"dignity back to the White House"

Lewis Libby.

An undergraduate at Williams College recently reported that her classmates, who had been taught that "all knowledge is a social construct," were doubtful that the Holocaust ever occurred. One of her classmates said, "Although the Holocaust may not have happened, it's a perfectly reasonable conceptual hallucination."

"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction." John Kerry, January 23rd, 2003

If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." -- Bill Clinton, February 17th, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." -- Madeleine Albright, February 1st, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983." -- Sandy Berger, Clinton national security advisor, February 18th, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." That from a letter to President Clinton signed by Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, October 9th, 1998

"We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), September 19th, 2002

"We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, September 23rd, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, September 23rd, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has had for a number of years a developing

capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Senator Bob Graham, Democrat, Florida, December 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Senator Hillary Clinton, October 10th of 2002

"There was unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Senator Jay Rockefeller, October 10th, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Senator John Kerry, October 9th, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27th, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons." -- Robert Byrd (D-WV) October 3rd, 2002.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16th, 1998"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."Madeleine Albright, Clinton's secretary of state, November 10th, 1999.

"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction." John Kerry, January 23rd, 2003

If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." -- Bill Clinton, February 17th, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." -- Madeleine Albright, February 1st, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983." -- Sandy Berger, Clinton national security advisor, February 18th, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." That from a letter to President Clinton signed by Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, October 9th, 1998

"We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), September 19th, 2002

"We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, September 23rd, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, September 23rd, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has had for a number of years a developing

capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Senator Bob Graham, Democrat, Florida, December 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Senator Hillary Clinton, October 10th of 2002

"There was unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Senator Jay Rockefeller, October 10th, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Senator John Kerry, October 9th, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27th, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons." -- Robert Byrd (D-WV) October 3rd, 2002.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16th, 1998"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."Madeleine Albright, Clinton's secretary of state, November 10th, 1999.

   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So, do you think that these people were intentionally trying to mislead the public or do you think that they were not well enough informed?

"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction." John Kerry, January 23rd, 2003

If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." -- Bill Clinton, February 17th, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." -- Madeleine Albright, February 1st, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983." -- Sandy Berger, Clinton national security advisor, February 18th, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." That from a letter to President Clinton signed by Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, October 9th, 1998

"We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), September 19th, 2002

"We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, September 23rd, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, September 23rd, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has had for a number of years a developing

capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Senator Bob Graham, Democrat, Florida, December 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Senator Hillary Clinton, October 10th of 2002

"There was unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Senator Jay Rockefeller, October 10th, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Senator John Kerry, October 9th, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27th, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons." -- Robert Byrd (D-WV) October 3rd, 2002.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16th, 1998"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."Madeleine Albright, Clinton's secretary of state, November 10th, 1999.

   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So, do you think that these people were intentionally trying to mislead the public or do you think that they were not well enough informed?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is a good question. But I don't think anyone knows but them and whatever they say about what they meant is unproveable.

//wrong thread,

In an editorial today, the Wall Street Journal announces it "filed a motion late Wednesday requesting that the federal district court unseal eight pages of redacted information that Mr. Fitzgerald used to justify throwing Judith Miller of the New York Times in the slammer. Here's the closer ...

"... we think Mr. Fitzgerald also has a broader duty, as well as some self-interest, in wrapping his probe up quickly. By keeping the case open even though his grand jury has been shut down, he keeps a cloud over the Bush Administration and hampers its ability to function. If after two years of digging he hasn't found any other crimes, he has an obligation to close up shop.

As for his own self-interest, Mr. Fitzgerald is going to have a hard enough time proving that Mr. Libby lied based largely on the testimony of three journalists. This is something all libel lawyers understand, and they get to spend weeks preparing reporters under the cloak of attorney-client privilege. Rest assured that Ms. Miller's evocative self-description, "Miss Run Amok," will surface on cross-examination.

At his arraignment yesterday, Mr. Libby pleaded not guilty and his newly hired defense attorney said Mr. Libby wants a jury trial to "clear his good name." Sounds like Mr. Fitzgerald has a fight on his hands."

URL for this article - use BugMeNot

lhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB113107451167788218.html

It's my understanding that the reason Bill and Hillary Clinton were not indicted by Ken Starr, for Whitewater crimes, was his reluctance to try a case that he felt was unwinnable. Not unwinnable because he had too little evidence, but because he didn't think a jury would convict a sitting President and First Lady (many on his staff thought he should have tried, and I wish he had). Prosecutors are like surgeons, they do not want patients who are likely to die on the table, and sully their stats. Filing charges against Libby looks like that's what Fitzgerald did. I don't get it, but someone will tell me. Maybe...

In an editorial today, the Wall Street Journal announces it "filed a motion late Wednesday requesting that the federal district court unseal eight pages of redacted information that Mr. Fitzgerald used to justify throwing Judith Miller of the New York Times in the slammer. Here's the closer ...

"... we think Mr. Fitzgerald also has a broader duty, as well as some self-interest, in wrapping his probe up quickly. By keeping the case open even though his grand jury has been shut down, he keeps a cloud over the Bush Administration and hampers its ability to function. If after two years of digging he hasn't found any other crimes, he has an obligation to close up shop.

As for his own self-interest, Mr. Fitzgerald is going to have a hard enough time proving that Mr. Libby lied based largely on the testimony of three journalists. This is something all libel lawyers understand, and they get to spend weeks preparing reporters under the cloak of attorney-client privilege. Rest assured that Ms. Miller's evocative self-description, "Miss Run Amok," will surface on cross-examination.

At his arraignment yesterday, Mr. Libby pleaded not guilty and his newly hired defense attorney said Mr. Libby wants a jury trial to "clear his good name." Sounds like Mr. Fitzgerald has a fight on his hands."

URL for this article - use BugMeNot

lhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB113107451167788218.html

It's my understanding that the reason Bill and Hillary Clinton were not indicted by Ken Starr, for Whitewater crimes, was his reluctance to try a case that he felt was unwinnable.  Not unwinnable because he had too little evidence, but because he didn't think a jury would convict a sitting President and First Lady (many on his staff thought he should have tried, and I wish he had).  Prosecutors are like surgeons, they do not want patients who are likely to die on the table, and sully their stats.  Filing charges against Libby looks  like that's what Fitzgerald did. I don't get it, but someone will tell me.  Maybe...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

After a jaw dropper a day my jaw just ain't dropping any more.

After a jaw dropper a day my jaw just ain't dropping any more.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I stopped yawning weeks ago.

After a jaw dropper a day my jaw just ain't dropping any more.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I stopped yawning weeks ago.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

From this link: http://www.aip.org/pnu/2005/753.html

Drowning in Quick Sand Is impossible

Drowning in quicksand is impossible, according to a new study, relegating this popular plot device in adventure stories to the category of pure folklore.

Consisting of a mixture of sand, salt water, and clay, quicksand captured the attention of University of Amsterdam physicist Daniel Bonn when he went on a family trip to Iran, the birthplace of his wife. Collecting a sample of quicksand near a body of water in Iran, and bringing it to his laboratory for study, Bonn and his colleagues showed that shaking aluminum beads designed to have the same density as human beings, would partially, but never fully, submerge them.

Since quicksand is twice as dense as water, the beads (and humans) only sink about halfway. Shaking or otherwise disturbing the quicksand liquefies it, increasing the downward flow of the beads by a factor of a million. This is how humans can get stuck in it. Since quicksand is often located near bodies of water, Bonn speculates that high tidal floods passing over individuals stuck in quicksand may have caused casualties incorrectly ascribed to sinking fully in it.

Bonn says his conclusions apply to all kinds of quicksand. Nonetheless, the force required to lift a foot out of quicksand can be equal to that required to raise a car. His solution: wiggling the stuck foot will cause water to trickle down, allowing the hapless adventurer to get out of it.

Khaldoun et al., Nature, September 29, 2005

From this link:  http://www.aip.org/pnu/2005/753.html

Drowning in Quick Sand Is impossible

Drowning in quicksand is impossible, according to a new study, relegating this popular plot device in adventure stories to the category of pure folklore.

Consisting of a mixture of sand, salt water, and clay, quicksand captured the attention of University of Amsterdam physicist Daniel Bonn when he went on a family trip to Iran, the birthplace of his wife. Collecting a sample of quicksand near a body of water in Iran, and bringing it to his laboratory for study, Bonn and his colleagues showed that shaking aluminum beads designed to have the same density as human beings, would partially, but never fully, submerge them.

Since quicksand is twice as dense as water, the beads (and humans) only sink about halfway. Shaking or otherwise disturbing the quicksand liquefies it, increasing the downward flow of the beads by a factor of a million. This is how humans can get stuck in it. Since quicksand is often located near bodies of water, Bonn speculates that high tidal floods passing over individuals stuck in quicksand may have caused casualties incorrectly ascribed to sinking fully in it.

Bonn says his conclusions apply to all kinds of quicksand. Nonetheless, the force required to lift a foot out of quicksand can be equal to that required to raise a car. His solution: wiggling the stuck foot will cause water to trickle down, allowing the hapless adventurer to get out of it.

Khaldoun et al., Nature, September 29, 2005

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do your personal experiences prove otherwise, then?

He's Bad, in a Hijab

The man who redefines the term “stark raving loony” sets a new standard .

Michael Jackson’s toilet faux pas in Dubai.

DUBAI — "When she went to the ladies washroom in the Egyptian Court of Ibn Battuta Mall at 9.30 last night, 37-year old Latifa M. never imagined that she would come face to face with pop icon Michael Jackson, who walked in dressed in a T-shirt and trousers, with his head covered with the Emirati women’s traditional head scarf Sheila.

The Tunisian, who is a teacher in a private school in Dubai, screamed in shock and ran out of the ladies room when she realised that the woman-like person was a man. She went back in to photograph the pop singer with her mobile phone, while he was busy fixing his make up.

This time it was the turn of Michael Jackson who ran after the Ajman-based teacher, to retrieve the pictures. The scene attracted the security of the mall, who tried to take the phone from Latifa, but she refused and asked for compensation, while the two women accompanying Jackson tried to convince her to sit in private and settle the issue."

Looks like Jacko sorta likes the whole honor-raping scene and wants to learn first hand what all the fuss is about!

The Politics of Public Washroom Space

This session aims to bring together scholars from a variety of disciplinary backgrounds to address the politics of public washroom spaces. Scholarly investigation of public washrooms is relatively rare, despite the fact that these spaces have become highly politicised in recent years. Activists have critiqued the regulation of public washrooms with growing frequency and effect, and have made new demands of and for their production and regulation. Anti-poverty and homelessness activists are lobbying for increased access to spaces for basic acts of social reproduction, queer and transgendered activists are demanding alternatives to the strict binary gendering of these public spaces while (dis)ability activists are calling for ‘public’ spaces to reflect the range of embodied abilities of the body politic [continues]Call for papers, annual general meeting of the American Association of Geographers

From this link:  http://www.aip.org/pnu/2005/753.html

Drowning in Quick Sand Is impossible

Drowning in quicksand is impossible, according to a new study, relegating this popular plot device in adventure stories to the category of pure folklore.

Consisting of a mixture of sand, salt water, and clay, quicksand captured the attention of University of Amsterdam physicist Daniel Bonn when he went on a family trip to Iran, the birthplace of his wife. Collecting a sample of quicksand near a body of water in Iran, and bringing it to his laboratory for study, Bonn and his colleagues showed that shaking aluminum beads designed to have the same density as human beings, would partially, but never fully, submerge them.

Since quicksand is twice as dense as water, the beads (and humans) only sink about halfway. Shaking or otherwise disturbing the quicksand liquefies it, increasing the downward flow of the beads by a factor of a million. This is how humans can get stuck in it. Since quicksand is often located near bodies of water, Bonn speculates that high tidal floods passing over individuals stuck in quicksand may have caused casualties incorrectly ascribed to sinking fully in it.

Bonn says his conclusions apply to all kinds of quicksand. Nonetheless, the force required to lift a foot out of quicksand can be equal to that required to raise a car. His solution: wiggling the stuck foot will cause water to trickle down, allowing the hapless adventurer to get out of it.

Khaldoun et al., Nature, September 29, 2005

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do your personal experiences prove otherwise, then?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm just devastated that Hollywood and the Boy Scouts lied to me all these years.

I'm just devastated that Hollywood and the Boy Scouts lied to me all these years.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, I see your point, as, apart from the Visa Forum, they alone are the principal sources for the Truth as described on Thaivisa.com

Whatever is the world coming to?

We also rely heavily on the teachings of the Mickey Mouse Club.

We also rely heavily on the teachings of the Mickey Mouse Club.

Yeah!

BTW, where is Annette Funicello these days?

We also rely heavily on the teachings of the Mickey Mouse Club.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah!

BTW, where is Annette Funicello these days?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are showing your age old mate.

We also rely heavily on the teachings of the Mickey Mouse Club.

Yeah!

BTW, where is Annette Funicello these days?

You are showing your age old mate.

I used to have wet-dreams thinking about her and that little blond - what was her name? Cheryl or something?

How's the eyesight ?

Conservative talk-show host Bill O'Reilly is ready to scratch San Francisco off the map of the United States. Gone. Coit Tower? Terrorists can blow it up, and the rest of the country shouldn't care.

The Fox News talk-show host and one-man conservative media juggernaut has concluded that the United States and San Francisco just don't go together anymore. Voting to oppose military recruitment in public schools and to ban handgun ownership, as San Franciscans did Tuesday, means the city should be cut off from federal dollars. And then some.

"You know, if I'm the president of the United States, I walk right into Union Square, I set up my little presidential podium and I say, 'Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds,' " O'Reilly said Tuesday on his radio show as San Franciscans were approving the two measures. Perhaps, he didn't realize that he'd be speaking mostly to foreign tourists and suburbanites if he were standing in Union Square.

"Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead," O'Reilly went on. "And if al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead."

From: San Francisco Chronicle

Talk about given the Irish a bad name.

It's come to this

"An Australian woman who is deaf, blind and physically and mentally disabled wants to sue the doctor who allowed her to be born.

Lawyers for Alexia Harriton, 24, who needs round-the-clock care, made the application yesterday to the Australian High Court, arguing that her mother's doctor was negligent in failing to diagnose rubella infection early in the pregnancy."

Liberals don't like soldiers. During the sixties, they pretended to empathise with those who were drafted into Vietnam service, but didn't refrain from hurling a bucket of pig's blood on those who were politically insensitive enough to wear their uniforms with the sleeves still attached. As we saw last week in the diaries of the Australian former opposition leader, not much has changed. People who enlist for service are to be scorned, even by those lying elite liberals who profess a common love of country.

"The fact that virtually all of the officers in the Australian army already possess university degrees would tend to negate the thrust of their inference; that in life one must choose between being intelligent (liberal - weighed down with government-financed arts degrees you will never pay off) or a soldier (stupid, mindless killing machine feted to die somewhere ignobly for George McChimpy Halliburton). The possibility that young men and women might actually want to serve their country, motivated not by bloodlust or blind stupidity, never occurs to a liberal, whose selfish state of mind is completely hardcoded into their being."

Link

Conservative talk-show host Bill O'Reilly is ready to scratch San Francisco off the map of the United States. Gone. Coit Tower? Terrorists can blow it up, and the rest of the country shouldn't care.

The Fox News talk-show host and one-man conservative media juggernaut has concluded that the United States and San Francisco just don't go together anymore. Voting to oppose military recruitment in public schools and to ban handgun ownership, as San Franciscans did Tuesday, means the city should be cut off from federal dollars. And then some.

"You know, if I'm the president of the United States, I walk right into Union Square, I set up my little presidential podium and I say, 'Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds,' " O'Reilly said Tuesday on his radio show as San Franciscans were approving the two measures. Perhaps, he didn't realize that he'd be speaking mostly to foreign tourists and suburbanites if he were standing in Union Square.

"Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead," O'Reilly went on. "And if al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead."

From: San Francisco Chronicle

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The guy is totally insane. He reminds me of Boon Me

(Boon Me worship O'Reilly like a God)

It's come to this

"An Australian woman who is deaf, blind and physically and mentally disabled wants to sue the doctor who allowed her to be born.

Lawyers for Alexia Harriton, 24, who needs round-the-clock care, made the application yesterday to the Australian High Court, arguing that her mother's doctor was negligent in failing to diagnose rubella infection early in the pregnancy."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is Learnt behaviour from our American friends, however it says more about lawyers in general.

The guy is totally insane. He reminds me of Boon Me 

(Boon Me worship O'Reilly like a God)

You got an Arts degree there, Butterfly?

Liberals don't like soldiers. During the sixties, they pretended to empathise with those who were drafted into Vietnam service, but didn't refrain from hurling a bucket of pig's blood on those who were politically insensitive enough to wear their uniforms with the sleeves still attached. As we saw last week in the diaries of the Australian former opposition leader, not much has changed. People who enlist for service are to be scorned, even by those lying elite liberals who profess a common love of country.

"The fact that virtually all of the officers in the Australian army already possess university degrees would tend to negate the thrust of their inference; that in life one must choose between being intelligent (liberal - weighed down with government-financed arts degrees you will never pay off) or a soldier (stupid, mindless killing machine feted to die somewhere ignobly for George McChimpy Halliburton). The possibility that young men and women might actually want to serve their country, motivated not by bloodlust or blind stupidity, never occurs to a liberal, whose selfish state of mind is completely hardcoded into their being."

Link

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

:cheesy:

Join the army....travel to exotic lands....meet interesting people..and kill them.

:cheesy: