Politics: J'accuse!

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That was your first response. At 2:26, I said, no, I wasn't kidding. From then and 3:15, you posted four times, ducking my question each time.

What precisely do you mean by non-Chalabi sourced?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
I hope that's true. The AOBB (any outcome but Bush) people dismay me to no end. I truly believe that much of what I read these days is written by people who would rather we lose the war, as long as it results in Bush's loss.

FWIW, I don't think you're reading it here (and know you're not reading it from me). I too would prefer a Bush loss, but do not at all prefer that we "lose" the war.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Thank you for confirming that there are no non-Chalabi-sourced documents. When confronted with this inconvenient fact, club and Not Me just went silent.

I went quiet because you are taking the absurd position that KPMG is not an indepent party. As I posted last week, KPMG is in possession of non-Chalabi sourced documents, but you asserted that they (KPMG) were tainted.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
How about had sex with some famous and/or attractive women?

IRL, I would not smack you upside your head. I meant that in the figurative sense. If you said that in front of me IRL, I would just roll my eyes and walk away from you and think less of you as a person.

Point of fact - in most cases, men bag women. A woman only bags a man if the man is very wealthy and/or very famous and the woman is not on the same level. Morgan Fairchild did not bag Kerry, Kerry bagged Morgan Fairchild. Jane Fonda did not bag Tom Haden, Tom Haden bagged Jane Fonda.

To contrast, Jennifer Annistan bagged Brad Pitt. You see?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
To contrast, Jennifer Annistan bagged Brad Pitt. You see?

Brad Pitt, judging by his commentary on Ocean's Eleven, is dumber than my three-days-dead cat. I think that Caroline Bessette bagged JFKJr. is a better example. Or Ivana bagged the Donald.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Not Me
You don't get it. THis is about the war on terrorism. It is about changing the conditions in the middle east that currently make it the perfect environment to ferment terrorists.

The reason the middle east is such a fertile breeding ground for terrorism is because of the totalitarian regimes and the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. The regimes do everything they can to demonize Israel and the US so that their people won't revolt against them and instead will focus their anger against us and Israel. If things start to get better for the masses in the middle east, the message of the terrorists won't be so attractive. When you have a decent standard of living and freedom, you are less likely to want to fly airplanes into buildings.

Get it now?

Its kind of amusing that you're lecturing me on Middle Eastern politics, history, and the root causes of radicalism and terrorism.

Moving on to the substance, I understand what you're saying. That is a nice theory, combining some elements of truth and reasonable, though broad, predictions of potential results. However, that equation (and particularly its execution), is not nearly so neat and simple as your earnest diatribe would suggest.

I was beginning to think that you're actually Condoleeza Rice (who does have standing to lecture on such issues), but then I remembered the implants.

S_A_M

BTW -- There are no totalitarian regimes in the Middle East, never have been (the two modern, secular, "Westerenized" Baathist regimes -- Hussein's Iraq and Syria under the elder Assad -- came closest).

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
I hope that's true. The AOBB (any outcome but Bush) people dismay me to no end. I truly believe that much of what I read these days is written by people who would rather we lose the war, as long as it results in Bush's loss.

Its true. My optimal scenario for Bush's defeat involved a few more months of job stagnation, plus huge budget deficits, plus some favorable Supreme Court decisions this June (on Gitmo detainees, the energy task force, etc.), plus some indictments of mid-level to senior-level White House staffers this summer for outing Valerie Plame, plus continued low-level nagging problems in Iraq (mainly just a much more substantial investment of resources and personnel than most people imagined). I think that would have been enough.

S_A_M

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Its kind of amusing that you're lecturing me on Middle Eastern politics, history, and the root causes of radicalism and terrorism.

Why? are you purporting to be a middle eastern scholar?

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Moving on to the substance, I understand what you're saying. That is a nice theory, combining some elements of truth and reasonable, though broad, predictions of potential results. However, that equation (and particularly its execution), is not nearly so neat and simple as your earnest diatribe would suggest.

Who said it would be simple or neat?

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I was beginning to think that you're actually Condoleeza Rice (who does have standing to lecture on such issues)

By your standards, unless one of us is a nobel prize winning economist, we have no standing to discuss the job reports. By your standards, this board should just wither away.

And remember, Ty cites blogs in support of his positions.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
but then I remembered the implants

Don't forget the smooth as a baby's butt face. Condi looks like she could use a trip the day spa, IMHO.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
BTW -- There are no totalitarian regimes in the Middle East, never have been (the two modern, secular, "Westerenized" Baathist regimes -- Hussein's Iraq and Syria under the elder Assad -- came closest).

It depends on what you mean by totalitarian regime.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Brad Pitt, judging by his commentary on Ocean's Eleven, is dumber than my three-days-dead cat. I think that Caroline Bessette bagged JFKJr. is a better example. Or Ivana bagged the Donald.

Doesn't matter. She still bagged Brad. Your other examples are better tho.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Point of fact - in most cases, men bag women. A woman only bags a man if the man is very wealthy and/or very famous and the woman is not on the same level. Morgan Fairchild did not bag Kerry, Kerry bagged Morgan Fairchild. Jane Fonda did not bag Tom Haden, Tom Haden bagged Jane Fonda.

To contrast, Jennifer Annistan bagged Brad Pitt. You see?

What is "bagging" a euphemism for? I thought it was a euphemism for fucking?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Point of fact - in most cases, men bag women. A woman only bags a man if the man is very wealthy and/or very famous and the woman is not on the same level. Morgan Fairchild did not bag Kerry, Kerry bagged Morgan Fairchild. Jane Fonda did not bag Tom Haden, Tom Haden bagged Jane Fonda.

To contrast, Jennifer Annistan bagged Brad Pitt. You see?

For awhile, i thought I might get fringey

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by bilmore
I hope that's true. The AOBB (any outcome but Bush) people dismay me to no end. I truly believe that much of what I read these days is written by people who would rather we lose the war, as long as it results in Bush's loss.

I think you are incredibly paranoid and read stuff into things that aren't really there. Anyway, I thought we already won the war.

Win or lose seems like a black and white thing. So whatever is not winning is losing. It seems like last week or the week before, "win" was the establishment of a lasting, functional, relatively stable democracy in Iraq. Really, I have doubts that that can be accomplished at all and I certainly don't think that it can be accomplished (or that victory in that area can be declared) in fewer than a couple years, and certainly not by November.

I guess we could definitively lose by November. I hope that does not happen, as it would, I think, involve the loss of a lot of lives. Actually, that would probably garner support for Bush in the short run because I'm sure there'd be lots of ass-kicking and stuff and statements like "we'll be back!!!" etc.

In any event, I think the way things are going over there is not reflecting well on my country. I don't think that we can "win" completely, and I don't necessarily think that some kinds of "winning" represent a net gain for the world. I think that Bush's versions of "winning" aren't going to represent a net gain for my country or the world. Therefore, I want him out. Also, he's a cut-taxes-and-spend freak who wants to take away my reproductive rights and probably ban porn too. And people blame me for him just because he's from Texas and I live there.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Doesn't matter. She still bagged Brad. Your other examples are better tho.

I disagree. She was cuter back when they got together and was arguably a bigger star.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
For awhile, i thought I might get fringey

I took note of the fact that you didn't say "bag."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I disagree. She was cuter back when they got together and was arguably a bigger star.

no. mid-level movie star trumps top-level TV star. Its like how Atticus will always be above me, because he gets play as a mid-level fashion board guy, and i barely rate there.

"but me, Hank, i'm the top of the line on Politics!! doesn't that out play Atticus' modest sucess on fashion?"

"Fuck no hank, get the fuck back in line. Atticus will see you when its your turn."