Black Dog

The Bushites need to get their story straight. First, they claimed that the explosives went missing before the war, after an NBC reporter embedded with American troops when they visited the site the day after Baghdad fell said she did not see any explosives. But the unit's commander has come out to say that his troops did not search the facility and merely stopped there on the way to Baghdad. But a video taken by a news crew shows troops from the 101 Airborne visiting bunkers bearing IAEA stickers and handling boxes marked with the name "Al Qaqaa". According to the crew, the opened bunkers were left unsecure, something confirmed by Iraqi eyewitnesses. Former weapons inspector David Kay has confirmed the bunkers in the video were the one's containing the explosives. Whew. I think this is a big deal because its an incident the perfectly encapsulates both the invasion as a whole and Bush's policies: poor planning, poor execution and, in the end, people are a lot less safe as a result.

Is there actually a shortage of white males in the work force??

Plus ca change, plus c'est la même chose...

High explosives left for looters "Thousands and thousands of potential terrorist attacks" It's even more apparent that the Bush administration's conduct of the invasion of Iraq was poorly planned, poorly executed and, overall, a monumental cock-up.

Acceptable or not, you still haven't answered the original question: what business is it of yours how people want to schtupp each other? If it's none of your business and doesn't affect you, why do you care? I find your prurient interest in other people's sex lives to be very curious. You claim to be revolted, yet are dying to know all the salacious details.

Certainly "their woprd" would hold a lot more sway than yours. The figure I saw was only about 15 per cent of gay men regularly practice anal sex, though most have tried it at one point. All Anal. No, it is bullshit. Tell you what: since you claim to have gay friends, why don't you ask them if they consider their sexual preference a choice or the result of some environmental factor. Physiological, environmental or social factors can influence sexual preferences, but the idea that its strictly environmental is problematic as it leads into the notion that homosexuality is "wrong". The real fallacy though, lies in viewing sexuality as a bianary gay/straight paradigm. I think the reality is more of a continuum, which would explain the wide variance in sexual behaviors and prefernces.

No, they don't. Not all agy men engage in anal sex. If you actually knew any gay people, you'd know that. Okay, either you're a joke or you really are that ignorant. That kind of tired bullshit has been knocking around for too long. Do you have any evidence to support your conclusions ? Or are you talking out of your ass, as usual?

You know what else is nasty? Vaginas. They smell weird, are all mucousy and, occassionally, bleed all over the place. Why would someone want to go near one of those? It's just sick. I don't care if its natural or not, vaginas can never be justified.

I think trying to define Bush in terms of ideology is a mug's game due to his total lack of principles. If I had to sum up the Bushite ideology, it would be "what's in it for me?" He's an oligarch who drapes himself in the trappings of "common sense" conservativism, which is only a means to an end, that end being power and personal gain. I think the most telling views in the article are:

No: you're trolling.

Conservatives wonder: is Bush one of us?

Ironically, your feeble attempt at sarcasm is the most intelligent thing you've said so far. And for the record turd-boy: you too wil make the Big Leagues once you accomplish the oh-so-difficult feat of posting more than 250 times. At your current pace, you'll be breathing that rarefied air in a month's time.

The ACLU's suit was based on the continued use of decertified voting machines. If you have any evidence to prove your consipracy theory, then let's see it. Thirty-nine states prohibit gay and lesbian couples from marrying with laws modeled after the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Such bans have been deemed unconstitutional in some states and will very likely be challenged on the bvbasis of their constitutional validity in others. Gay marriage is indeed a state issue and itis almost certainly an inevitable reality. As for your idea to "put it to a vote", constitutional protections of rights were established precisely to prevent the kind of tyranny of the majority you are advocating. If you feel you have a legitimate case, go ahead. But you're okay with using it as a slur? Here.

How? When was the last time a terrorist used an ICBM? Because it's not any good. Why spend billions on a system that may never work? (essential article on this issue)

No, if someone is pontificating on a subject they know nothing about , I feel compelled to correct them. The point you made was that the ACLU and "liberal judges" were trying to halt the California recount. I demonstrated that this interpretation of events was wrong. The ACLU is a nonpartisan organization (it's current head is, IIRC, a former Republican), so it had no vested interest in keeping people from voting, but simply wanted to ensure evgeryone's vote was counted. Chance for what? You still aren't making any sense. How many states recognize gay marriage? Partnership benefits for gays? Homo is a slur as well, especially in the context you use it in, Mr. "I-have-gay-friends-but-use-the-word-'faggot'-regularly." The refrain of all empires since the dawn of time.

No one's asking you to marry your dog or take it in the ass. So why do you care? You Yanks crack me up: you love tossing the word "freedom" around everywhere, but when it comes right down to it, you don't even understand what it means.

A simple "no, I actually don't have a clue what I'm talking about" would have sufficed, because it's obvious you don't. The ALCU simply wanted the recall vote delayed until faulty punch card voting machines could be taken out of service. Period. Though I'm starting to see how ensuring elections are conducted fairly, in such a way that every vote counts, is anathema to you: you are, after all, a Bush supporter. But their core values might not be shared by the peopl ethey represent. That's why the separation of church and state exists. Won't get what through? equal rights? It's a slur. It would be akin to calling a Jewish individual a "kike". Sarcasm only works if it's meaning is clear. However, what makes you think emprires are in the habit of giving away land they've conquered? Did every Roman own a piece of their empire? Was every Briton entitled to a piece of their imperial spoils? Why not?

Can you tell me why the ACLU was trying to stop the recall? (I know why: I just wonder if you do.) The Religious Right is one of the most powerful lobbys in the U.S. (certainly far more influential than the gay rights lobby). That influence undermines the Constitutionally-mandated separation of church and state. So when political leaders attempt to undermine individual rights such as marriage and the right to choose, on religious grounds, they are, in effect, forcing religion on everyone. In contrast, the "homos" as you so charmingly put it, are simply asking to be accorded the same rights as everyone else. This doesn't even make sense. America already fits the definition of an empire. I don't know what definition you're operating from.

Examples? Bull. I (and most people of the progressive liberal-left) don't care about an individuals personal religious affiliation or beliefs. It's the enroachment of religion on public policy that gets our backs up. So that makes it right? Give me a break. This "war" is an exercise in contemporary imperialism, sold to the public on a bed of lies and now Americans and Iraqis are paying the price for your nation's hubris.

Still awaiting a citation or some sort of proof. Oh look! A link! I must say, the "official" story sounds very fishy, and I'm certainly not about to take the Russians word on anything.

What does that even mean? A completely meaningless slogan. First, the war was not fought on the grounds of "freedom", but on the alleged threat Saddam Hussein posed, a threat that has since been proven to be non-existent. It was only after teh WMD/Terrorism angle crumblesd that the focus shifted to "freeing" the Iraqi people.

I just skimmed it, but the case it makes is pretty weak. It doesn't seem to target any actual factual errors, but makes it's case by nitpicking over semantics, as in this example: It should be called "59 quibbles about Farenheit 9-11"

Crack open a Stella Artois and have a look. So Harper is now cozying up to the ADQ as well as the Bloc. What's his game?

And that "intelligence" (most of it bad) was tailored for the specific purpose of guding U.S. policy towards an invasion of Iraq. They wanted to invade Iraq from Day 1. After 9-11, the war on terror gave them the excuse they needed to do so. Unemployment under Bush was at its lowest in October of 2001, right after 9-11, so your first statement is incorrect. As to your assertion that noone could have known the intelligence was wriong, that too is incorrect. Read up on the Office of Special Plans and Ahmed Chalabi. Here's a primer. What do you mean "brought 'us' through"? Joblessness is epidemic, Iraq is still a mess, terrorism (if you belivve the Bush administration) is still a grave threat, milions are struggling without health care. Even Bush's pet programs like No child Left Behind are chronically underfunded. This administration's only skill is doubletalk. I wouldn't consider calling Bush a miserable failure to be a slur when it seems to be the truth. Furthermore, dirty politics are, unfortunately, part of the political process now and the Bushies have shown they can give as good as they get in that regard. I would hardly call Kerry a neophyte. His years of Seanate service mean he's far better versed in the workings of government at a high level than Bush was when he took office. Bush's only political experience prior to the Presidency was the governorship of Texas, a notoriously soft job. Let me put it to you this way: given that Bush is the one who got you into the mess in the first place, why would you trust him to get you out. First, I'd like to see a source for your 3 to 1 stat. Second: what makes some grunt more qualified to pick the president than anyone else?

And thus ensure they become martyrs for their cause. Good one.