revaluation

ou-miami *yawn*...battle of the convicts....I'd rather watch the Yankees-Marlins....

well, there goes college football...*yawn*

damn, i thought it was George Clinton...

check yer pms...er, that's PM's

So assuming that were true, would you then support an Iraqi regime that wished to set up a system of rules similiar to that of the Taliban? If that's what the people said they wanted? My point is that the reason we are continuing the occupation is to avoid that exact senario: replacing the evil regime and a new evil one, although different, rise in its place.

Do you guys have set times for this yet?

this is all you and Barrett....i think I'm gonna go kill something now!

I think that's a consistent postition as long as you recognize that the actions of past adminstrations don't add up to the "standard" that most libs, dems, and anti-cons seem to require these days. As for the UN, I see no reason for it if they continually refuse to act. It's like your mother, father, and teachers all agreeing that you're a bad child, but never spanking, grounding, suspending, or disiplining you in any way. As a ruthless dictator, who cares if the world disagrees with your regime if they are letting you get away with it?

what the fuck is this liberal hippy shit? So what if YOU identify me with the neo-cons? While YOU and the media turn the term neocon into some dastardly organization, you distort its very meaning. NeoCons certainly do not advocate being the world's policeman. If that were the case you have to call the entire last administration polluted by neo-cons. The neo-conservative movement began out of a realization that as the US grew to be the worlds strongest (and eventually only) superpower, things no longer happened in a vaccum. A lot more things were in our interest to get involved, and to sit back and just let it happen was irresponsible. You anti-cons should understand this....Clinton deployed 37 missions deemed as "major deployments" throughout his presidency. Please explain to me which one of those presented an "imminent" threat to US National Security!

it has nothing to do with changing your mind. i don't even know what you think. i just think the media (and others) get away with mischaraterizing the opinion they don't agree with....and it seems to particularly infect young poeple. cool......nuff said

wtf? if you don't wanna discuss it, then don't read the thread...

haha...there's that word again. just so we're all clear: the media tosses around "neo-con" like it means "war mongering cowboy", and no doubt that's what most of you think it is. well it's not. prior to the late 70's most conservatives were isolationists at heart. Unless directly (and I mean direct as in Peral Harbor direct) involved with the business of some foreign nation, we should keep our nose out of everyone else's business and let them fight, pillage, proliferate, and whatever else their tyrranical little heart desired. There was movement in the late 70's with the conservatives that began to realize that as our ever increasing standard as the premier super power grew, the US was always involved regardless of where or what the situation(either through negpotiations, treaties, aid, or muscle). Our Vietnam hangover didn't help any. That being the case (as it surely is today) we figured that since we were going to end up paying the bill for it in the end, we might as well get involved in the initial deliberations. So, that's why we send troops and money and arbiters off to foreign nations to get involved in shit that we prolly shouldn't be getting involved in. Now, the libs have always felt this way, except when THEY want to send our troops off to die it's only for insignificant nations fighting insignificant civil wars...but "we've got to do SOMETHING!" Whatever. So if I'm a neo-con, let's get something straight. I think the United States has an obligation to promote peace throughout the world. And while this promotion should not include invading countries who are embattled in civil wars (Somalia, Liberia, etc) that do not have direct US interests (and yes oil is an interest - you try getting to work in the morning without oil), it should include ridding the world of regimes, organizations, factions, and militants that pose a threat to the security of the world. And no, there isn't room for a pluralistic arguement. Yes, you have the right to practice whatever you want and run your culture however you want...fine. But you cannot include as part of that culture the mass murder of those you see as 'infidels'. That being said, I find the "bring the troops home" argument to worthy of respect. I just happen to disagree with it.

that's not the point. i mean, i could go into a bunch of of the administration's decisions which I may or may not agree with and then we could go on all day debating them ad nauseum....blah, blah, blah But the point was that either you support the war, the troops, the mission (whatever that may be) or you don't. I don't think its unpatriotic to say that you don't support the war, but the politicians are just...well, playing politics. You can't have it both ways. I just want people to be consistent. They ought to just say it like it is, either you're for it or against it.

hey that's politics. at least this protest is advocationg binging them home. That's a consistent postition. I can't deal with people who say they "support the troops, but not the war". If you're not supporting the war, the mission, or the reasons for being over there, then what exactly are you "supporting" by supporting the troops? ya that got me too.

Thanks to all who came out last night. Definitely started slower than last month, but got kickin around midnight. Had a blast. Way to turn it up a notch, Barrett! See you all in November. Neech

you punk.....i haven't seen your kim jungle ass in a while. get yer DC snobby ass out tonight!

No, but you have to be Barrett's dancing queen!

so sensitive..........

If you're a DJ, its your home, your mgmt agency, and your label only if you own it and produce under the same name as you DJ. if you're a producer, you list the label that consistently signs you or the label with which you are still under contract. If you have one track signed to one label once, list it in the bio, but not as a title. My friends in NY that are professionals and do both produce and DJ, don't put anything at all. So I take my cues from them.

whoa! Proxxy spins breaks, X-Dream spins Hard House...what are you gonna spin? Congrats!!

Cassandra, I emailed you. Hope to see you tomorrow night.

agree with shady. I don't remember, but didn't the Yankees still go on to win the series after the Jeffrey maier thing. The best team wins, period. And if they get their rhythm broken and can't get it back on track, then, yea, the deserve to lose. plus i used to be a big Rangers fan and I still love pudge.

yup. there's a 3x12" of their new artist album http://www.choochoo-records.com/ yoassjusslitup!

ya, and that guy was responsible for all the meatballs prior threw after that too, huh? and gonzalez's error? and the 8 runs? whatever. we would have all done the same thing.