Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Says "dangeroustimes.com"......LOL. Site won't even open by the way so maybe we can get that story confirmed by scaredshitless.com?
I'll talk weight, height and pretty wives with you after you tell me what happened to my post to you that was removed a couple of weeks ago. I used the analogy of drive by shootings to describe the way you pepper the board with controversy while never making yourself available for any follow up. If I can't say that, why not?
>>>Our troops are carrying out a new strategy with a new commander -- General David Petraeus. The goal of this new strategy is to help the Iraqis secure their capital, so they can make progress toward reconciliation, and build a free nation that respects the rights of its people, upholds the rule of law, and fights extremists and radicals and killers alongside the United States in this war on terror.<<<
New strategy? This is part of a speech he gave 3 years ago. What did he say yesterday that's new?
June 1, 2004
THE PRESIDENT: Last week, I outlined the five steps to helping Iraq achieve democracy and freedom. We will hand over authority to a sovereign Iraqi government, help establish security, continue rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure, encourage more international support and move toward a national election that will bring forward new leaders empowered by the Iraqi people. The naming of the new interim government brings us one step closer to realizing the dream of millions of Iraqis -- a fully sovereign nation with a representative government that protects their rights and serves their needs.
Many challenges remain. Today's violence underscores that freedom in Iraq is opposed by violent men who seek the failure not only of this interim government, but of all progress toward liberty. We will stand with the Iraqi people in defeating the enemies of freedom and those who oppose democracy in Iraq. The killers know that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror.
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/cpa-iraq/transcripts/20040601_bush_rollout.html
wow.....what an outburst. Over a simple question you didn't even try to answer no less. You sound unstable.
>>>Hamas Official: Kill All Americans<<<
Why do you think they want to kill americans? Why not germans, or the french?
Any idea what happened to my last response to you a week or two ago? Somehow it just disappeared. No foul language........just the straight forward truth about you. Either the board monitors are getting particular or you have more influence here than you should. You little twit. I got you pegged at about 5'6", slightly heavy set.......an evangelical version of Mickey Rooney. Close?
Worst kind of cop-out I've seen in a while. The element you describe haven't been able to do a damn thing to affect the war which is on it's 4th year and building strength. To what avail, nobody has explained with anything but more hope and prayers. Meanwhile, the slaughter of US troops continues and the enemy is organizing in corners of the world totally unrelated to Iraq.
I know your type. You listen to those who say what you wanna hear but never thought this through on your own.
Five U.S. troops were killed in separate attacks this weekend, the military said Monday, pushing the death toll past 100 in the deadliest month so far this year.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/30/iraq/main2739866.shtml
In a report to be released next week, US government figures will show that the number of terrorist attacks in the world jumped sharply in 2005, totalling more than 10,000 for the first time. That is almost triple the number of terrorist attacks in 2004 -- 3,194.
"Add to this a deeply negative perception and a distorted perception of US foreign policy among Western European Muslim communities, and relative freedom of movement across the Atlantic, and you have a particularly dangerous mix," he said.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0421/dailyUpdate.html
>>>So, what caused 9/11, USS Cole, and WTC '93, pinkie? The Iraq War? LOL<<<
A better question is: What's the Iraq war doing to keep it from happening again?
It's also some form of entertainment to him which he doesn't even deny.
Noticed this qualifier towards the end?
"If, on the other hand, the Shia control themselves and the central government acts responsibly...."
As for the Iraqi government acting responsibly, you did see this...?
"JACK CAFFERTY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, apparently things are going so well in Iraq these days, that the parliament there is planning to take two months off this summer. Needless to say, that's not sitting too well with a lot of people. On a recent visit to Iraq, Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the Panama, Nouri Al-Maliki, that lawmakers should not take July and August off until they pass key measures, including laws on de-Baathification, local elections and oil sharing."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0704/30/sitroom.01.html
>>>my admiration and respect for the US military is boundless<<<
You sure have an odd way of showing respect. Not only do you celebrate current troops mixing and mingling with suicide bombers in a civil war setting but you want more of them to join and you want it to go on indefinitely. You think the military's admiration and respect for people like you is equally boundless?
>>>DO you think that Iraq is better off w/ or w/o saddam in power??<<<
How do you expect to get a meaningful answer to that question from anyone except Iraqis?
"Many adults in Iraq believe the coalition effort has been negative, according to a poll by the Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies and the Gulf Research Center. 90 per cent of respondents think the situation in their country was better before the U.S.-led invasion."
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/14282
>>>the attack on Iraq was a brilliant global strategic strike against the Islamofacists<<<
Hap and Dick Cheney......all by themselves now. Not even Bush who always looks for opportunity to humiliate himself calls the war brilliant.
>>>Hint: don't post the one where it says "if Bush was found to have deliberately lied about the causes for going to war" then he should be impeached<<<
What's wrong with a poll like that? People are polled on inevitable future events all the time. Like....."do you intend to spend more or less on christmas shopping this year"?
>>>No Bass, that doesn't make sense. More revenues is more revenues...<<<
Or something like that. Always one item at a time for them isn't it? Either tax revenue or tax cuts but don't blur the picture by introducing a figure that's a product of both. No better president for them than "plainspoken" George.
>>>How hard is this??? If tax revenue goes up= it means tha the govt is collecting more money<<<
If you leave taxation alone....yes. If the sum of the losses due to tax cuts exceeds the benefits of increased tax revenue.......no.
I'll try to make it simple. After hearing about Bush's tax cuts you decide to work an extra 5 hours a week to take advantage. This earns you $250 out of which $50 is taken out in taxes. Meanwhile though, the tax cut has reduced taxes on your monthly paycheck by $300. So the tax cuts enticed you to create an additional $200/month in tax revenue to offset the $300 they gave back to you.
>>>The borrowing is caused by out of control SPENDING, not any decrease in tax revenue<<<
SPENDING is supposed to be financed by taxes. The reason they're borrowing with both hands is that not enough taxes are collected to pay for the spending. When smaller government republicans can't even make it work why aren't you asking more questions?
Apparently the increase in tax revenue has not been enough to offset the losses from the tax cuts or they wouldn't have out of control borrowing. If your scenario is true, why are new national debt records set every day?
>>>Makes no sense. P;ease explain the connection between wallstreet profits and the national debt<<<
How hard is that to figure out? Billions if not trillions of dollars in tax cuts for corporations over the past 6 years has fueled the stock market, drained the treasury and sent the national debt to levels unheard of.
"President Bush signed into law late Friday $136 billion in corporate tax breaks, including a one-year reduction from 35 percent to 5.25 percent on foreign profits for U.S. multinationals. The provision was strongly backed by the technology industry despite criticisms that the break rewards corporations that outsource jobs overseas."
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3426211
>>>enhanced interrogation techniques works says Clinton CIA chief Tenent:))))<<<
You understand that by approving of torture of our POW's, you also approve of torture of other country's POW's which of course may include your neighbor marine. You're ready to tell that to his face as you wave him goodbye for his next mission? "Thanks for your service and thanks for understanding that we must torture and you must be ready to BE tortured".
But it's ok cause you're praying for him.....in front of your fireplace in Darthmouth?
>>>He probably had to reload 15 or 16 times as it was.<<<
Don't care if it was 100 times. That's not the point. The point is that smaller clips means more interruptions for the shooter and more opportunity for the target. What's even to discuss about that?
>>>students weren't allowed to defend themselves at all because of the myopic gun law<<<
Or they weren't allowed to defend themselves because the gunfire was too overwhelming? Let's say he entered a room with 10 people. If you were one of those 10 people would you say your odds of surviving would be greater if the shooter had 8 round clips as opposed to 15 round clips at his disposal?
Other than that you have two unanswered questions to deal with from previous posts:
1. What's your argument for high capacity magazines being legally available anyway? Not talking about military or law enforcement use but for the average paranoid schizophrenic who makes a pit stop at the neighborhood gun parlor.
2. As for students......at what grade would you start to arm them? 10-year olds carrying guns? High school or first year in college? Either way you would have to trust kids with guns while telling them they're too immature to vote or buy booze.
>>>Apparently in this case, no. that is the facts of what happened, unless you think they all wanted to die.<<<
Please.......you make no sense. We know what happened but weren't we talking about what might have happened had he not carried 15 round clips? Again.....reloading a gun gives potential victims an opportunity. Had he been forced to use standard 8 round clips he would have been reloading twice as many times as he did, creating twice as much opportunity for the victims. That's insignificant?
What's your argument for high capacity magazines being legally available anyway? Not talking about military or law enforcement use but for the average paranoid schizophrenic who makes a pit stop at the neighborhood gun parlor.
>>>In this case, neither was possible due to the "no guns on campus" law at VT<<<
I know it's tough for some on the hard right to grasp but there ARE other ways of fighting back than firing a gun. You're saying overpowering 5'6" Cho couldn't have been done without a firearm?
>>>the process can take a second or two, even with no special training.<<<
Great argument. High capacity clips make no difference since reloading only take "a second or two". Pop the empty clip, reach for a new one in your pocket, insert it and get the first round in the chamber. If you got everything exactly right you will have spent at least 5 seconds.......an eternity for someone standing in front of a crazed gunman.
Why do you think high capacity magazines were introduced in the first place? Because gun owners thought increasing the size and the weight of their weapons trumped the hassle of spending seconds to reload? Or because reloading makes you vulnerable by offering your target an opportunity to escape or fight back?
>>>The Decider apparently didn't follow the Senate Judiciary Comm hearing today<<<
Maybe not but would it have made a difference? He's always "pleased" with those who remain loyal and out of prison.
Bush "pleased" with Gonzales' testimony.
"Struggling to save his credibility and perhaps his job, Gonzales testified at least 45 times — before lunch — that he could not recall events he was asked about.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/19/politics/main2703783.shtml
>>>there are always ways for criminals or psychopaths to get guns<<<
So if you can't put an end to it altogether, why bother at all?
>>>Do you propose a ban of all guns??<<<
I don't. Own 4 myself.
>>>if they had been able to defend themselves, a lot more of the students would be alive.<<<
In that case, why not allow passengers on airliners to carry guns in case they're hijacked? As for students......at what grade would you start to arm them? 10-year olds carrying guns? High school or first year in college? Either way you would have to trust kids with guns while telling them they're too immature to vote or buy booze.
>>>it's the height of stupidity to use this incident as a platform for MORE gun control.<<<
It would be the height of stupidity to prevent paranoid schizophrenics from buying assault weapons?
>>>It was a regular 9mm with a larger clip- that is NOT an assault weapon by any definition<<<
As usual you seem to pull your opinions out of a hat. It was a Glock 19 which is a semi automatic pistol that comes standard with 15 round clips. An assault weapon per the definition below.
"There is an almost confusing array of magazines available for the Model 19. It comes equipped with two 15-round magazines
http://www.remtek.com/arms/glock/model/9/19/
"Exact definitions vary from state to state, but an assault weapon is most frequently defined as a semi-automatic rifle, shotgun, or pistol with a combination of any or all the following characteristics:
A detachable magazine holding more than 10 rounds. This is often referred to as a "large" or "high" capacity magazine in legislation even when it is actually the standard magazine size for the firearm in question."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
>>>believe me, he is among the misleaders. that is his job. he knows her status was covert and its his job to muddy the waters, challenge the truth, cause confusion<<<
I know what you're saying but I'm not sure I agree. I don't think he knows anything except where to go to find support for what he wants to believe. Notice that he never expands on or qualifies his arguments. All he offers are quotes from fascist blogs with a ......"so what about this then"? Real misleaders do a much better job justifying their positions imo. and they also avoid making fools of themselves defending the indefensible with trash talk. If he had a good understanding of what he was discussing, would he ask me to name people impacted by the outing of a spy?
>>>You mention "guns" and next mention "at any cost" I hope the Echelon program picked that up<<<
If they did I take comfort in knowing they're smarter than you and recognize that the gun comment was in reference to the idiocy of making them available to radical crackpots and the "at any cost " comment in reference to level headed people taking everyday, civil measures against becoming a radical crackpot. Another good example of how you keep getting lost travelling a straight line between two clearly visible dots.
>>>hell will freeze over before the CIA states that she was "covert"<<<
They keep stating it but certain blockhead types seem to take a little longer getting it processed.
"But General Hayden and the CIA have cleared these following comments for today's hearing.
During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status with the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958. At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert. This was classified information."
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Plame_hearing_transcript_0316.html
That's it for me on this subject. You and eddy can play your little games amongst yourselves now........making each other feel good with good ole homespun "facts".
>>>I notice you can't name anyone who was impacted by her outing<<<
That sentence pretty much says it all. You're either terminally stupid or short circuited by Bush loyalism (or both)
To a normally aspired american mind this quote ends the discussion on Plame's status:
"But General Hayden and the CIA have cleared these following comments for today's hearing.
During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status with the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958. At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert. This was classified information.'
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Plame_hearing_transcript_0316.html
To you however, it's a signal to go into Bush defense mode which begins with denial and continues with delusion. In other words, an abnormal american mind.
If it weren't for the fact that you're able to vote and buy guns, you'd be a sad joke....an inspiration to others to just be different than you.....at any cost.
I'm getting a little tired of doing all the thinking for you eddy. You seem totally unable to draw a straight line between two dots no matter how large they are and no matter how short the distance between them.
"The leak of a CIA operative's name has also exposed the identity of a CIA front company, potentially expanding the damage caused by the original disclosure, Bush administration officials said yesterday.
The inadvertent disclosure of the name of a business affiliated with the CIA underscores the potential damage to the agency and its operatives caused by the leak of Plame's identity. Intelligence officials have said that once Plame's job as an undercover operative was revealed, other agency secrets could be unraveled and her sources might be compromised or endangered.
A former diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity said yesterday that every foreign intelligence service would run Plame's name through its databases within hours of its publication to determine if she had visited their country and to reconstruct her activities.
"That's why the agency is so sensitive about just publishing her name," the former diplomat said."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40012-2003Oct3?language=printer
And let me add this. Not only do you look like a moron for thinking a spy working on WMD proliferation issues overseas under the cover of a front company is all on her own. You also look like an unpatriotic piece of trash for continuing to mock Plame as an insignificant bimbo in the face of a heroic picture of her being painted by the CIA chief himself. Don't know what the hell's wrong with you but something ain't hooked up right. Bush protectionism turned obsession would be my guess.
>>>I'd be very interested in any FACTS ( ie not OPINIONS ) on that statement<<<
A month ago, Henry Waxman, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:
I have met with -- personally with General Hayden, the head of the CIA, to discuss what I can and cannot say about Ms. Wilson's service. And I want to thank him for his cooperation and help in guiding us along these lines.
My staff has also worked with the agency to assure these remarks do not contain classified information. I have been advised by the CIA, and that even now -- after all that has happened -- I cannot disclose the full nature, scope and character of Ms. Wilson's service to our nation without causing serious damage to our national security interests.
But General Hayden and the CIA have cleared these following comments for today's hearing.
During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status with the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958. At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert. This was classified information. Ms. Wilson served in senior management positions at the CIA in which she oversaw the work for other CIA employees and she attained the level of GS-14 -- Step Six under the federal pay scale. Ms. Wilson worked on some of the most sensitive and highly secretive matters handled by the CIA. Ms. Wilson served at various times overseas for the CIA.
Without discussing the specifics of Ms. Wilson's classified work, it is accurate to say that she worked on the prevention of the development and use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States. In her various positions at the CIA, Ms. Wilson faced significant risks to her personal safety and her life. She took on serious risks on behalf of our country. Ms. Wilson's work in many situations had consequence for the security of her colleagues, and maintaining her cover was critical to protecting the safety of both colleagues and others.
The disclosure of Ms. Wilson's employment with the CIA had several serious affects. First, it terminated her covert job opportunities with the CIA. Second, it placed her professional contacts at greater risk. And third, it undermined the trust and confidence with which future CIA employees and sources hold the United States. This disclosure of Ms. Wilson's classified employment status with the CIA was so detrimental that the CIA filed a crimes report with the Department of Justice.
As I mentioned, Ms. Wilson's work was so sensitive that even now she is still prohibited from discussing many details of her work in public because of the continuing risks to CIA officials and assets in the field, and to the CIA's ongoing work. Some have suggested that Ms. Wilson did not have a sensitive position with the CIA or a position of unusual risk. As a CIA employee, Ms. Wilson has taken a lifelong oath to protect classified information, even after her CIA employment has ended. As a result, she cannot respond to most of the statements made about her.
I want to make clear, however, that any characterization that minimizes the personal risk of Ms. Wilson that she accepted in her assignments is flatly wrong. There should be no confusion on this point. Ms. Wilson has provided great service to our nation and has fulfilled her obligation to protect classified information admirably and we're confident she will uphold it again today.
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Plame_hearing_transcript_0316.html
In case you missed it, these comments by Waxman had been cleared by CIA chief Michael Hayden prior to being delivered on the house floor. Hayden by the way is a republican who seems to hold Plame in higher regard than yourself, hap and the rest of the patriots here who have spent the past three years ridiculing her as a useless desk clerk.
Anything else?
>>>that seems so clear -- whatever could be the problem with the CIA, one might wonder --<<<
What you and the fascist tabloids call a CIA "problem" seems to amount to nothing more than their failure to respond with what you would like to hear. When they say "it is taking longer than expected" to reply because of "the considerable legal complexity required for this tasking", who knows what they refer to (except Clarice Feldman)? An entire CIA network was destroyed with this leak and wack job Bush fans can't figure out why there isn't immediate full disclosure on all the details of it.
Your community likes to talk forever to make simple things seem complex. I like to keep simple things simple and this is one of them.
Plame, as a CIA employee, only has to fulfill 2 criteria for covert status:
1. Her status had to be classified which everyone agree it was.
2. She had to have served, not necessarily lived, overseas within 5 years prior to the leak which she said she did - under oath.
This is based on the legal definition of covert and has nothing to do with the CIA's opinion. So this simple question remains: Under what circumstance does this NOT boil down to whether Plame served overseas between 1998 and 2003?
>>>she is not qualified to make that determination<<<
Legal definition of covert agent,
From the US Code Collection:
TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 15 > SUBCHAPTER IV > § 426 Prev | Next
§ 426. Definitions
4) The term “covert agent” means—
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sec_50_00000426----000-.html
Pretty simple and straight forward which explains why fascist talk show hosts are busy contaminating the minds of the loyal flock with what they do best: Disseminating raw sewage over the airwaves.
Only two criteria must be met for covert status so again.......per the definition above, your only hope is that Plame lied under oath about her overseas assignments over the past 5 years. Like your odds?
A full of himself idiot is what it sounds like to me. A public servant who doesn't believe in seat belts and takes offense at a state trooper asking him to please put it on.
>>>Corzine is the new posterboy for seatbelt safety -- and stupidity.<<<
Did you see this?
BLITZER: Is there an answer to the question why he wasn't wearing a seatbelt?
COSTELLO: There's never any excuse for that, is there?
But according to Corzine's chief of staff, he said the governor usually wore a seatbelt and when asked why the state trooper driving Corzine's car didn't ask the governor to put it on, Tom Shea said the governor was not always amenable to that.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0704/13/sitroom.01.html
>>>WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.<<<
Give it up hap. As you've been known to say yourself.......playing dense doesn't suit your style. I'll cover Wilson's comment later but first this: If the clandestine officer herself testifies under oath to the fact that she was covert, why is anything said by anyone else relevant any longer? Her testimony narrows the entire dispute of her status down to two possibilities:
1. She told the truth and the game is over.
2. She lied under oath knowing full well that thousands of people able to call her bluff were watching.
Which one would you bet 100 bucks on?
As for Joe Wilson's comment (My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity), please don't tell me you choose to interpret it as if he admits she was not a clandestine officer at the time of the leak? If that's how you understand it, just let me know and I'll clarify.
>>>most repub-neocons will not swear under oath..<<<
and if they're forced to and then lie they were "tricked".