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.
RR, can you give me your opinion on something I've noticed? People who are "liberal" seem to favor abortion and no death penalty, and those who are "conservative", especially "religious conservative" seem to be "pro life" yet favor the death penalty. Seems strange to me. Any thoughts here?
you are doing yoemans work............
Yoemans work is:
a) Constantly saying "yo"
b) Making half a yo-yo
c) Year-old work for a man
d) Making roll call lists
e) Other __________ (fill in the blank)
I honestly think that you're above your head.
Novel way to describe a headstand.
Nothing amazing about it, when one considers the course.
This is a post about which of the following:
a)Golf
b)River rafting
c)School
d)Politics
e)Other _________ (fill in the blank)
Who's to blame? The answer is right here...#msg-18882140
Uhh, the "other board" is NOLIB, where people are banned for expressing their opinion? And the person who posted it wouldn't post it here, for fear that someone might "talk back"? Ya, thanks for thinking it "belongs" here. It only belongs here if you are posting it as an expression of what you believe. So, does it?
Global Warming Called Security Threat
By ANDREW C. REVKIN and TIMOTHY WILLIAMS
Published: April 15, 2007
For the second time in a month, private consultants to the government are warning that human-driven warming of the climate poses risks to the national security of the United States.
A report, scheduled to be published on Monday but distributed to some reporters yesterday, said issues usually associated with the environment — like rising ocean levels, droughts and violent weather caused by global warming — were also national security concerns.
“Unlike the problems that we are used to dealing with, these will come upon us extremely slowly, but come they will, and they will be grinding and inexorable,” Richard J. Truly, a retired United States Navy vice admiral and former NASA administrator, said in the report.
The effects of global warming, the study said, could lead to large-scale migrations, increased border tensions, the spread of disease and conflicts over food and water. All could lead to direct involvement by the United States military.
The report recommends that climate change be integrated into the nation’s security strategies and says the United States “should commit to a stronger national and international role to help stabilize climate changes at levels that will avoid significant disruption to global security and stability.”
The report, called “National Security and the Threat of Climate Change,” was commissioned by the Center for Naval Analyses, a government-financed research group, and written by a group of retired generals and admirals called the Military Advisory Board.
In March, a report from the Global Business Network, which advises intelligence agencies and the Pentagon on occasion, concluded, among other things, that rising seas and more powerful storms could eventually generate unrest as crowded regions like Bangladesh’s sinking delta become less habitable,
One of the authors of the report, Peter Schwartz, a consultant who studies climate risks and other trends for the Defense Department and other clients, said the climate system, jogged by a century-long buildup of heat-trapping gases, was likely to rock between extremes that could wreak havoc in poor countries with fragile societies.
“Just look at Somalia in the early 1990s,” Mr. Schwartz said. “You had disruption driven by drought, leading to the collapse of a society, humanitarian relief efforts, and then disastrous U.S. military intervention. That event is prototypical of the future.”
“Picture that in Central America or the Caribbean, which are just as likely,” he said. “This is not distant, this is now. And we need to be preparing.”
Other recent studies have shown that drought and scant water have already fueled civil conflicts in global hot spots like Afghanistan, Nepal, and Sudan, according to several recent studies.
This bodes ill, given projections that human-driven warming is likely to make some of the world’s driest, poorest places drier still, experts said.
“The evidence is fairly clear that sharp downward deviations from normal rainfall in fragile societies elevate the risk of major conflict,” said Marc Levy of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, which recently published a study on the relationship between climate and civil war.
Given that climate models project drops in rainfall in such places in a warming world, Mr. Levy said, “It seems irresponsible not to take into account the possibility that a world with climate change will be a more violent world when making judgments about how tolerable such a world might be.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/us/15warm.html
Not sure who you are referring to, but I support Bush's stance, as quoted in the iBox:
I will never question the patriotism of somebody who disagrees with me.--George Bush, News Conference 8/21/06
We need such an erudite poster ...
Hey, this is iHub!!
don't care to enter into a long discertation ...
Would you agree that there is a place for public service? Aren't there some functions best served by government rather than the private sector?
This would be a good place to start...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
I like evacutation day myself
Ah, a land developer.
I'm still pissed they killed 3000+ Americans on 9/11. And I don't want that to happen again.
Me neither, but you need to add an additional 3,500 to your numbers.
===========================================
U.S. military changes how it brings dead soldiers' bodies home
By Bill Poovey, Associated Press Writer
In an about-face by the U.S. government four years into the war in Iraq, America's fallen troops are being brought back to their families aboard charter jets instead of ordinary commercial flights, and the caskets are being met by honor guards in white gloves instead of baggage handlers with forklifts.
That change - which took effect quietly in January and applies to members of the U.S. military killed in Afghanistan, too - came after a campaign waged by a father who was aghast to learn that his son's body was going to be unloaded like so much luggage.
John Holley said an airline executive told him that was the “most expeditious” way to get the body home.
“I said, ‘That's not going to happen with my son. That's not how my son is coming home,'” said Holley, an Army veteran from San Diego whose son, Spc. Matthew Holley, was killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq in 2005. “If it was ‘expeditious' to deliver them in garbage trucks, would you do that?”
Kalitta Charters of Ypsilanti, Mich., won the Pentagon contract to bring the war dead home, and has returned 143 bodies since Jan. 1.
More than 3,500 Americans have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Before the new law was passed by Congress, the dead that arrived from overseas at the military mortuary in Dover, Del., were then typically flown to the commercial airport nearest their families.
Some were met by smartly uniformed military honor guards. But in other cases, the flag-draped caskets were unceremoniously taken off the plane by ordinary ground crew members and handed over to the family at a warehouse in a cargo area.
Now, the military is flying the dead into smaller regional airports closer to their hometowns, so that they can be met by their families and, in some cases, receive community tributes. And the caskets are being borne from the plane by an honor guard.
Last year, the U.S. military spent about $1.2 million to bring home the dead on commercial flights. Switching to charter flights will cost far more: The six-month Kalitta contract is worth up to $11 million.
“It's so much more dignified, so much more a respectable way of getting them home,” said Tom Bellisario, a Kalitta pilot who has flown more than 30 of the missions.
“It's definitely an honor for all of us,” Bellisario said. “You figure the last time they saw that person they were alive. As soon as we pull the flag-draped casket into the doorway you hear the crying. You can sense it in the air.”
John Holley said he believed his 21-year-old son deserved a more dignified return than the Pentagon was planning, and complained to his congressman, then-House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif. He also got help from Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.
They made sure an honor guard from Holley's unit based at Fort Campbell, Ky., was sent to Lindbergh Field in San Diego for the arrival of the body. Holley said the ceremony was dignified and fitting.
Then he turned his attention to other U.S. soldiers.
“What about all these other parents?” Holley said. “This is one of the last memories. I don't want it to be in a warehouse on a forklift.”
Military officials have said commercial airliners were used previously because that was the fastest way to return the dead to their families.
Hunter wrote a letter to then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in December 2005, calling for more appropriate military honors. Speaking from the House floor in May, Hunter said: “The extreme respect that should be afforded those fallen heroes ... has in some cases, been lacking.”
Persuaded by Hunter and others, Congress passed a law that requires the remains to be flown on a military or military-contracted aircraft. There must be an escort and an honor guard. Commercial airliners are used only if requested by families, or in cases where remains are sent outside the United States.
“We are happy with what this has been able to provide the families and the relatives,” said Pentagon spokesman Maj. Stewart Upton. “Regardless of what the reality was, there was a perception there that the proper respect was not being provided to those who made the ultimate sacrifice. That is no longer a question.”
Kalitta's manager for the project, Steve Greene, said the sight of a forklift unloading a casket proved too much for military families.
“You just don't do that,” he said. “And doing that with a family watching it, they don't want to see their son's casket being unloaded with a forklift or a belt loader, and this is what Congress saw.”
Kalitta brought home the body of Army Staff Sgt. Terry William Prater, of Speedwell, Tenn., on March 23. Prater, 25, was killed by a roadside bomb in Baghdad.
Michael Patton, a police sergeant from New Tazewell, Tenn., attended the arrival ceremony at the Knoxville airport. He said he was impressed by the military escort and the precision color guard.
The ceremony was held in a shaded, general aviation section of the suburban airport. The jet rolled to within 50 feet of a waiting hearse, offering the privacy the family requested.
“It showed more respect than him being on a plane with the rest of the luggage,” Patton said.
http://www.theworldlink.com/articles/2007/04/07/news/news05040707.prt
I was making a general comment, but to answer your question, we are indeed making war. Others here will give you their own opinion on whom.
My point is it is easy to say "stop the killing"; if only the Pope's desire could be translated into instant fact. The "how" is difficult, as you may notice by the variety of opinions on the subject.
Political will is, BTW, key to winning any war, and must be considered in entering into one. Our leaders seem to forget the lessons of ill-fated past ventures.
His sentiment is echoed here. If only he would tell us how.
chunga, have any idea what Pope Benedict is saying here...
...in the Middle East, besides some signs of hope in the dialogue between Israel and the Palestinian authority, nothing positive comes from Iraq, torn apart by continual slaughter as the civil population flees.
Climate change is here now, says major report
12:58 06 April 2007
NewScientist.com news service
Catherine Brahic, Brussels
Climate change is not a future problem but a present one that must be tackled now, concludes the latest chapter of a major climate report.
The report details how different amounts of global warming, ranging from 0°C to 5°C will impact on human society. It also underlines that those who will be most affected are the poor people who are least responsible for increasing levels of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere. Read the summary for policy makers (PDF).
The summary of the latest publication from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was released in Brussels, Belgium, on Friday. It says a two-pronged approach is needed to minimise the crippling effects of global warming on human society.
Firstly, governments need to put in place measures to adapt human settlements to the immediate and unavoidable impacts of climate change, which are already being witnessed around the world. These impacts include diminished agricultural productivity in some areas, stronger storms, a higher likelihood of drought and heat waves, and the long-term dwindling of water supplies as mountain glaciers melt.
Adaptive measures would include building dikes to protect coastal developments from sea-level rises and sowing genetically modified crops that can grow with less water. But even these measures will be overwhelmed in future if governments do not agree now to minimise human greenhouse gas emissions, warn the report's authors.
Real observations
"The latest IPCC chapter is the first to use observations of the Earth's climate rather than predictions of possible future scenarios to conclude that climate change is real," says Saleem Huq, of the International Institute for Environment and Development and one of the chapter's lead authors.
“Ten years ago, we said there was a detectable effect of climate change,” said Martin Parry of the UK’s MetOffice. He chaired the group of 441 scientists who synthesised five years of research into the chapter.
“Five years ago, we said we could detect a regional impact of climate change,” he continued. “Now, we have reviewed 29,000 data sets, and 90% of them show that changes happening worldwide are due to climate change.”
These changes include early flowering seasons, changes in agricultural productivity and changes in insect migrations, but also the intensity of heat waves and storms.
Huq says it is impossible to say with certainty that climate change is the cause of any single hurricane, heat wave, flood or drought. "But, taken together, the increase in frequency and intensity of such events during the last decade of the 20th century provides strong evidence that climate change is already occurring and is no longer a problem of the future."
Looking into the future, the report predicts:
• A 2°C rise from today's temperatures will cause the extinction of 30% of species
• A 3°C warming will lead to widespread coral deaths
• Water availability in the moist tropics and in the high latitudes will increase, but will drop in the semi-arid low latitudes
• Between 2°C and 3°C warming will increase agricultural yields in the high latitudes, but yields will then decrease with higher global temperatures
• A 1°C warming will decrease agricultural yields in the low-latitudes
“That is exactly what we do not want,” says Parry, because countries in the low-latitudes tend to be poor and ill-equipped to adapt to these effects of climate change.
Researchers involved in writing the chapter have been in discussions with government delegates since Monday 2 April approving every word and figure in the chapter’s summary for policymakers. Discussions went through the night from Thursday to Friday morning and only ended well after the summary had been due to be released.
Researchers told New Scientist that the delegation from Saudi Arabia has been particularly assiduous in its criticism of the report’s wording. One main contention related to a figure which attempted to show how impacts could be limited by limiting greenhouse gas emissions. The figure was eventually dropped and replaced with a table showing the likely impacts of different degrees of warming.
The new chapter is the second of the IPCC's new climate change report which is being approved and released in stages throughout 2007. The first chapter was released in February and concluded that there was a 90% chance that human greenhouse gas emissions have warmed the planet. This second chapter looks at the effects of that warming.
Chapter three will focus on the likely effects of limiting greenhouse gas emissions and will be released on 4 May. A final synthesis chapter will be released on 16 November.
The IPCC reports are widely considered to be the most authoritative written on climate change. They consider the latest scientific evidence and are written and reviewed by thousands of the world's leading climate scientists. Their conclusions are then discussed and finalised by representatives of 190 national governments.
Climate Change - Want to know more about global warming – the science, impacts and political debate? Visit our continually updated special report.
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11562-climate-change-is-here-now-says-major-report.htm...
Fact or fiction?
#msg-18546072
I love a good flame...
F--- you, eunch!
I get the feeling that you don't understand the long term (next 50 - 100 years) consequences of global warming. It IS happening, even if one wants to argue the causes or what to do about it. The concern should be for our future generations, not plans for next week's outdoor activities.
================================
Last word on climate is ours, scientists say
By Seth Borenstein
The Associated Press
BRUSSELS, Belgium — Two distinctly different groups, data-driven scientists and nuanced offend-no-one diplomats, collided and then converged last week. At stake: a report on the future of the planet and the changes it faces with global warming.
An inside look at the last few hours of tense negotiations at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) meeting reveals how diplomats won at the end, thanks to persistence and deadlines. But scientists quietly note that they have the last say.
Diplomats from 115 countries and 52 scientists hashed out the most comprehensive and gloomiest warning yet about the possible effects of global warming, from increased flooding, hunger, drought and diseases to the extinction of species.
More than 2,500 scientists worldwide contributed to the report, relying on peer-reviewed studies to make their findings and subjecting them several times to outside review.
The language in the report had to be approved unanimously by governments. Among scientists, changes had to be by consensus. In addition, every change of wording had to be approved by all scientists who wrote the affected section.
In the past, scientists at these meetings believed that their warnings were conveyed, albeit slightly edited down. But several left Friday with the sense that they had lost control of their document.
At one point, a U.S. representative, NASA's Cynthia Rosenzweig, filed a formal protest and left the building in which the talks were being held, only to return, make peace and talk in positive tones. Others talked about abandoning the process.
"There was no split in the science; they were all mad," said John Coequyt, who observed the closed-door negotiations for the environmental group Greenpeace.
But Yvo de Boer, the top climate official for the United Nations, countered that it was a "difficult choice." If it stayed the way scientists originally wrote it, some countries would not accept nor be bound by the science in the document," de Boer said.
The report doesn't commit countries to action, like the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, but those involved agree that the science is accurate and that global warming is changing the planet and projected to worsen significantly.
Here's how negotiations went, based on interviews and an unusual opportunity for The Associated Press to observe the last 3 ½ hours of debate.
The four-day meeting was supposed to end Thursday afternoon but was extended to Friday morning. A news conference was scheduled for 10 a.m. Friday to release the report, but the document wasn't finished until later.
Interpreters had been sent home at 2 a.m. Friday due to financial issues. Some pages had not been discussed, and some of the most critical issues were not solved as small-group negotiations stalled.
Panel co-chairman Martin Parry of the United Kingdom acknowledged that some parts of the document were eliminated "because there was not enough time to work it through as well."
With such deadline problems, some countries — especially China, Saudi Arabia and at times Russia and the United States — were able to play hardball.
China and Saudi Arabia wanted to lower the level of scientific confidence (from more than 90 to 80 percent) that the report had in a statement about current global-warming effects, and it looked as if they would win because they wouldn't accept the original wording. That's when Rosenzweig walked. But a U.S.-based compromise avoided mention of scientific confidence.
A comparison of the original document, written by scientists, and the finished paper showed major reductions in forecasts for hunger and flooding victims. Instead of "hundreds of millions" of potential flood victims, the report said "many millions."
A key mention of up to 120 million people at risk of hunger because of global warming was eliminated.
Yet scientists have their fallback: a second summary that consists of 79 densely written, heavily footnoted pages.
The "technical summary," which eventually will be released to the public, will not be edited by diplomats. The technical summary, Rosenzweig said, contains "the real facts."
Some highlights, not included in the 23-page already released summary:
• "More than one-sixth of the world population live in glacier- or snowmelt-fed river basins and will be affected by decrease of water volume." And depending on how much fossil fuels are burned in the future, "262-983 million people are likely to move into the water-stressed category" by 2050.
• Global warming could increase the number of hungry in 2080 by between 140 million and 1 billion, depending on how much greenhouse gas is emitted in coming decades.
• "Overall, a two- to three-fold increase of population to be flooded is expected by 2080."
• Malaria, diarrheal diseases, dengue fever, tick-borne diseases, heat-related deaths will all rise with global warming. But in the United Kingdom, the drop in cold-related deaths will be bigger than the increase in heatstroke-related deaths.
• In eastern North America, depending on fossil-fuel emissions, smog will increase and there would be a 4.5 percent increase in smog-related deaths.
• Because global warming will hurt the poor more, there will be more "social-equity" concerns and pressure for governments to do more.
Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times Company
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2003657129&zsection_id=200210....
chunga1, I'm sure you will enjoy this ...
Real Man's Chain Letter:
This chain letter was started in hopes of bringing relief to other tired and discouraged men. Unlike most chain letters, this one doesn't cost anything and I think it's a great idea!
Just send a copy of this letter to five of your male friends who are equally tired and discontent.
Then bundle up your wife and/or girlfriend and send her to the man whose name appears at the top of the following list, and add your name to the bottom of the list.
When your turn comes, you will receive 15,625 women. One of them is bound to be better than the one you already have.
At the writing of this letter, a friend of mine had already received 184 women, of whom four were worth keeping,
REMEMBER this chain brings luck.
One man's pit bull died, and the next day he received a Playboy playmate.
An unmarried Jewish man living with his widowed mother was able to choose between a Hooter's waitress and a Hollywood super model.
You can be lucky too, but DO NOT BREAK THE CHAIN!
One man broke the chain and got his wife back again.
Let's keep it going, men! Just add your name to the list below!
Bill Clinton
780 3rd Ave New York, NY 10017
Billie Clinton
780 3rd Ave New York, NY 10017
B. Clinton
780 3rd Ave New York, NY 10017
William Jefferson Clinton
780 3rd Ave New York, NY 10017
W. Jefferson Clinton
780 3rd Ave New York, NY 10017
W. Jeff Clinton
780 3rd Ave New York, NY 10017
W. J. Clinton
780 3rd Ave New York, NY 10017
W. Clinton
780 3rd Ave New York, NY 10017
William J Clinton
780 3rd Ave New York, NY 10017
Willem Clinton
780 3rd Ave New York, NY 10017
Wilhelm Clinton
780 3rd Ave New York, NY 10017
Billy Clinton
780 3rd Ave New York, NY 10017
Willie Clinton
780 3rd Ave New York, NY 10017
Will Clinton
780 3rd Ave New York, NY 10017
Mr. Hillary Clinton
780 3rd Ave New York, NY 10017
Mr. Willie Clinton
780 3rd Ave New York, NY 10017
Sorry, forgot the link...
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i17051#this
The point? Well, different people will take it different ways. For me, I enjoy satire. All Presidents have been fair game for that. :)
You seen this? ...
George Bush - Rush Limbaugh Interview
Written by Gnarly Erik
Story written: 06 April 2007
"The Decider" President Bush, facing growing criticism over his job as chief executive and the handling of the Iraq war agreed to an interview with talk show host Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh, who is famously supportive of Bush and all Neocons was expected to give Bush an easy ride, but that did not happen. Totally out of character, Limbaugh immediately and aggressively launched into a series of hard-hitting questions.
LIMBAUGH: "Mr. President, you have received a lot of criticism for the job you are doing in Iraq. How would you answer your critics?"
BUSH: "I wouldn't. My critics don't know a damned thing. I listen to all the intelligence carefully. If I like it, I act accordingly. If I don't, I do as I must. As you know I'm a decider, not a uniter."
LIMBAUGH: " Well, on that point Mr. President, many people say you just don't care, or are ambivalent. Are you ambivalent about things?"
BUSH: "Am I ambivalent? Well, yes and no. I'm not sure how to answer that. And anyway, anybody who is in a position to serve this country ought to understand the consequences of words."
LIMBAUGH: "Your critics claim you go after anyone who disagrees with you and try to destroy them personally."
BUSH: "Look, I'm the War President, see? This is war time, see? I will protect our country. If I have to personally destroy someone who doesn't like the way I do it, well he never should have disagreed with me in the first place."
LIMBAUGH: "Well, yes sir. But many say this is an unnecessary war, a war of choice and a war which did not have to happen."
BUSH: "I already told you my critics don't know what the hell they are talking about. Of course this war had to happen. In case you don't remember, there were all those WMD's and stuff."
LIMBAUGH: "Well, Mr. President, you used WMD's as the reason to invade Iraq. Since none have been found, do you still believe you did the right thing?"
BUSH: "Of course I do. You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror. Just because no WMD's have been found doesn't mean they aren't there. We know they are buried somewhere in the desert, and just because we may never find them doesn't mean I was wrong. Besides, look at all the freedom and democracy we have brought to Iraq!"
LIMBAUGH: "But, Mr. President, the people in Iraq say they are lot's worse off now than before the war. Many even wish Saddam was still in power."
BUSH: "Those Iraqis don't have the foggiest notion of what's good for them. I'm the decider remember, and I've decided they are going to have freedom and democracy whether they like it or want it or not."
LIMBAUGH: "What about Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame affair. Did you have a hand in that controversy?"
BUSH: "I did not. I turned that over to Vice President Cheney. If there was any dirty work involved, Dickie did it. I think that the vice president is a person reflecting a half-glass-full mentality."
LIMBAUGH: "But, you will take personal responsibility won't you?"
BUSH: "Hell no! Why should I? I never took personal responsibility for anything in my life. Dick knew what he was doing. Wilson is lucky Dick didn't decide to just shoot him."
LIMBAUGH: "Well, Mr. President, I'm going to ask you about all those 'presidential findings' you are signing. More than all the rest of all the presidents in history put together. To the public is seems like you are trying to circumvent the law."
BUSH: "That's just not true. I obey the law. But, if the law gets in the way of doing my job I have to find a way to get it done another way even if some people might think it's illegal. I'm the War President you know. I want to be a war President. No President wants to be a war President, but I am one."
LIMBAUGH: "Well, Mr. President, it's been said that you have lost the trust of the American people. What do you have to say about that?"
BUSH: "Well, there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I'm sorry it's the case, and I'll work hard to try to elevate it."
LIMBAUGH: "Mr. President, I'm sure our listeners will . . . ."
BUSH: (Interrupting): "Look Rush. Seems like I'm wasting my time with you here. When are you going to ask me the real questions?"
LIMBAUGH: "Mr. president, I am asking you the re . . ."
BUSH: (Interrupting): "No hell you're not! You're asking me a bunch of questions just like you were some unpatriotic Democrat! I'm outta here."
LIMBAUGH: "But Mr. President . . ."
BUSH: (interrupting): "Sayonara you traitor!"
Spelling error led to war in Iraq
by James Clingman
April 4, 2007
Colin Powell ominously displayed the aerial views of dangerous chemicals and biological weapons in Iraq. George and Condi spoke to us about "mushroom" clouds and the yellow cake purchase from Niger. Cheney and all the PNAC boys sounded the alarm about WMD, and it was on! We were at war in Iraq. Since that time, the reason for going to war has changed so many times it's ridiculous. From U.S. dollar hegemony (Petrodollars if you will), to control of the oil in the region, to Saddaam killed his own people, to liberation of the Iraqi people. All have been offered as reasons for this stupid war. But now I know why we are there in Iraq; it was all due to a spelling error.
I can hear the conversation now between George Bush and Dick Cheney, of course, with Condi and Karl lingering near. "Hey, Dick, tell me again what our reason is for starting a new war with Iran," George asks. "If we have told you once, George, we have told you a million times. Iran is the real culprit in the war on terror; it poses the greatest threat to us. Haven't you been watching Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, and our other buddies on the news? Haven't I told you to watch Fox News at least once a day?"
Condi chimes in, "George, I have told you what to say and when to say it as well; what's wrong with you? Why is your attention span so short?" George responds, I don't know, Condi; I just seem to get distracted so easily, you know, this is hard work, hard work. But let me get this straight: our greatest threat is Iran not Iraq, right?"
George thumps the side of head like the man in the V-8 commercial and says, "Now I get it! It's that darned "Q" that got me confused. I should have put an "N" in there instead of that darned "Q." What was I thinking?"
"Back in 2002, when we were talking about going to war, I kept thinking it was Iraq, and I kept writing Iraq in my notes. Now you are telling me that Iran is the real threat. I'm sorry; I have been misspelling it all this time," George laments. "It's that darn "Q; Iraq, Iran, this is so confusing. How will I ever explain why we wasted, that's right, I said 'wasted' more than 3,000 soldiers and maimed 30,000 others, all because of a stupid 'Q'?"
Karl responds in exasperation, "That's all right, George, we'll take care of it, just like we always have. The American people bought the WMD story and all the other reasons we gave them, and they will understand that you simply made a spelling error and ordered the destruction of Iraq rather than Iran." Cheney interjects, "The more we tell them Iran is our greatest threat and the place we should be worried about, the more we scare them out of their wits about nuclear weapons being developed over there, the easier it will be for us to go to war with Iran."
"That's right!" George responds. Those people are not even as smart as I am; they will believe anything we tell them, at least they used to. Do you really think they will buy it this time, Dick?"
"No problem, George, we'll handle it. After all, it's time we build your legacy. I can see it now, George W. Bush, the Greatest War President in American History. Even though you went into Iraq by mistake, because of a simple spelling error, it was an honest mistake. Now you have the opportunity to fight two major wars at the same time. Wow! What other President can claim to have done that?"
"Thanks, guys; you're the best team a President could ever have. You all are doin' a heck of a job," Bush says, as he breathes a sigh of relief.
The new campaign has begun. We are being told on a daily basis, many times over, that Iran is the country we must fear as we seek control of the so-called Middle East. It's Iran that has killed the most Americans prior to 911, Iran that poses a nuclear threat, Iran that funds the terrorists. It's now Iran, stupid!
But wait. Didn't the folks who flew the planes into the World Trade Center come from Saudi Arabia? Hasn't it been proven that the Saudi's have funneled money to fund terrorists? Wasn't it Saudi's that were allowed to leave the country by airplane when no one else was allowed to fly after 911? Oh yes, I forgot, the Saudi Royal Family is friends with the Bush Royal Family. Sorry for being so naïve.
Okay, try this one. Wasn't Osama Bin Laden the one who ordered the WTC and Pentagon destruction? Wasn't he living in some cave in Afghanistan, where we went prior to going into Iraq? Whatever happened to Bin Laden anyway? Oh well, as Yul Brynner said in the King and I, "It's a puzzlement." But at least we have a plausible reason for our impending war with Iran; Bush couldn't spell it, and he ordered troops into to Iraq instead.
Back to the conversation. Condi sighs, "The Iraq war was all a huge mistake. Much like Dan Quayle could not spell 'potato,' George, you couldn't spell Iran." Cheney, in support of his President says, "That darned "Q" kept getting in his way, but what a difference one letter can make, huh? Halliburton made tons of money; I'm set for life!" Bush boyishly chimes in, "I may not be able to spell, but Saddaam did try to kill my daddy!"
==============
http://www.chicagodefender.com/page/commentary.cfm?ArticleID=8963
James E. Clingman, an adjunct professor at the University of Cincinnati's African American Studies department, is former editor of the Cincinnati Herald newspaper and founder of the Greater Cincinnati African American Chamber of Commerce. He hosts the radio program, 'Blackonomics,' and has written several books, including Black-o-Knowledge-Stuff.
More like loose jowls.
... arent you the cute one!
A'll rent you a cute one too!
Is that like "pearls of wisdom, dripping off your lips"?
Great response. You have some real motivated kids, it would seem. Check this out...looks like the Army is trying to compete...
http://www.goarmy.com/benefits/total_compensation.jsp#chart
Check the Earnings section here...your cops are in the lowest 10% of the country?
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos160.htm#earnings
What kind of cop do you get for that money?
Here's an interview with Judy Wood...she doesn't particularly sound like a scientist to me the way she glosses over things, BWDIK...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017
Didn't your parents teach you any manors.
Proper usage is, "A man's home is his castle, in a manor of speaking."
FYI, this was posted here two years ago:
http://deploymentlink.osd.mil/faq/du_faq.shtml
Fred received a parrot for Christmas. The parrot was fully
grown, with a very bad attitude and even worse vocabulary.
Every other word was an expletive; those that weren't
expletives were, to say the least, rude. Fred tried to
change the bird's attitude by constantly saying polite
words, playing soft music - anything that he could think
of. Nothing worked.
He yelled at the bird, and the bird got worse. He shook the
bird, and the bird got even more rude. Finally, in a moment
of desperation, Fred put the parrot in the freezer.
For a few moments he heard the bird swearing, squawking,
kicking and screaming. Then, suddenly, there was absolute
quiet. Fred was frightened that he might have actually
hurt the bird, and quickly opened the freezer door.
The parrot calmly stepped out onto Fred's extended arm and
said, "I'm sorry that I offended you with my language and
my actions, and I ask your forgiveness. I will endeavor to
correct my behavior."
Fred was astounded at the changes in the bird's attitude
and was about to ask what had changed him, when the parrot
continued, "May I ask what the Chicken did?"
A woman went to a pet shop and immediately spotted a
large beautiful parrot. There was a sign on the cage
that said $50.00.
"Why so little," she asked the pet store owner.
The owner looked at her and said, "Look, I should tell
you first that this bird used to live in a house of
prostitution, and sometimes it says some pretty vulgar
stuff."
The woman thought about this, but decided she had to
have the bird anyway. She took it home and hung the
bird's cage up in her living room and waited for it to
say something.
The bird looked around the room, then at her, and
said, "New house, new madam."
The woman was a bit shocked at the implication, but
then thought "that's not so bad."
When her two teenage daughters returned from school
the bird saw them and said, "New house, new madam, new
whores."
The girls and the woman were a bit offended but then
began to laugh about the situation.
Moments later, the woman's husband came home
from work.
The bird looked at him and said, "Hi Fred."
You've read dropdeadfred on iHub...now, see the movie...
the man did nothing he didnt perjur himself
Is that something like bulimia?