 728723[/snapback] So did General Custer
cromagnum Posted July 25, 2006 Posted July 25, 2006 So did General Custer 729054[/snapback] When richard nixon was explaining to his wife about deepthroat he finaly got it down pat.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 26, 2006 Posted July 26, 2006 I will not liberally apply sunscreen or drink liberally on vacation. I plan on coming back with a ghostly complexion, and a ghastly liver. 729053[/snapback] With or without Steve, I mean Chiffon?
Pete Posted July 26, 2006 Posted July 26, 2006 Lock Box. Thank God this guy was never elected. It sucks to be worse then Bush
Johnny Coli Posted July 26, 2006 Posted July 26, 2006 With or without Steve, I mean Chiffon? 729132[/snapback] He's too much woman for one man to handle.
KRC Posted July 26, 2006 Author Posted July 26, 2006 I never said that. Like you, I try to back my opinions up more often than not. Sometimes, though, you've just got to call a turd a turd. I think the Bush policy wrt NK qualifies as a turd. I'm not changing your mind, you're not changing mine. 729042[/snapback] You have been asked repeatedly what you would do differently. You do not like the Bush policy. The Clinton policy has been proven a failure. The DPRK had nukes before Bush took office and they also launched missiles before Bush took office, which are the two reasons you use to say that the Bush policy is not working. This would make it impossible to say that the Clinton policy (or Kerry policy since it was nothing more than a rehash of the Clinton policy) was/would have been successful in any way. What would you do?
UConn James Posted July 26, 2006 Posted July 26, 2006 Lock Box.Thank God this guy was never elected. It sucks to be worse then Bush 729140[/snapback] 'Lock-box' was Al Gore. And just to be fair, look at the mess SS is in now.... A large part of the problem is that Congress dips into a sizable % of SS principle and interest to pay for general fund expenses. Let's be honest here; it's not so much a retirement payment program as a way for the gov't to tax people w/o the impression of a 'tax.' If SS payments were/had been in a 'lock box' all these years, where it couldn't be touched to pay for wax museums, __?__ Pride Parades, etc., the situation would be far less dire. I'm no fan of SS --- in fact, I'd do away with the largest ever Ponzi scheme in short order if I could --- but Gore's rationale wasn't completely off base. (Even if there was a 'Well, what's that going to help now?!' air to it; then again, when you get cut, the first thing to do is stop the bleeding.)
KRC Posted July 26, 2006 Author Posted July 26, 2006 'Lock-box' was Al Gore. And just to be fair, look at the mess SS is in now.... A large part of the problem is that Congress dips into a sizable % of SS principle and interest to pay for general fund expenses. Let's be honest here; it's not so much a retirement payment program as a way for the gov't to tax people w/o the impression of a 'tax.' If SS payments were/had been in a 'lock box' all these years, where it couldn't be touched to pay for wax museums, __?__ Pride Parades, etc., the situation would be far less dire. I'm no fan of SS --- in fact, I'd do away with the largest ever Ponzi scheme in short order if I could --- but Gore's rationale wasn't completely off base. (Even if there was a 'Well, what's that going to help now?!' air to it; then again, when you get cut, the first thing to do is stop the bleeding.) 729169[/snapback] Ironically, I was thinking about the SS mess this morning. I am bored, so I thought I would have a little fun with Congresscritters. I am going to send them my proposal (W-2 checkbox thingy to allow both private accounts and the current SS system) and see what type of reaction I get from them. I am going to target the Committee responsible for reforming the system. Even though I do not live in their district, since they are responsible for creating a plan to rescue the money that I paid into the system and which I should receive when I retire, they do represent me. It will be interesting to see their responses. Here are the members of the committee: House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee Jim McCrery (LA) - Chair E. CLay Shaw, Jr. (FL) Sam Johnson (TX) J.D. Hayworth (AZ) Kenny C. Hulshof (MO) Ron Lewis (KY) Kevin Brady (TX) Paul Ryan (WI) Sander M. Levin (MI) Earl Pomeroy (ND) Xavier Becerra (CA) Stephanie Tubbs Jones (OH) Richard E. Neal (MA)
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 26, 2006 Posted July 26, 2006 'Lock-box' was Al Gore. And just to be fair, look at the mess SS is in now.... A large part of the problem is that Congress dips into a sizable % of SS principle and interest to pay for general fund expenses. Let's be honest here; it's not so much a retirement payment program as a way for the gov't to tax people w/o the impression of a 'tax.' If SS payments were/had been in a 'lock box' all these years, where it couldn't be touched to pay for wax museums, __?__ Pride Parades, etc., the situation would be far less dire. I'm no fan of SS --- in fact, I'd do away with the largest ever Ponzi scheme in short order if I could --- but Gore's rationale wasn't completely off base. (Even if there was a 'Well, what's that going to help now?!' air to it; then again, when you get cut, the first thing to do is stop the bleeding.) 729169[/snapback] To be fair, they don't "dip into" it. They "invest" it. In conservative, low-risk, fixed-income investments. Like Treasury Bonds. Which is why "lock box" was the biggest load of hooey: it basically was Gore saying "We're no longer going to purchase US debt with Social Security funds", which was never going to happen. No one would just allow cash to sit around waiting to be disbursed, not earning any interest. They would have taken the cash out of the "lock box", bought Treasuries, put the T-Bonds back into the "lock box", and bragged about how smart they were for growing Social Security money in perfectly secure investments...even though they weren't doing a damned thing differently than before.
/dev/null Posted July 26, 2006 Posted July 26, 2006 Lock Box.Thank God this guy was never elected. It sucks to be worse then Bush 729140[/snapback] Totally serial
Johnny Coli Posted July 26, 2006 Posted July 26, 2006 You have been asked repeatedly what you would do differently. You do not like the Bush policy. The Clinton policy has been proven a failure. The DPRK had nukes before Bush took office and they also launched missiles before Bush took office, which are the two reasons you use to say that the Bush policy is not working. This would make it impossible to say that the Clinton policy (or Kerry policy since it was nothing more than a rehash of the Clinton policy) was/would have been successful in any way. What would you do? 729163[/snapback] Bilateral talks. The Bush position of waiting for NK to blink isn't working, and waiting around to see who loses the staring contest means more time without inspectors in NK. What's the harm in it? It seems that all the other major parties in the multi-lat talks want the US to sit down in a one-to-one with NK. In Bush-speak you'd call it appeasement, but in the real world outside of Texas most would call it actual diplomacy.
KRC Posted July 26, 2006 Author Posted July 26, 2006 Bilateral talks. The Bush position of waiting for NK to blink isn't working, and waiting around to see who loses the staring contest means more time without inspectors in NK. What's the harm in it? It seems that all the other major parties in the multi-lat talks want the US to sit down in a one-to-one with NK. In Bush-speak you'd call it appeasement, but in the real world outside of Texas most would call it actual diplomacy. 729201[/snapback] Bilateral talks is what Clinton did, which we have already determined to be an abject failure. You are advocating a policy which has proven to be a bad one? Yeah, OK.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 26, 2006 Posted July 26, 2006 So you won't have Coli to kick around for two weeks. 729042[/snapback] Color me depressed
Kelly the Dog Posted July 26, 2006 Posted July 26, 2006 Bilateral talks is what Clinton did, which we have already determined to be an abject failure. You are advocating a policy which has proven to be a bad one? Yeah, OK. 729203[/snapback] Everything has proven to be an abject failure at this point. There are a finite number of generalized solutions, and its seems ridiculous to call all bilateral talks useless, just as it would be ridiculous to call all ultimatums, one on one or multi-lateral talks useless. It seems clear to me that no one has yet been able to get the right combination of strength, threat (individual and combined), and diplomacy at the right time.
GG Posted July 26, 2006 Posted July 26, 2006 I think it's not an overgeneralization to say that holding bilateral talks with an entity that has not lived up to a single promise of its side of previous bilateral agreements, is a sure recipe for abject failure. If anything, by ignoring Kimmie, you force him out of his shell, and tangentially engage the neighbors in the solution, who lend much greater levity to the seriousness of the discussion. This certainly wasn't happening in the bilateral talks.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 26, 2006 Posted July 26, 2006 I think it's not an overgeneralization to say that holding bilateral talks with an entity that has not lived up to a single promise of its side of previous bilateral agreements, is a sure recipe for abject failure. If anything, by ignoring Kimmie, you force him out of his shell, and tangentially engage the neighbors in the solution, who lend much greater levity to the seriousness of the discussion. This certainly wasn't happening in the bilateral talks. 729216[/snapback] An agreement of some sort has to be reached. He has not lived up to any agreement. So all talks must be useless. And doing nothing has proven useless so far, too. In fact, it seems to be worse than talks that he hasn't lived up to. What hasn't been useless?
UConn James Posted July 26, 2006 Posted July 26, 2006 An agreement of some sort has to be reached. He has not lived up to any agreement. So all talks must be useless. And doing nothing has proven useless so far, too. In fact, it seems to be worse than talks that he hasn't lived up to. What hasn't been useless? 729223[/snapback] Hmm. Maybe we should send several cases each of duct tape and WD-40. One or the other fixes fully 87% of life's problems.
Recommended Posts