Terry Tate

Forget the BBQ grills down south. Everyone should cook on woodstoves inside the house when a hurricane knocks out power in August.

Since it's on people's minds this week, depending on where you live, courtesy of the American Red Cross, how to prepare for and/or what to do in case of: Blackouts Chemical Emergencies Drought Earthquakes Fires Floods Heat Waves Hurricanes Mudslides Terrorism Thunderstorms Tornados Tsunami Volcano Wildfires Winter Storms And a big list of different sources' survival kits compiled by Captain Dave.

Baxter, is that you? Bark twice if you're in Milwaukee.

What can I tell you, when you need to kill an enemy and destroy all his stuff it's pretty useful to know where to find him, what he's doing, how many are with him, what equipment they have, what their plans are - little things like that. If you'd rather do without that, I guess we can just give everyone a rifle and get someone to sound a bugle. I'm a good shot with a rifle, but I guarantee you there's a lot more dead terrorists because of what I did than I ever would've gotten with my trigger finger.

I prefer Conan the librarian.

LOL, until a year ago I spent my entire adult life defending our freedoms against all enemies. I plan on exercising my freedoms however I see fit for the rest of mine, with no apologies. If it makes it any better, I recently no longer have a need for a pickup, so I'll probably sell it and buy a motorcycle or a compact - which I would drive with the windows down and the A/C on full blast. Because that's how I roll. I'll buy a hybrid when they've been around long enough to get a good deal on a used one. I think new is for people who have money and suckers who want everyone to think they do. I don't fit either category. The window / A/C debate always amuses me - it's an old comedy routine standard. I thought I'd throw my comments for fun.

I leave the windows all the way down in my full size V8 pickup. I leave the A/C on full blast at all times so I still get a cool breeze when I slow down. Problem solved.

I think Tasker could be better if he would calm down just a little and announce the game in something a little closer to a conversational tone and stop RAISING his VOICE to EMPHASIZE points that DON'T really CALL for it. I don't MIND so much what he's SAYING, but LISTENING to him EXCLAIM the BILLS are in a SECOND and SIX at the TWENTY-ONE YARD LINE wears on me after a while. And as much respect as I have for Marv Levy, somebody please get him out of the booth. Please. It's just not for him. The Packers' announcers weren't bad at all.

Polarize even more, From where I stand, there's only one major party now - the sow party. That's not polarization, that's just piglets pushing to get to the teet first.

That's because this administration is closer to conservative positions than Dems are, but it's still not conservative. The distance between Democrats and Republicans is a lot shorter than the distance between either party and conservatives. Everyone here has heard that before, but it apparently can't be repeated often enough. The "Powell Doctrine" referenced in the link would be a lot more closely adhered to if Congress would actually execute the responsibility for declaring war levied upon it by the Constitution, and not shirk their duties by repeatedly authorizing use of military force otherwise. This has been going on for decades.

Often all of the above, occasionally two out of three, normally at least one, sometimes just nuts all on my own. I know I supported missions in the area years past what you report as the official end of the US mission. I have friends who were still pulling tours there when I last spoke with them last year. So rather than research it, I spoke based upon personal knowledge, which is a year old now. So I was out of date, but the bottom line is that quote panned out. It took ten years of US military presence, not the one year Clinton threw out there to try to quiet the argument. "Whatever the exit strategy was" is exactly what the subject quotes were questioning ten years ago, along with a definition of what our national interest was in the conflict. European nations had a very clear interest in what was happening there; I don't know that ours was ever defined. These are things that must be addressed any time US troops are asked to leave home and go to Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. It's not hypocritical for congressmen to ask these questions, it's a freaking requirement. As is the requirement of the current administration to answer the same questions. Whether or not you agree with their answers, the debate is necessary and must always take place. I'm sure Dr K is equally upset with the Congress who ignored their responsibility to determine the answers to these questions, and instead voted to authorized the President to attack, giving him the authority to make the decision on his own. That vote went 296-133 in the House, 77-23 in the Senate. You want to be P.O.'ed at someone, how about the branch that has the sole authority to declare war? Or do they get a pass on this and get your vote again because they belong to the same party as you? BTW, people who support the war should be upset at that debacle as well. Looking for a reason to vote for a third party, well there you go. You don't have to tell me, I served tours in some of those places. You want to make a case to bring some of those guys back, I don't have any problem with that.

I'd just like to see the Bills' starting OL play against someone's starters during actual game action. They had the scrimmage against GB, and then a pre-season game against Indy's backups. I still have no idea if they are going to be able to get the job done.

It's not the prevent defense that I'm against, it's the fact that it is used constantly when it should not be. If you're up by 40 points in the 4th quarter, it's not a bad thing. But a lot of teams try to use it to protect a one- or two-score lead; that's just nuts.

And in that regard, it's spot on. I haven't watched any of this on TV; I'm assuming if Mrs. Sheehan has family members who knew Casey personally and disagree with her, they have already been on TV. If not, the ambulance chasing TV producers on the right are falling down on the job. "Mr x, you went to school with a close friend of Casey's uncle on his father's side - do you think he would have approved of his mother's activism? Isn't she a disgrace to his memory?" I could write for TV, if I didn't have a conscience. Outside of breaking news or entertainment programming (sports/movies/shows), I have no reason to watch TV. TV news incorporates too much of the entertainment angle into their news programming, attempting to generate ratings by providing a hook. As seen here, it causes the discussion to veer onto the hook, rather than what facts the story may provide. At that point, it becomes a self-licking ice cream cone. Which is good for a follow-up story, an exclusive interview with a family member, and in-depth analysis of what effect the hook has on this party or that.

What would be really sexy is if she said she actually voted for libertarians.

Oh, I keep up just fine. You've as much as admitted she's a pawn thrust forward and being funded and used by the left, paraded daily for all to see for on every station, a circus on display - but when the chattering class on the right responds with like venom, it's a sign!

- A pretty major threat - The left believes it's own hype, that's some funny stuff.

I don't know that it will ever make a difference in any way, but I don't see myself ever voting for another R or D again. Or a meet-in-the-middle R/D ticket. In February 1992, someone declared they were running for president as an independent on "Larry King"; just nine months later, after dropping out and re-entering the race (!) he received 19% of the popular vote (19,722,042 votes!). I'm just saying, it could happen.

"The Godfather" romanticized the Mafia. "The Sopranos" Mafia characters are, to a man, ignorant, bungling momma's boys who are the polar opposites of the "Godfather" series noble, dignified dons. Which is probably closer to the truth. Still not for everyone, but it's definitely not romanticizing the Mafia. -------------------------- [Chris and Paulie just botched a hit on a Russian gangster, and are lost in the woods. They call Tony, and get a bad reception] Anthony 'Tony' Soprano Sr.: Listen to me, this guy was a Russian green beret. He was in the ministry of the interior or something. He single-handedly killed 16 Chechen rebels. Be f****** careful. Paulie 'Walnuts' Gualtieri: All right. [hangs up] Christopher Moltisanti: What did he say? Paulie 'Walnuts' Gualtieri: He said the guy killed 16 Czechoslovakians, and he was an interior decorator. Christopher Moltisanti: Interior decorator? His apartment looked like s***.

I can neither confirm nor deny anything else on the topic.

There are no gray areas in using US Military Signals Intelligence collection assets to target US citizens. None. Data mining open source information on people who are not US citizens is quite different.

Ok, since you didn't make any statement to comment on, I'll throw some out there. I'm confused. Do you throw this out there to mean Tom Delay is a hypocrite, or Democrats who oppose him are hypocrites? (hint: correct answers are widely believed to be yes and yes). Anyway, that's not what the left says. They say you can be against the war, but support the troops. The same troops they then accuse of war crimes. It was Clinton who said they would be there a year, tops. It will be 10 years in December, so it looks like this was spot on. You do realize there are still troops there, don't you? So I'm not sure of the point of including this quote. That's the case that should be made whenever a nation goes to war. And it was. Bipartisan support from Congress on Iraq, all-volunteer military - again, not sure what the point of including this quote is. Unless you mean Clinton should have been explaining to each and every servicemember's mother and father - that would've taken a while. Or he doesn't, but Bush should; now I'm confused again. Clinton's repeated committment of troops (note the "once again") to potential combat situations without clearly defined objectives, and therefore exit strategies, were of concern. Again, note he said troops would be there no more than a year, and that was ten years ago. This is also a concern in Iraq, though clearly objectives are being met. What the current administration needs to do is defined at what point is our part complete. Tom Delay again. Maybe he was referring to one of Bill's apology tours, I don't know. Same as above; these should all be prerequisites to comitting troops. Bill Clinton didn't operate this way, and many on the left were ok with it then - but hey, welcome aboard! In Iraq, the mission is clear enough, and I would say it's equally clear it is unachievable on our own. It relies on Iraqis. So too does the exit strategy. Obviously cause for concern. Hmmn, could just possibly be a politician trying to be right either way it goes. Nah, Trent Lott wouldn't do that, would he? If you can explain the Bosnia timetable, definition of victory, and define what our national interest is there, I'll let you keep another Delay quote. Ask Bill Clinton, it's been ten years, maybe he's figured it out by now. Again, an accurate statement as it applies to Bosnia, and now Iraq. What is our standard of victory, and by extension exit strategy for both? I've stated my concerns about Iraq. What's your answer on Bosnia? It's been ten years, you think Bill Clinton has an exit strategy yet?

Cool, I'm above average at something!

Ah, withdrawal. I miss it so much, every few years or so I take up smoking again. And I'm a pretty good argumentative jerk myself, and I don't even have a reason. So don't sweat it.

Ok, I give up. You keep arguing points I haven't made. You win. Casinos run by other nations are just dandy for the local economy; couldn't come up with a better idea if you held a gun to my head. Enjoy it. I'll stop pretending I know anything.