E.g., whatever happened to rightwinger?

Curiosity slew a cat, but does it make you wonder if BushCo knows WTF they're doing when they have to rely on the Limeys, with a miniscule fraction of our resources, to bust a terrorist conspiracy?   And OUR best idea is to confiscate all fluids from airline travelers?

Is there a reason that BushCo hasn't run bin Laden to ground yet?  50 years ago, we could fight a 2 front war, and beat both the Krauts AND the Nips in 4 years.  Perhaps FDR wasn't looking for job security, or fat war contracts.  Perhaps he was smart enough to enlist allies.  Perhaps he wasn't a witless weasel.  Who can know?

You forget the classic axiom... follow the money.
And follow the connection between Bin Laden and  the Bush family.

If you can't state facts, just pound your chest like the stooped-over primate that you are and throw insults and personal attacks.  Never use a logic-based argument when you can appeal to a purely negative emotional need.  

"Rely on Limeys" is bad, "smart enough to enlist allies" is good. Perhaps hanging a lib with a new road isn't good enough for them but it is fine with me.

"Better to be thought a fool then open your mouth and remove all doubt"

Hey Mensa Man

When the plan and the activity surrounding the plan happens on British soil...Also, they don't have the ACLU and the NYTimes disrupting their ability to conduct surveillance.

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.

I have no idea why you have trouble finding someone with which to converse.

You ask some wonderful questions and the general outlook of the VAST majority of folks who post here are so cheerful.

Good luck,

BK

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.

How did you find yout about it? What inner circle do you belong to?

"or we'd all be wearing armbands with swastikas and GW Bush's face"

What scares me almost as much as terrorism (maybe more), is that you and others ACTUALLY believe 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.

"""They resort to baseless hyperbole and inflammatory statements.""""  


"""Thank God for the ACLU, or we'd all be wearing armbands with swastikas and GW Bush's face"""

LOL!

Isn't that an oxymoron? The ACLU claims there is no God except the ACLU.

those towels are'nt for holdin back brains...

to fuck them, instead of objectifying them.

find us a source for that statement.

OTOH:  who the hell is worried that some tie-dyed lefty is going to actually do something?   When hippies riot, they need 3 dozen of them to find a lighter, and a PhD to figure out how to use it.  

A NASCAR crowd could do real damage, even if most of it was to themselves.  You know, anybody that can roll any 300 lb body around can be dangerous.

I think that your first mistake is that you said "conservative" when you really meant "Republican".  Not even close to being the same thing.

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