the problem I've always had with conspiracy theories is that, by nature, conspiracies require a level of intelligence and coordination that I think very unlikely in most cases.  Ie., stupidity is far more likely than malice.

OTOH, "conspiracy" assumes consciousness, and as a practical matter, why should it be necessary?  Groups can arrange or align themselves more or less spontaneously based on nothing more than trying to maximize their position in an environment, without having any clue about the ultimate result.

the fairies down at the ACLU and NYT are upsetting you.

Just as I said before, Republicans love to argue on points that sound good but having nothing to do with reality. They resort to baseless hyperbole and inflammatory statements.  

The UK has their own version of the ACLU and the NY TImes. (Even though the last time I checked, I don't believe the Democratic party was the primary shareholder of stock in the NY Times.)

There is substantial surveillance in the U.S. that we know nothing about.  However, we draw the line at warrantless wiretaps.  And there is a "secret court" that the Bush adminstration can get warrants from and thereby not publicly disclose their surveillance plans.  

The British have their own versions of the NY Times and the ACLU.

Yeah, that's a strange photo.   Looks like a NATO '55 round, apparantely a dud - less likely they'd be thieving them.  The fuze looks strange, almost indented or something.   Anyway, somebody obviously placed that 95# round where it is - they don't fall like that - and anybody who plays around with a fresh dud is taking their life in their hands.   You've got some world class ignoramuses in that photo.

The damage looks consistent with what a '55 barrage would do.   I know these things because, in another life, I was CO of a 155 btry.

So somebody hit them with 155s, and they thought it was missiles.   The reporter, in fairness to them, can't be familiar with every subject he covers.  Is the difference of artillery to missile material to the photo or story?

What I would be asking is, who was in the house at the time of the attack, and why?  And you notice nobody's saying anything about that.

that they are all so honest and straight forward in the converstaionl techniques.

"Thank God for the New York Times"

Yes, Where would we be without them?

I know most guys on this board like to objectify women.  Isn't that what this hobby is all about?  But BK, you're now objectifying both women AND men when you write, "finding someone with WHICH to converse."  The correct adjective is "WHOM."  I'm being petty, but that's  only because of your comments in weeks past.

but statistically, more assholes seem to answer to conservative than to republican.