Bad Things

Wildflower - The Cult Santa Monica - Everclear Won't Get Fooled Again - The Who

New Zealand for 3 weeks!!

Maybe because you're a shortsighted fool? I don't know...

Hey Astrobot... I also LOVE my element. Best damn car I've also ever owned.

"My" best gift was actually watching my son tear around on his brand new Big Wheel. Man, talk about bringing back memories! (Also watching my 18 month old daughter cuddle up to her first doll.) The early morning hummer wasn't too bad either!

I was born and raised in Rochester. Would this book still be worth my while, or is it strictly a Buffalo thing?

Do you like the smell of Aqua Velva and the look of a primered Monte Carlo SS??? If so... THESE ARE THE PANTS FOR YOU. If not... well, you may want to reconsider.

I'm listening to a bootleg copy of Jack Johnson live at The Gorge (Washington State.) from this past summer.

Maybe Takeo could get a commercial like Holyfield and Charlie Steiner did.

Same hear. It all started this past week when I read the first installment of excerps from Marv Levy's book. (The one about "wide right") He was able to convey the magic that the bills had "in the day". It's stuck with me since.

Yeah... but hasn't he been getting his butt burned a lot this season. (Didn't Favre always throw his way a week or two ago?????)

Why do you have to post crap like this?

Beethoven's 9th Symphony ("Ode to Joy") or "Brokedown Palace" by The Dead or "Plastic Jesus/Fall Line/When do The Children Play" by Jack Johnson

Screw "We The People"... let us all bow down to the mighty Corporations! Yeah, the Dem's are just as guilty as the Repugs.

In NO way is it that plain and simply. That's just what wartime wants you to believe. It's not that cut and dry. I know 4 guys that are there right now, including two of my nephews. (Another one of my friends sons is going back there next month.) Do you think that I am against them??? No. 3 of the 4 DO NOT want to be there. They think the whole thing is a crock. The other one (greg) is very proud to be there. Do you think I'm against him? No. Greg simply believed and continues to believe all the hype and propaganda that got us there in the first place. First, that Iraq was an imminent threat to our and our families lives. He now believes that we've always been there to liberate the Iraqiis in the name of freedom and has forgotten about WMD's and Bin Laden. It is with Bush and the rest of the Liars that I have a problem with. It is also with many of the idiots that blindly support this crap without even TRYing to see why most of the world is against it. (many lurk here in the ppp board) Not only that, but they sure love to through around the fact on what great Christians they are. Listen... my own Grandfather was killed in WWII. As a f'ing Nazi. I was told that he was a good man who, unfortunatly believed everything that his authorities lied to him about ... signed up without questioning and got his ass killed in Russia. Do I hate my grandfather? No. Do I hate the people that lied to him? You betcha.

Nice! very nice. Ah... how war brings out the best in everybody. For me to get blasted by a bigot like you for simply asking God for mercy, is incredible. I pray for your ignorance too.

And so the debate continues... I'm not going to jump into the fire here, because I have not idea what the facts are. (I haven't seen the video, nor do I ever intend on seeing it.) The thing that pisses me off is all the "rah rah rah" type of people still saying that people who were against the war are against the troops. For all you guys... do a google search on DP "Depleted Uranium" and see how supportive we are of our troops. It's a crying shame. Educate yourself with thte facts and then, formulate your own opinion using your God given brain. Don't let them force feed crap down your throat. DEPLETED URANIUM has the potential to make Agent Orange look like nothing. Plus... we know about it BEFOREHAND. If you Gung-ho types want to support your troops... look into this stevestojan. And as for the Marine and the man he killed... May God bless both of their souls.

Queen = RJ

It's sooooo convenient to frame the topic as "seeing a gathering risk". (Boy that sounds so nice.) The F-UP occurred when we actually invaded a soveriegn nation, killing thousands of innocents, more than a thousand of our troops, spending hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars, discrediting ourselves on the world stage, all based on Bullsh1t and fear. Two weeks to wipe out a country with an army that didn't fight... Saddaam hiding in a hole... boy that was sure a gathering risk!

Simply stated Darin... we must learn from History to improve our future. In analyzing the biggest F-Up our government has done (since my adulthood), we may be able to understand future F-ups before they happen again. By simply looking ahead... we will perpetuate the same mistakes over and over.

Thanks (Edit.) Hindsight helped you with your post, so I thought it should help me too. Anyway... I'm sorry if I'm thick-skulled, (Which I KNOW I am) but I don't seem to understand your logic. Are you stating that if "w" didn't start claiming a link between Iraq/911 and Saddaam/Bin Laden directly following Sept 11th, and if we didn't rush to war against the wishes of most of the world... Bush would be unelectable because he didn't remove Saddaam from power? But... since he ("w") claimed (lied) that Iraq had this HUGE stockpile of weapons that he was going to use against us makes him ("w") correct even thought it's now been proved false??

Why does it matter? What the heck is that for question?

Mich... Do you believe that the invasion of Iraq was justified?

Also... Bush' letter to Congress Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:) Consistent with section 3(B) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that: (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. Sincerely, GEORGE W. BUSH

Here's what was brought to Congress to authorize "w" to invade Iraq... "In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force," the congressional resolution states, "the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that: "(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and "(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."