---

Account frozen...

.
.......Uh oh, .....er, um, ...................Houston, we have a problem here.


The Honorably Indicted Tom DeLay was just placed on the Appropriations subcommittee in charge of the NASA budget.

Putting DeLay in charge of handing out money is just like putting Mike Brown back in charge of FEMA.......

You can't make this stuff up.....

------------------------------

In other news.......


Take 700 Billion Revenue Dollars, ......(set up an administrative system of still as yet undefined so- called 'voluntary private accounts'), and cut out basic benefits, such as,disability benefits, death benefits and survivor benefits for widows, widowers and children, to pay for it.........

Bush is back with his Social Security Bamboozlement Plan...... it's already written into his budget.

Watch those Rethugnants who are up for re-election as they run screaming from this.....

...............

---

Tom, you're wasting your breath on him. He's probably splattering postings all over the internet. Here at Seti, he doesn't even have a computer attached to the project, nor has he, in quite some time; and then only briefly. He has no interest in the project except to spue troll bile. At times I've even agreed with him, but the way he presents his message is a complete turn off. He's just as bad as the religious fanatics on another thread who hide behind an ancient text rather than having an open discussion. Needless to say, my own tact at times has room for improvement when having discourse with idiots. The only advice I can give is to filter him.

Maybe you're right. I haven't filered anyone since WW, but as it seems no one is listening to him (or can follow his ramblings--I'm not sure which), so I'll just cut him out.

As for the religious fanatics, there are too many of them in various threads and of various stripes for me to have any idea who you mean . . . unless you mean all of them. Didn't one of them call you a racist? It was easier when there was just one WW who we all agreed was a disruptive troll.

Tom I too tried to have some reasonable debate with Paul but I realized very quickly that it was not possible to do so and decided it was wise just to ignore as DogBytes suggest.

When I first came here I had one run in with Dogbytes, but have actually found now that we agree on most things, funny how things change once you get to know people.

---

When I first came here I had one run in with Dogbytes, but have actually found now that we agree on most things, funny how things change once you get to know people.

The assumption being that Paul will actually listen to counter agruments. He doesn't so it is just best to ignore him.. Fishing season will start and he will go away for a while..

Don't let dogbreath bother you.. I have heard the lessor canine arguing with himself and he was losing...

---

I'd rather speak my mind because it hurts too much to bite my tongue.

American Spirit BBQ Proudly Serving those that courageously defend freedom.

Don't let dogbreath bother you.. I have heard the lessor canine arguing with himself and he was losing...

See now this cracks me up, the humor I find here at times is one of the reasons I keep coming back.

---

When I first came here I had one run in with Dogbytes, but have actually found now that we agree on most things, funny how things change once you get to know people.

The assumption being that Paul will actually listen to counter agruments. He doesn't so it is just best to ignore him.. Fishing season will start and he will go away for a while..

Don't let dogbreath bother you.. I have heard the lessor canine arguing with himself and he was losing...

Wolfie, if you stop licking your nuts and butt long enough, I may be able to understand you...your breath smells of scrotum. :P)

---

Account frozen...

---

Account frozen...

This was how it played out back then....... 'making the case for war'..........

Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, testified to a federal grand jury that he had been "authorized" by Cheney and other White House "superiors" in the summer of 2003 to disclose classified information to journalists to defend the Bush administration's use of prewar intelligence in making the case to go to war with Iraq.


Libby also testified that he worked closely with then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove in deciding what information to leak to the press to build public support for the war, and later, postwar, to defend the administration's use of prewar intelligence.
......................................
What have we now ?

WASHINGTON, Feb. 8 — Sweeping statistics on insurgent violence in Iraq that were declassified for a Senate hearing on Wednesday appear to portray a rebellion whose ability to mount attacks has steadily grown in the nearly three years since the invasion.
---------

Seems the same holds true for the rest of the world.....

Terrorist Incidents Per Year, Both Domestic and International (Including Iraq):


.
.
Bush says we're 'winnin' the 'war on terra'...............

You think they might still need some help in 'making their case' ? ...........

---

[sarcasm/on]

Come on Paul... Quit pushing these terroristic facts upon others... We have all been programmed to live in denial of the truth... And it is much safer for our consciouses that we remain that way... Get with the program Paul... Close your eyes, and believe the lies... Be a 'team' player, after all, it is the 'popular' choice... ;)

[sarcasm/off]


---------------
It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future... ;)

Bush says we're 'winnin' the 'war on terra'...............

You think they might still need some help in 'making their case' ? ...........

The one problem with this chart, is that it is unweighted. A pipe bomb is easy to make, a single person can deploy hundreds of them, and depending on where they are placed each of those is a terrorist act. To count each one of those on equal footing with hijacking a plane, seems very wrong to me.

Break it down, high level (requires planning and multiple participants) and low level (very little planning/can be done by an individual) acts, if the high level acts have increased, then we have a failure.

---

Still looking for something profound or inspirational to place here.

Few want U.S. to be 'isolationist'

By Justin Logan; a foreign policy analyst at the Cato Institute and a member of the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy.

February 9, 2006

During his State of the Union address, President Bush warned Americans about the lure of “isolationism.” The president mentioned “isolationism” or “isolation” four times, warning that the strategy offered only “false comfort” that would result in “danger and decline.”

By contrast, the president explained his own position clearly: “The future security of America depends on ... the end of tyranny in our world.” But who are these isolationists, and what is it that they are proposing?

It's tough to tell. The term “isolationist” didn't arise until the late 19th century, when it was made popular by Alfred Thayer Mahan, an ardent militarist, who used the term to slur opponents of American imperialism. As historian Walter McDougall has pointed out, America's “vaunted tradition of 'isolationism' is no tradition at all, but a dirty word that interventionists, especially since Pearl Harbor, hurl at anyone who questions their policies.”

That's pretty consistent with the way the president used the term.

During the speech, he presented the choice on Iraq in the bipolar manner that has become his trademark: On Iraq, either you're with the president, or you're with the isolationists. “Responsible criticism,” according to the president, comes from within the first faction, whereas “defeatism,” “hindsight” and “second-guessing” come from the latter.

In the real world, the choice is much more complex than simply between the reckless and militant interventionism of Bush's forced democracy policy and the head-in-the-sand posture of isolationism. Setting up the isolationist straw man was a cynical tactic used to frame the debate over Iraq, not a serious characterization of a real position on foreign policy.

True enough, there are a few on the national stage who embrace something akin to isolationism. Pat Buchanan, for one, would like to see the United States less involved militarily, culturally and economically with foreign countries. But there is little groundswell at the grass roots for this worldview and almost no genuine isolationism in Congress or the punditocracy.

Unfortunately, Bush is not the only one to conjure up that phony specter. The term isolationism has been cropping up with increasing frequency. A November Pew poll found that 42 percent of Americans believe that the United States should “mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own.”

For the Pew pollsters, this was evidence of an isolationist sentiment. But what is the contrary position? That the United States should not mind its own business internationally? That we should attempt to direct foreign countries ourselves? Is it isolationist to believe that the United States should seek security by defending its vital interests abroad, but balk at messianic projects to transform foreign governments?

In reality, there is a wide spectrum of views on America's role in the world, and it is not adequately characterized by a “Bush supporters vs. isolationists” dichotomy. Many of us believe that the Bush administration's definition of the national interest is absurdly broad; for instance, when the president claims that the security of Americans is contingent on “the end of tyranny in our world.” But our disagreement is not based on a desire to retrench ourselves in some walled commune, avoiding the world around us and ignoring the perils there. It is not isolation we seek, but a more discriminating view of the national interest.

The irony is that while the president is radically out of touch with the American foreign policy tradition, he accuses his opponents of following an extreme ideology. Bush's belief that our security is contingent on congenial political arrangements in all foreign countries, no matter how obscure or strategically irrelevant they may be, is both wrong and dangerous. George F. Kennan, perhaps the senior American statesman of the 20th century, remarked in 1999 that “this whole tendency to see ourselves as the center of political enlightenment and as teachers to a great part of the rest of the world strikes me as unthought-through, vainglorious and undesirable.” By contrast, Kennan argued that American foreign policy is at its best when it is “very modest and restrained.”

Perhaps the president believes Kennan, the intellectual architect of America's containment policy, was just an isolationist.

President Bush's foreign policy is causing the Republic great harm, besmirching our reputation in the world and dragging his popularity down at home. Tarring his many (and varied) critics with the “isolationist” epithet will not change any of those phenomena.

---

Account frozen...

Google's newest search tool raises privacy concerns

The Feds and the script kiddies will have a field day with that,
not to mention Trojan writers working for the Russian mafia.

---

Account frozen...

Google's newest search tool raises privacy concerns

The Feds and the script kiddies will have a field day with that,
not to mention Trojan writers working for the Russian mafia.

NOT a tool that I want!

---

I Desire Peace and Justice, Jim Scott (Mod-Ret.)

'On Iraq, either you're with the president, or you're with the isolationists.'


In America... You're either with us or you're with the terrorists...

( http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html )

Hmm...


---------------
It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future... ;)

---

Account frozen...