owl

Well, for one thing, they did it with this very interview! clicky

It's absolutely dishonest. But like I was saying before- if it's fair game for Fox News, who does it regularly, then it should be fair game for left-wing liberals too. Ideally, though, it should be put to an end altogether. I'm with Bjorn on this one. Moore was preaching to the choir, and I'm not into that kind of entertainment- whether it's book or movie.

I agree with you on your last statement. As said somewhere else, certainly, Clinton has some culpability for waiting and missing the chance to get Bin Laden. Clinton has admitted that he instead left his anti-Taliban plans with expectations that the next President would address them. I'm sure, though, that he realizes now the urgency that he did not see. Clinton has said that he was reluctant to wage a military campaign when the U.S. leadership was changing. I'd call this politically-motivated timing, for sure. Truly, if Clinton had not put Bin Laden aside for later, the ball would've been

Jerry Garcia and David Grisman have a CD out called "Not For Kids Only" that is very good. I don't listen to much Garcia these days, but it's a good CD nonetheless.

I suspect that you do carry one, based on your out-of-the blue defense of not carrying one. Time to fess up now.

Yes, I am familiar with the phrase and its context in Hamlet. I believe, however, that you use it incorrectly. The "case" in which this works is when the defense is odd, or a surprise, not when it is predictable. Clinton's response was similar to yours when I unjustly accused you of being a professional liar. It was both predictable and justified. He got angry at the audacity of Wallace's veiled accusation. Would someone claiming to be rational say something like that in good faith or in an attempt to make a fool or manipulate to prove a point? In Hamlet, Gertrude's response is awkward,

Such as vehement disagreement in the face of normal coolness? Given those criteria, you could probably get a rise out of anyone if you accuse him of something terrible enough. In fact, I could probably accuse any co-worker of stealing from the snack jar and he'd have an angrier response than Clinton's. Does that mean I could justifiably suspect him of theft?

That doesn't make it any less arbitrary. Bingo. Exactly what I was going to say, except I would've said it more poorly.

Hey, at least I don't carry a pocketbook.

Did they teach you in law school that a nonsense rebuttal is better than no rebuttal? Or perhaps you're just extra suspicious of people because you are a professional liar? I guess it's easy to be a cynic if you judge others based on your own compromised standards.

Dang, that thing looks pretty cool.

That's ridiculous. The only thing you have to backup this "could be" claim is that sometimes people lie. So...anytime anyone vehemently defends themselves- you should suspect that they're lying, because they "could be." Moore used soundbytes in Farenheit 9/11 in the exact same way that Fox News uses them every day.

Actually, I didn't stereotype the whole party, just the sleazes, who happen to be the loudest voices. No shit.

Fair And Balanced

Consider also how Bush voters (even regretful ones) always say "I may think that Bush is a terrible President, but he deserves respect for being elected to that position." I guess this takes care of that faux-point. Everyone's fair game.

Yeah, I thought that was kind of weird, as well. At first, I thought it said "Artists who have influenced Dylan." It's a pretty obvious attempt to promote some of their other people. Hey you, artist, do you like Bob Dylan?

I subscribe to the belief that any smirk is fair game for requests to "wipe your smirk off your face." Now, whether you want to append ", you smug bastard" to the end is up to you.

Reputations are funny that way. It depends on who's the decider of whose reputation gets damaged because of lies. To answer your question, though, if your amoral, then, no you wouldn't protest; also, if you're amoral, you'd scorn or manipulate someone's legitimate protest.

WireTap Pro http://www.ambrosiasw.com/utilities/wiretap/

That's what all Republican sleazes would love for their opponents to be wary of. Republicans are willing to take every cheap shot that there is, and Dems. look like idiots for not wanting to dignify the Reps. macho assertions (like claiming ownership of Christianity). To America, it looks like quiet submission. And Fox News is only publicizing parts of the interview that meet their cut-and-paste bastardization/portrayal. It's like when Homer Simpson gets interviewed to defend himself against accusations of groping. Here's the full transcript for people who don't have the brains:

Mind you, these were Catholic militants. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060922/ap_on_...tian_executions Christians angered by Friday's executions of three Roman Catholic militants in the world's most populous Muslim country torched cars and government buildings, looted shops and attacked a jail, freeing hundreds of inmates. What do YOU think?

How'd you find that out?

For anyone who wants the 5/16 version (m4a/AAC file): http://download.owlandbear.com/misc/20030516my-words.m4a

I don't smoke anymore and never had to cheat a drug test anyway, but here's what I've gathered over time. I believe that a week can be enough to pass a test, as long as you've honestly smoked very little recently (except for the concert), and especially if you're not going for a high-level, high-security job. My advice would be to just drink A LOT of water in the 24 hours

It's a(n awesome) Tweedy song. There are no confirmed lyrics. The 5/16 version is, by far, the best out of two that I'm aware of. There is one other version (I think) from his most recent solo tour. I don't have it anymore. There really isn't any information on it. Let's hope it winds up on the new CD.