From: Carbon on 18 Dec 2009 13:52
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:11:17 -0600, MNMikeW wrote:
> "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote in message
>> "Chris Bellomy" <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote in message
>>> assimilate(a)borg.org wrote, On 12/17/09 10:09 PM:
>>>> On 17-Dec-2009, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote:
>>>>> There has been considerable reporting about the stovepiping of
>>>>> intel through Cheney's office. I want to be precise about this,
>>>>> though: *Cheney's* office.
>>>>> But the links between Cheney and the doctored intel are documented
>>>>> and proved.
>>> talkingpointsmemo.com did quite a bit of the investigative
>>> reporting, which probably explains why you never read it.
>>> Nevertheless, if you want to get down to the details, those are the
>>> archives to read. The reporting was quite thorough and specific.
>> I read the reports of the four Congressional investigations. It was
>> documented that the intel was not doctored by the Bush
> You need to read more leftwing blogs Mod. ;-)
So, Mike, what's the latest fantasy explanation for the Downing Street
Memos? As you remember, the British government admitted they were legit:
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible
shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush
wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the
conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were
being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN
route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's
record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath
after military action.
From: dsc-ky on 18 Dec 2009 14:27
On Dec 18, 1:50 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote:
> "dsc-ky" <Dudley.Corn...(a)eku.edu> wrote in message
> > > So how do you feel about subsidizing Paris?
> > Well I went there in 82. I wouldn't put a dime into it... :)
> > It's amazing how a Tiger thread morphed into a GWB/Clinton/Obama
> > thread and thing to a Paris Hiton thread. Everyone in here must be
> > severly ADD. :)
> It's winter.
True... so true...
From: Alan Baker on 18 Dec 2009 17:29
In article <s4CdnTGpmY9GE7bWnZ2dnUVZ_uFi4p2d(a)supernews.com>,
Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote, On 12/18/09 2:05 AM:
> > In article <z_-dnfNr6rQGt7bWnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d(a)supernews.com>,
> > Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote:
> >> Alan Baker wrote, On 12/17/09 11:59 PM:
> >>> Nope. The same reasoning works for them. They got the money they have
> >>> because they made it happen.
> >> And they made it happen by being big players at Goldman Sachs
> >> and dumping all their risk on the taxpayer while they collect
> >> the reward.
> > A tiny fraction did that, Chris. Be honest.
> It's a tiny fraction of people we're discussing, to which
> went a ton of money.
No, Chris. It's a tiny fraction of your tiny fraction.
> >> Or, they made it happen by using the power bequeathed to them
> >> by their parents, and the connections power provides, to put
> >> themselves in position to win lucrative defense contracts from
> >> the government, again at the expense of the taxpayer.
> > Nope. That won't *earn* them money.
> I suggest you look at executive compensation and share-
> holder return for certain defense industry corporations
> over the last decade.
> >> These are the ultra-elite I'm talking about here. We're talking
> >> wealth that no one in this group can imagine *seeing*, much
> >> less making in one year. In case you haven't been paying
> >> attention, they run the country, and have been running it
> >> for awhile now.
> > You're talking about the politics of envy.
> No envy. I'm just saying that a permanent oligarchy is
> bad for the country. I sure as hell don't want to *be*
> part of the ruling elite.
Vancouver, British Columbia
From: Alan Baker on 18 Dec 2009 17:31
In article <mo7mi5pgq79b9atdsrncsl9otrc4mopvgb(a)4ax.com>,
David Laville <dglaville(a)nospam.bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 21:44:17 -0800, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net>
> >No, Chris. That usage of the term "regressive" is emotionally loaded and
> >I won't buy it.
> Yes Chris, please stop using that emotionally loaded word "regressive"
> or Baker may hit you with his purse.
Vancouver, British Columbia
From: R&B on 18 Dec 2009 22:49
On 2009-12-08 12:16:14 -0500, Kev <zipplewrath(a)gmail.com> said:
> Okay, so a broken clock is right twice a day. But the question does
> have to be asked, was Tiger's behavior, much of which Pitts found so
> objectionable, and indication of a larger attitude problem? Was his
> on course out burst a "firery competitor", or a "self possess jock"?
> Was his intense interest in privacy, and distance from fans and media
> figure stuck living in the lime light, or a guy who wanted to live in
> a different world with different rules? Johnny Miller, not my
> favorite guy, once said that he never thought he got an honest answer
> out of Tiger. He also complained that he didn't think Tiger showed
> HIM enough respect. Is this Johnny's problem or does Tiger divide the
> world into "those worthy and those not" and one might be surprised at
> whom is on which list?
> The bottom line is was Tiger an obnoxious jerk all along and we
> didn't want to see it? Or is he just another flawed human that was
> able to cover his flaws from the public... for a while?
I don't recall anyone ever saying he wasn't an obnoxious jerk all along.
All we were saying was that we were able to separate the person from
the performance, and we admired the performance.
The fact that a particular person was responsible for that performance
only served to raise our interest in him...but only as a performer. A
I don't recall anyone here ever offering to have him over to the house
for dinner...or to date their daughter...or to entrust him with their
Ken was simply unable to separate the man from the performance. A
typical reaction of a simpleton incapable of complex thinking.