MrRain422

Sometimes this board just turns into a big gotcha game rather than actually considering people's points. It's sort of annoying.

Nice comeback win, Tigers!

He's not backtracking at all. Jeez.

Their best song is "Atlanta".

What do you think are the consequences that make it reckless?

http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport...?videoId=174546

Okay, Jules. You basically addressed the choice of words, but not the substance. But I guess that's what really matters.

I guess I just find refutations of my viewpoint more compelling when someone actually addresses the points I've made rather than just writing an entire segment of the political spectrum wholesale without acknowledgement for the actual arguments being made.

You were the one who said "on any level", not me.

Apparently the Diamondbacks are considering signing Bonds.

Yes, clearly you have your mind made up, but I'm not sure I really believe that you considered all possible comparisons on all levels.

Care to explain that? I mean certainly it's easy to get into hyperbole when making a comparison, but that doesn't mean that valid, true comparisons should be disregarded and not considered.

I personally think it's a matter of people who want oil finding a team of religious crusaders to fulfill their agenda.

Though McCain pretty much says it's a war for oil. I don't think it's impossible that that the bad intentions of the architects of the war are not all identical.

Well, Bush did say that the War Againt Terrorism is a "crusade", and later said that the War on Terrorism (of which Bush claims the war in Iraq to be a part of) is part of a "Third Awakening" of Christianity in the United States.

Well sure, it's different because we are the U.S. and that everything we do is good.

I admit that I'm using a bit of hyperbole, but really, not that much.

The evangelical commander in chief is happy to send people on suicide missions that will take out large numbers of civilians. It's pretty much our middle east policy.

Actually not really minus that stuff at all.

Hopefully.

I just get frustrated with the logic of a lot of the neocon talking heads on TV every time there is some sort of news from Iraq, whether its positive or negative. If the news is positive -- "The surge is working! We have to stay and keep doing what we're doing!" If the news is negative -- "Things are too volatile there right now to just pull out! We have to stay until it is stable!" So if things are going well, it means we have to stay, and if things are going poorly, it means we have to stay. I just want to know when we will get to leave.

Right, and many Republicans have said that we're there at the invitation of the Iraqi government, and that if they wanted us to leave, we would.

The Iraqi government wants a timetable for withdrawal of American forces. So what's the justification for staying now?

He doesn't always look like that, he was just distracted.

Yeah, that list isn't right. Rogers has like 93 or something, Langston 92, Mussine 84, something like that.