drlogic

ooh ooh ooh, I've got one......... Imagine for a minute that Bush is keeping Bin Laden alive on purpose? What if he puts pressure on BinLaden to watch him reach out to his sympathizers w/ the videos and tapes, so as to methodically eliminate the tentacles of Al-Qaida one-by-one? Call me crazy, but I've never heard of an Army who publicly claims victory, and makes crazy threats after it's top guys keep getting picked off? Then they immediatly follow that fantasy w/ a plea for a truce? Since when do the winners ask for the truce? Looks like UBL is reaching out again. I hope we keep picking off the tentacles. Or maybe the sky is falling?

That's fuck'n hillarious! 4 real! Imagine if that shit were true?

Maybe? But given ALL THE OTHER factors, to isolate this consipiracy would require ignoring all the other factors which render this conspiracy moot.

News like this makes the critics secretly say...... "What? We got some Al-Qaida? DAMN IT!" what about halliburton? LOL

Look, I tivo'd a 2 part, 4 hr. special which was on the Nat. Geog. Channel dedicated to 9/11. The first 2 hours were about the planning and detailed how the terrorist pulled off those attacks. The documentary is EXTREMELY detailed in it's explanation. The 2nd part is 9/11 and the aftermath. It's truley an amazing documentary and the most OBJECTIVE reporting I've seen about 9/11. The details the special discusess are amazing. They detail each flight, EXACTLY how it was done,, step, by step....Then the day it happend,,,,from PA, to DC, to NYC. After watching this special(twice) and learning the details of the planning of 9/11, the culprits, all those who assisted, the politics, etc..etc....After watching that, there's no way some idologically, agenda driven kook is going to convince any sane person that this was some huge plot or whitewash. My advice to you is to TAKE A STEP BACK from this conspiracy "thingy" and learn as much as you can about the ENTIRETY of 9/11, the planning, the execution and the aftermath. Once you soak all of that in, anyone who tries to peddle consipracies will only come across as mis-informed. Just my opinion.

Seriously, YOU'RE MONGO!

I don't know what to tell you? I try to be as logical as possible. So, I throw this @ ya'. Why this, why that, blah, blah, blah. Let's cut to the chase shall we? Rather than imply "whitewash", imply this, imply that........Let's show our cards, shall we? Just come out and say what you "feel". If you believe the towers were hit w/ planes w/ missles on them or the Pentagon was attacked w/ missles, etc....Just come out and say it. Personally, I think it is what it is...A well planned terrorist attack using civilian aircraft. You obviously don't and no explanation given to you will suffice, so come out w/ it already. I think some critics find it more convenient to just make absurd implications because if they show their true colors, they're afraid they'll be laughed out of the room. So, out of cowardice, they imply this, imply that,,,but what about this, and what about that.............twitch, twitch,,twitch,,,HALLIBURTON!.... OOOPS, I don't know where that one came from....LOL Why some people find it easier to believe that Bush is some Dr. Evil clone out to take over the world, destroy blacks w/ hurricanes and weather machines assasinate caribou, melt the poles and "steal" mid-east oil really baffles the mind. Then some of these same people expect to be taken seriously?????? Just trying to be logical here...is all..........................I'm not into tinfoil hats and Austin Powers plots.

What's up SEXYTIME? My dick in Igloo's ear? I hope he's got elephant ears to handle my girth...LOL Seriously though, why's everyone trying Igloo?

LOL Pobresito, you're dealing w/ a tard,eccentricmofo. Destruction is not right in the head. I too feel like shaking him until his teeth rattle (oooops, there I go "making threats again"......go to: FILE and select PRINT, then choke on it). Destraction has gone above and beyond to try and get personal w/ me, but at the end of the day, destraction is still stuck in his own skin. And he's a frog.......He's basically an American in denial...which explains his crossed cables. Hang in there dude....and if you ever run into that punk, give him a back-hand and tell him Logic sends his love.

According to this bullshit, EVERYONE who just read my post, has posted before and is contemplating posting a reply, by definition is a POSTWHORE. If you've registered w/ ANY msg brd. and contribute; you're a POST-PUTA! Is this what it has come to for those who continually get their asses handed to them by igloo via HIS historical points and absolutes? Resorting to name calling? Every once in a while, someone of an obvious liberal mindset expresses themselves clearly and makes their case. Igloo politely hands them their ass. Most of the time, they just disappear and run off to some other topic about which dj's cock they would prefer to choke on. Occasionally, some just short circuit and babble incoherently about conspiracies to exterminate caribou, confiscation of their glow-stix and ruling the world. Say what you want about Igloo, but he owns ALL of his critics! They know it, which explains the latest psycho-babble. ============= Welcome to the Official PostWhore Inc. Website. You're probably asking yourself what PostWhore Inc. is. Below you will find the exact definition of the company. Also, the other pages on this site will give you an in-depth look into the inner workings of the firm. PostWhore Inc. ('pOst-hor.inc) noun: A group of individuals that post continuously throughout the day on topics s/he either know a great deal about, is not an expert on, or knows absolutely nothing about at all, mainly for attention and in the hopes that someone will acknowledge his/her existence, see his/her wit and charm, and thank him/her for making their day that much brighter. That in its simplest form describes what PostWhore Inc. is. We only recruit the finest of postwhores the internet has to offer in hopes of making the internet a better place for everyone. But hold on you say....How can a postwhore be good? Doesnt he/she just spam messageboards all day long? Well my friends; there is a difference. As you can see below there are the smart and stupid postwhores. The Smart Postwhore - A person that posts a lot but always makes it a point to help people out and sometimes to get a good laugh. This is the only type of postwhore we like. The Stupid Postwhore - A person that posts something pointless, using one word to each post, until s/he makes his/her point or the thread gets locked. The stupid postwhore makes a bad name for the smarter postwhore. Please do anything in your power to teach this type of postwhore the error of his/her ways before s/he ruins the "postwhore" name along with his own! Ladies and gentlemen you have been informed. We welcome you to the future. The PostWhore Inc. Team

like I said,,,, MORON!

Exactly! What all the haters on the left fail to recognize is that if the news were actually reported fairly there would be no RUSH LIMBAUGHS or Fox News. They exist because the liberal mainstream just doesn't get it!

letterman was completely "destroyed"......resorting to name calling and insults........couldn't provide any examples of the "crap" he claimed Bill spewed. Dave had no reply to the point about the feelings of family members who had their loved ones killed by Cindy's so-called "freedom fighters". Dave clearly reflected the liberal logic of ALL HEART AND NO BRAINS! Anyone who saw that segment and concluded Dave came out on top is a complete moron.

That's terrible!

bump read this shit again! and again......... and again.............. sup igloo? I figured I'd do the bump for you.

WHY WE DON'T TRUST YOU WITH NATIONAL SECURITY by Ann Coulter January 4, 2006 It seems the Bush administration — being a group of sane, informed adults — has been secretly tapping Arab terrorists without warrants. During the CIA raids in Afghanistan in early 2002 that captured Abu Zubaydah and his associates, the government seized computers, cell phones and personal phone books. Soon after the raids, the National Security Agency began trying to listen to calls placed to the phone numbers found in al-Qaida Rolodexes. That was true even if you were "an American citizen" making the call from U.S. territory — like convicted al-Qaida associate Iyman Faris who, after being arrested, confessed to plotting to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge. If you think the government should not be spying on people like Faris, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. By intercepting phone calls to people on Zubaydah's speed-dial, the NSA arrested not only "American citizen" Faris, but other Arab terrorists, including al-Qaida members plotting to bomb British pubs and train stations. The most innocent-sounding target of the NSA's spying cited by the Treason Times was "an Iranian-American doctor in the South who came under suspicion because of what one official described as dubious ties to Osama bin Laden." Whatever softening adjectives the Times wants to put in front of the words "ties to Osama bin Laden," we're still left with those words — "ties to Osama bin Laden." The government better be watching that person. The Democratic Party has decided to express indignation at the idea that an American citizen who happens to be a member of al-Qaida is not allowed to have a private conversation with Osama bin Laden. If they run on that in 2008, it could be the first time in history a Republican president takes even the District of Columbia. On this one, I'm pretty sure Americans are going with the president. If the Democrats had any brains, they'd distance themselves from the cranks demanding Bush's impeachment for listening in on terrorists' phone calls to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. (Then again, if they had any brains, they'd be Republicans.) To the contrary! It is Democrats like Sen. Barbara Boxer who are leading the charge to have Bush impeached for spying on people with Osama's cell phone number. That's all you need to know about the Democrats to remember that they can't be trusted with national security. (That and Jimmy Carter.) Thanks to the Treason Times' exposure of this highly classified government program, admitted terrorists like Iyman Faris are going to be appealing their convictions. Perhaps they can call Democratic senators as expert witnesses to testify that it was illegal for the Bush administration to eavesdrop on their completely private calls to al-Zarqawi. Democrats and other traitors have tried to couch their opposition to the NSA program in civil libertarian terms, claiming Bush could have gone to the court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and gotten warrants for the interceptions. The Treason Times reported FISA virtually rubber-stamps warrant requests all the time. As proof, the Times added this irrelevant statistic: In 2004, "1,754 warrants were approved." No one thought to ask how many requests were rejected. Over and over we heard how the FISA court never turns down an application for a warrant. USA Today quoted liberal darling and author James Bamford saying: "The FISA court is as big a rubber stamp as you can possibly get within the federal judiciary." He "wondered why Bush sought the warrantless searches, since the FISA court rarely rejects search requests," said USA Today. Put aside the question of why it's so vitally important to get a warrant from a rubber-stamp court if it's nothing but an empty formality anyway. After all the ballyhoo about how it was duck soup to get a warrant from FISA, I thought it was pretty big news when it later turned out that the FISA court had been denying warrant requests from the Bush administration like never before. According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the FISA court "modified more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than from the four previous presidential administrations combined." In the 20 years preceding the attack of 9/11, the FISA court did not modify — much less reject — one single warrant request. But starting in 2001, the judges "modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for court-ordered surveillance by the Bush administration." In the years 2003 and 2004, the court issued 173 "substantive modifications" to warrant requests and rejected or "deferred" six warrant requests outright. What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack. Also, perhaps as a gesture of inclusion and tolerance, hold an Oval Office reception for the suspected al-Qaida operatives. After another terrorist attack, I'm sure a New York Times reporter could explain to the victims' families that, after all, the killer's ties to al-Qaida were merely "dubious" and the FISA court had a very good reason for denying the warrant request. Every once in a while the nation needs little reminder of why the Democrats can't be trusted with national security. This is today's lesson. COPYRIGHT 2006 ANN COULTER DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE 4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111

New Dem Spin: "Whistleblowers", Not Leakers January 3, 2006 BEGIN TRANSCRIPT RUSH: A New York Times story from January 1st: "A top Justice Department official objected in 2004 to aspects of the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program and refused to sign on to its continued use amid concerns about its legality and oversight, according to officials with knowledge of the tense internal debate. The concerns appear to have played a part in the temporary suspension of the secret program. The concerns prompted two of President Bush's most senior aides," Andy Card and Alberto Gonzales, "to make an emergency visit to a Washington hospital in March 2004 to discuss the program's future and try to win the needed approval from Attorney General John Ashcroft..." Now, first observation is: None of this matters. If it's constitutional, it's constitutional. So it doesn't matter if James Comey or John Ashcroft or anybody else disagreed with it or didn't want to sign on to it. If it's constitutional, it's constitutional, but the main point about this is look at the lengths that they went to. I mean, if this were an administration that were hell-bent on secrecy and violating everybody's civil liberties and didn't care a whit about the privacy of the Constitution, well, they wouldn't have made these efforts -- and they even suspended the program for a while they were trying to get this sorted out. Finally the president said, "You know what? I agree with Jamie Gorelick. I have inherent constitutional authority." So much ado about nothing continues with this. I also got an interesting e-mail while I was gone. "Rush, I got a different spin to the so-called NSA leak. The NSA only handles the budgets for other alphabet agencies such as the CIA, the FBI, or the DEA." Does anybody remember the name Christopher Boyce, by the way? You remember the name Christopher Boyce? I'll tell you about Chris Boyce. Christopher Boyce compromised the Rhyolite satellite to the communists in the seventies. In other words, he told the communists, he was an American who told the commies about the Rhyolite satellite. It was the start of the end of the Cold War. This is what the movie, The Falcon and the Snowman was about, Christopher Boyce. He was a turncoat. He gave up information about the spy to the Soviets. That was the beginning of the end because the Russian leaders decided that since the United States could intercept their communications, they didn't have a chance against us. That was the first thing that turned on their light, and then you go on and on through the Reagan administration and get to SDI and that was the final straw. They learned they couldn't compete. So this e-mail, "Now that the terrorists know what our capabilities are, they're going to have a better understanding of their chances against us." That is, unless the Democrats are able to shut down the program. That is, unless the Democrats are able to continue to side with our enemies, the Democrats are able to continue to penalize the good guys here, and the media, then the terrorists are going to win, but if we can prevail on this, then fine. Wiretaps are not even necessary because these intercepts are done by electronics, computer data mining. They're not even really real wiretaps. As the e-mailer says, "The point that I'm trying to make here is that the spy system's been around for a long time, and the people who were able to win popularity contests and get themselves elected have been briefed on a need-to-know basis. The Democrats are Bush-bashing because he's decided most of them don't have a need to know, and they can't be trusted to know. And this whole NSA flap is because they know he's right, and they're mad over their loss of power and control." That's a theory, and I think that's an element of it, but I think there's far more. I think they're just so obsessed with getting their own power back and taking Bush out that they don't care on the temporary basis who they end up siding with. Let's go to the audiotapes. James Risen of the New York Times was on the Today Show today, an exclusive interview. His story was held to be tied to a book release, and this is so predictable what he says. Katie Couric's question: "I know that you broke the story, as we mentioned, for the New York Times. Why do you think the people who talked about this secret program came forward and told you about it?" RISEN: I think this was the most classic whistleblower case I've ever seen where people -- RUSH: Stop the tape! Stop the tape. That's the new spin. These are not leakers, why, these are whistle-blowers, why, I think he'll even call them patriots. RISEN: You know, in a lot of stories, people have mixed motives for why they talk to reporters. Some people in some stories, there's a turf battle, and they are losing out in a turf battle or whatever. In this case, I've been a reporter for about 25 years. This was the purest case of a whistle -- of whistleblowers coming forward. People who truly believed that there was something wrong going on in the government and they were motivated I believe by the purest reasons. RUSH: All right, let's take a look at this. I think this displays for us the dramatic differences that exist between us and them. Here's Risen, and his leakers are whistle-blowers, and they're patriotic, only doing this for the purest of reasons. Well, could you not say the same thing about whoever it was that leaked Valerie Plame's situation. In fact, the purpose of leaking Valerie Plame's name, whoever did it, was not to expose her and her covert status -- and you know how we know that? Because the special prosecutor didn't even find that to be a crime! Scooter Libby's been indicted on what's called a process crime, lying to the grand jury. But there's no charge that anybody leaked the identity of a covert agent. The leakers, whoever they were, whoever he or she is, in the Plame case, they had just as pure a motive. They were trying to protect the government's policy and the war in Iraq. They were leaking these bits of information here to try to discredit a bogus story that was being told by Joe Wilson and his wife. You know, let's talk about whose motives are pure. Well, to the left, the purest of motives are defined by a whistleblower who seeks to undermine the administration. Scooter Libby, on the other hand, to these people is an absolute hardened criminal. He is nothing. He is dirt. He is scum. He had the audacity to leak this precious operative's name, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Risen then continues here with the next question. Katie says, "Well, as you know, your revelations have caused the CIA to launch a formal investigation -- not -- well, DOJ is actually doing it, or the justice department," she says, "to launch a formal investigation. Are you concerned that you're going to have to reveal your sources to a grand jury?" RISEN: Well, I hope not. I think that at this point it would -- these people came forward for the best reasons. This is in my opinion the complete opposite of the Plame case. These are people who came forward in order to tell the American people the truth as they saw it, and I think they were truly American patriots. RUSH: Well, we're going to find out just how committed to the confidentiality of his sources Risen is and whether he'll be willing to go to jail to protect them, because that standard's already been set. We've got an independent counsel who has sent reporters to jail for not divulging their sources, and what does he say? Well, these are people that came forward in order to tell the American people the truth as they saw it. Who are they? It's not good enough to say that they're just government sources. Yeah, and since when does the reporter get to determine who's patriotic and who isn't? He's the arbiter of whether this is a patriotic leak or a political leak. He's the arbiter of this? He gets to sit there and decide? We'll find out once this investigation gets going, if he gets to decide this. But no, make no mistake about something here: Who are these people? It's not enough anymore for a reporter to say, "These are people high, high caliber, very sensitive parts of..." Yeah, are they members of MoveOn.org? Are they Democrats? Do they contribute to the Democrat National Committee? Who are these people? Are they in the Senate? Where are these people? Let's find out who they are before we start passing judgment on their motives. And we certainly can't sit around and let the reporter be the arbiter of their motives. Here's the next question. "Let's talk about some of the content in your book. You have some very interesting revelations, a lot of different ones. One is that the president expressed concern that an Al-Qaeda member who was in custody received pain medications. He said, 'Who authorized that?' You suggested this might be the precursor to torture being used. Isn't that kind of a big leap?" RISEN: They were discussing Abu Zubaydah, who was the first major Al-Qaeda figure to be captured. He had been wounded during the capture, and he was receiving medication. What I was told was that the president asked Tenet who authorized giving him pain medication. The question really goes to, how did the message get sent to the CIA over a period of several months that we have to get tough with prisoners? Because eventually we saw a whole -- the creation of a whole regime of harsh interrogation tactics that began at the CIA and then, as we saw, ended up at Abu Ghraib in Iraq with the military. And so there's a question of what were the origins of the interrogation techniques that were used in the war on terror? RUSH: You talk about a leap. Katie didn't even get halfway near it. So the president apparently -- and we only have Risen's version of this. We only have him as our source and whoever it is that is his source. So the president says to Tenet, well, who's given this terrorist pain medication? And that launches torture. That signaled to Tenet, okay, if the president wants us to be tough on these guys take the pain medication away and stack them up in a pyramid and send Lynndie England over there with a cigarette and a whip. This is how this happens, and this is what everybody here has glommed onto. BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: One more Risen bit. You see the pattern here. This is something, by the way, that I have mentioned throughout this whole scandal, and see if this doesn't remind you of something that you've heard me talking about recently. Question from Katie Couric: "Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, George Tenet did not come across very well in your book." RISEN: From 9/11 through the beginning of the war in Iraq, I think what happened was we -- the checks and balances that normally keep American foreign policy and national security policy towards the center kind of broke down -- RUSH: Stop the tape! Stop! What checks and balances keep American foreign policy and national security policy towards the center? What in the hell is he talking about? What right does he have to define the center anyway? I mean I know what he's talking about, don't misunderstand. Sounds like it's exactly, exactly right Snerdley, this sounds exactly like it's come out of the state department. They consider themselves centrists, they are higher and mightier than anybody, smarter and elite, and they're above it all, and of course here come these guys, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenet and they sort of hijacked things. Who does that remind you of? This guy that used to be Colin Powell's chief of staff. I can't remember his name now, (Lawrence Wilkerson), Colin Powell's chief of staff who starts making these speeches in the middle of last month. Here's the rest of the bite. RISEN: Of more of a radicalization of American foreign policy in which the career professionals were not really given a chance to kind of forge a consensus within the administration. RUSH: Stop the tape. I know at least for this I know his sources are right out of the state department, it is totally clear what's happened here. What is it, forge a consensus? Forging a consensus helped us do what in defeating the Soviets in the Cold War, hmm? What credit can the state department claim to that? What credit can the state department claim to any success we've had in the war on terror, in Afghanistan, Baghdad, you name it. What success? Forging consensus? You know what consensus is? It's absence of leadership. When the state department talks about consensus it's making sure that nobody's neck's hanging out to dry if something goes wrong, which means we're not going to do anything decisive. We're just going to have the status quo, we'll have our ongoing dialogue, and we'll have our ongoing talks and communications, but we won't actually take steps to solve anything, because if we do that, we're out of business. There's no more reason for us to forge consensus. Here's the rest of this stupid bite. RISEN: You had the principals, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Tenet and Rice, many others who are meeting constantly, setting policy, and really never allowed the people who understand, the experts who understand the region to have much of a say. COURIC: You suggest there's a lot of power grabbing going on. RISEN: Yes. RUSH: This is absurd. They won the election! Cheney is the vice president of the United States; Bush is the president of the United States. Rumsfeld is the secretary of defense. They're a part of the administration, the executive branch. They won the election! They cannot "power-grab." There is no separation of powers between the executive branch and the state department. There's no constitutional authority here granting the state department any independence whatsoever. None. This is absurd, to have it portrayed now that the elected leaders of the nation were meeting constantly and setting policy as though that's sinister! Why, that's never happened before. The elected leaders, meeting constantly, setting policy, never allowing the people who understand the experts who understand the region? Now, that's a little ditty, isn't it? The experts are the people in the state department, the elected officials! "What the hell they're doing? They're just a bunch of power mad little despots," and the truth of the matter is that the people that the country elected, Bush, and that he appointed, Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld, understand full well the danger posed to our security by the kind of mind-set that exists in the state department, the so-called experts over there are experts in nothing. They are certainly not experts in victory. They are not experts in success. They are experts in the status quo. They live and breathe on this notion that they alone understand the region. If it were up to the state department and James Risen and whoever his sources are, there would not be a democracy in Afghanistan today; there would not be a democracy in Iraq; there would not have been 11 million people turn out to vote. Those are the people who say that's not possible. Those are the people who say, "You don't understand the region." Those are the people that say, "You don't understand the Arab world. You go try to do something like that, you're going to have big troubles on your hands!" They don't understand diddly-squat. It's been the case for decades, and finally we had some people elected who understand the problems posed by this kind of mind-set at the state department. Now all of a sudden those people -- it's crystal clear to me what's gone on here, and it's been crystal clear for two months. The established foreign policy establishment, if you will, in the state department and whoever is a member of it at justice and at the defense department, the Pentagon, have all aligned themselves, because they know full well that they are being outflanked, they're being outperformed, and they're having 30 or 40 years of their work blown up right in front of them. It is being demonstrated how inconsequential they are and have been. It is being demonstrated how ineffective and incompetent they are. It's been demonstrated what a bunch of phonies they have been. It's been demonstrated how they accomplish nothing if they are left alone to practice their art. And so it's simple human nature, protecting their own backyards and their little fiefdoms, and so they leak to these dummkopfs, these sponges at the New York Times who are, of course, fellow travelers and along the same lines, and of course you get this inertia going where Bush -- it all fits, the spying, overreaching, power grabbing. The fact is just the opposite, and these people are going to lose this big time because they're on the wrong side of history. Here, listen to the president, and contrast the president with what you just heard from this New York Times reporter. THE PRESIDENT: The fact that somebody leaked this program causes great harm to the United States. There's an enemy out there. They read newspapers, they listen to what you write, they listen to what you put on the air, and they react. And we -- it seems logical to me that if we know there's a phone number associated with Al-Qaeda and/or an Al-Qaeda affiliate, and they're making phone calls, it makes sense to find out why. They attacked us before; they will attack us again, if they can. And we're going to do everything we can to stop them. RUSH: Now, the people that want to find fault with this are unfortunately placed for them, placed in the position of having to defend Al-Qaeda as a harmless organization. They're placed in the position of saying none of this is necessary, we have no fear, we have nothing to worry about. This attack on 9/11 occurred in this country! The idea that you cannot, as a government, to protect the citizens of this country, find out who else in this country might be talking to other Al-Qaeda types internationally is simply absurd. And yet that's the side the left and the Democrats have once again put themselves on. They have accepted the side of defeat. They are invested in it. Don't worry about that. I know it's maddening here, folks, but like Bush, he's confident this is going to work out, and so am I. I sleep well at night. END TRANSCRIPT Read the Background Material... (NY Times: Justice Deputy Resisted Parts of Spy Program) (American Thinker: Laughable claims about the NSA “Scandalâ€) (NRO: The paradox of ever-increasing expectations - VDH)

BRILLIANT! BRILLIANT! BRILLIANT! FUCKING GOD DAMN BRILLIANT! We've got it way too good in this country! So good that we fucking invent shit to be pissed at. BRILLIANT!

boo! be skurd,,,be very skurd...........

lol So, where is she going wrong? Is she making these historic references up? Does being "politically incorrect" dilute her main point about it being an invented holiday? I don't think she gives 3 shits about peoples feelings. She just lays out what she learns/believes w/out sugar coating anything. I'll shed some light on my life experiences...... I've got a stack of GOOD friends who are "brutha's" and NOT ONE of them acknowledges Kwanza.....Actually, most of them are Carribbean blacks. Primarily from Jamaica,Trinidad, Dominican Republic and Cuba. Funny thing is, they all have one thing in common. NOT ONE OF THEM IS BITTER. They are all Christian (specifically Catholic) and all work hard, speak PROPER english and are generally pretty responsible people. ALL of them lament about the "American Black". "They're just too bitter, too lazy, always playing victims, etc..etc."....Remember, this ain't me saying this, this is fellow "brutha's". They think the "American black" psychosis of being "owed" something makes their life so much more difficult. Now, amongst them (Caribbean blacks), they all bicker about the Jamaican the most. They says Jamaicans are too arrogant. Granted, they are all friends, but these issues come out after a few drinks...LOL. Trini's are just cool people, although there are some issues w/ the Jamaicans. Domincans are just super down people. Cuban blacks are just like Dominicans, except the new batch of Cubans coming over are coming w/ the "hand out" mentality...Which I fucking hate! Puerto Ricans are pretty much Americans in denial, but still great people. Jamaicans are extremely great people. Principled and hard working. The one common thing among all of them is they can't stand American blacks. Why do you think that is?

From my family to yours, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year Igloo......and to everyone else on these boards. A special BIG UP to all active and former military and their families! Thank you! Keep up the great work!

Those pesky little details always seem to get in the way......... lol Hey Destruction? Know how to play Tune in Tokyo? -Tell your mom to put her hands behind her head -Then tell her to turn her head side to side while saying "beep, beep, beep" (over and over) -Then lean your ear into her chest and twist both her nipples while you repeat "Tune in Tokyo, Tune in Tokyo"....LOL You might pick up more "exclusive exposes" that way. Give it a shot, why don't ya'??? lol

So much for Dingy Harry and his boasting about blocking the same patriot act he originally enthusiastically voted for. Like I've said before, today's demz ain't shit! They're all over the map. I've never seen them more desperate, EVER! http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/21/patriot.act/index.html

Great story! For the critics to whom this article might ruffle a few feathers, I would simply think differently to help better understand this horse-n-pony show. Just imagine the script were flipped. If you really don't like Bush and find comfort and reason in every anti-Bush story. Take this story and flip it. Imagine it was a Bush 41 appointee, etc..etc..etc....If you were a Dem and Clinton supporter, would you be pointing out that the judge was a Bush appointee and all the curious little shennanigans that came w/ it? Would you question this judge and his politics? My guess is, probably!