muff528

Now, that is funny!

I hope they didn't forget to tie the tin cans to the bumper. Wouldn't it be something if, after all the planning, hoopla and pageantry, something as basic as that is forgotten! ...and where the heck are all the hot bridesmaids? What's the point in having a reception party without them?

+1 and "terminal velocity", "dropzone" and "cutaway".. and of course all the hookers, the blow, the money and the fame.. Yes, all those flicks portrayed skydiving as the wholesome family-oriented sport that we all know it is. But I already had the monkey on my back by the time those last 3 came out.

Charlie Sheen skydives?? No, but he plays a skydiver in the movies.

"Point Break" ....no, really ...no, seriously!

God forbid the U.S have a president who isn't a fat, drooling redneck. It should be so obvious that weight is directly proportionate to one's ability to lead. Maybe you could start your search for candidates at a local pie eating competition, or maybe even a frat house, nothing says intellectual, diligent leader like one's ability to party hard. I can't think of any "fat, drooling redneck" US presidents, at least in recent times. Closest I can think of that even comes close is Clinton and even that is a stretch. Now, you might find some senators and reps that would fit that description.

Looking for trouble, no doubt.

I agree! But I didn't say "frightening" ...I said "frightning" (rhymes with "lightning" ) I suppose I should have written "fright'ning"

Obviously, much more difficult than folding a double-layered, multi-sectioned, oddly-shaped slippery nylon object.

Arrest in UK for singing an insensitive song. I agree with the arrest but not for the reason given.

HILLARY! ...the original wingnut birther Actually, it was that Hillary Clinton did NOT use this as an issue that immediately convinced me that there was nothing to it. She was so desperate for the nod that she was hinting that Obama should have been assassinated and she STILL did not use the birth issue. Had there been a scintilla of proof she would have and she didn't. That was enough for me, Yes, her campaign did drop it pretty quickly. I agree that if they'd have found anything to it she would have hammered at it relentlessly while waving the Constitution.

HILLARY! ...the original wingnut birther

Got smallpox, polio, etc. vaccines at the school clinic. No problems. But, when I was about 9 my sisters and I had to get a measles shot because of a rash of cases going around. I was going to bravely show my younger sisters that there was nothing to fear so I rolled up my sleeve and presented my shoulder. The doctor said "We're gonna give the shot in your bottom." It took my dad and another doctor to catch me and hold me still while he gave me the shot. Almost broke the needle off in my cheek.

Depends on how long it takes that country to join the civilized world. We gave Iraq that opportunity on a silver platter ...they punted. Too bad for those in Iraq who saw the coalition as friends and liberators but whose hopes for change were smashed by the barbarians in their society.

I was specifically addressing the dead Iraqi number claim ...not whether anyone agreed or disagreed with the war itself. edit to add: ...and the war crime claim.

Ron, sorry for the hijack. But ...well, never mind.

Wendy, I don't think I even addressed the question of whether individuals in this country agreed or disagreed with with the expansion of the war into Iraq. Nor have I questioned anyone's right, fucking or otherwise, to disagree with that decision. But, count me as one who initially apprehensively agreed with that expansion ...but now, after watching the "hearts and minds" of the population in action as events there unfold, agree that it was a probably a mistake. ..a mistake which carried a (apparently lost) lesson that could be brought forward in our policies and dealings with these Middle East tyrants.

Sorry for the play on/with words. I forgot that some folks are pretty touchy about these things. In place of "lib" I should have used "leftist" (not the watered-down, "leftist light" US version, but the full-blown European/Asian, Marxist version). Or you can use "anti-American", UN, Progressive or any other America-hating, faux anti-war, faux green, hand-wringing group (even including some "Americans"). A "consensus" in matters of US culpability for any of the world's problems that is reached by these folks is laughable. I also reject any numbers or estimates given by the Iraqis themselves. Islamic "leaders" have forever rendered anything said by them or their followers as lacking in credibility by their own statements and writings. (Yes, I realize that "followers" is a somewhat inaccurate term.) The US and it's willing coalition twice "invaded" Iraq with the support and blessing of the American people, Congress, the UN, and much of "the rest of the world" (even some Islamic countries that had their own agendas) in part (and only in part) because your precious consensus (and the words and actions of Saddam, himself) indicated that there was reason to believe that Hussein was seeking to pursue and re-arm himself with WMDs. That is a fact that the Bush-haters ignore and I accept the fact that their minds (or, more accurately, their rhetoric) will never be changed because it is at direct odds with their propaganda and agenda (which is to marginalize and criminalize "conservative" thought and advance some form of "globalism"). The WMD issue was only one item in "the list" enumerated by GW Bush leading up to the attempted liberation of Iraq. Yes, the US supported Hussein (Iraq) in it's war against the fundamentalist Islamic regime in Iran which had previously abandoned diplomatic ties and stormed and captured the US embassy (act of war). I do not believe the responsibility for gassing a large city of Kurds by the Iraqis during that conflict is on the hands of HW. The Kurds were aligned with the Iranians because of tribal persecution by the ruling Iraqi regime. My mind can certainly be changed if some definitive proof surfaces. Maybe Assange still has contacts in the Pentagon, or even the CIA, that are willing to ferret out some document that undeniably proves that HW authorized (or at the very least knowingly endorsed) the murders by Iraqi WMDs of a city of 80,000 people. I agree that the final tally of how many Kurds were slaughtered depends on who is counting (as if it matters) ...just as the "100,000 dead Iraqis" number has no basis in any facts that can be verified. That number just appeared one day and everyone who opposed the war just picked it up and began regurgitating it along with "Bush lied, people died". Great bumper-sticker slogan for the gullible. Maybe the source of that number can be traced and verified. Maybe not. Until then I call BS. These medieval Middle Eastern tribal societies have been given many opportunities to enter the modern world after their alignment with the losing side and their defeat as a result of WW1. And they have rejected all opportunities to join the rest of the civilized world. That was all well and good until their barbarism began spilling outside of their borders. The "world" began sticking their collective heads in the ground and up their kazoos simultaneously until the US finally had to, once again, step in and pick up everyone else's tab. Now, the failed liberation of Iraq just serves to show the folly of all of these current "democratic" movements. It turns out that they, as a people (there certainly are those individuals who, at their peril, wish to join civilization), are not ready to enter the 21st Century and live among the family of nations. It is becoming increasingly evident that these various tyrants are a necessary evil who can keep a lid on dangerous fundamentalist barbarism and prevent future Iran/Taliban/...-type regimes to come in to being.

If that is a real number, and not some BS figure pulled out of someone's ass, That is an agreed upon conservative lib estimate. Meaning-shift intentional Even if there were 100k dead do you believe some of the dead are civilians and were targeted by Allied forcers? Are not some (most) of the civilian deaths attributed to fighting within internal Iraqi factions. (I, personally, do not restrict the word "civilian" to mean all non-combatants but we can say non-combatants for this purpose.) It was 5k Kurds and it was with the complete approval of the US - Although that is a Bush Snr crime so I'm not sure how it relates to W. Bush. Pure Bullshit ...and they still haven't found all the dead Kurds. But, having said all that, I now, in 2011, believe that Saddam should not have been overthrown. But, as R. Rosannadanna once said, "You live, and you learn".

If that is a real number, and not some BS figure pulled out of someone's ass, and even if they were intentionally targeted and killed by Bush and US actions, which I doubt, then they are no deader than the 100k (real number) Kurdish men, women and children (who were gassed by Iraqi WMDs) that also cannot join in the bike-riding fun.

Bingo! But one article I read shows that the iPhone adds almost 2 billion to our trade deficit with China. Can we really live without the iPhone and it's ability to keep track of our comings and goings?

Of course not. But that doesn't have anything to do with the point I was (ineffectually) trying to make.

Maybe we can offer to save them and their country from a ruthless, invading aggressor. (Oh, wait! ...we already did that for free. Not even an unfulfilled promise of oil in return.)

I think we agree on that. But I don't think I made my point. Begin with the premise that tariffs can cause wars: (a) Protectionism through tariffs can and has created conditions that could lead to war ...presumably because the tariffs created a trade inequity which caused economic damage to one of the partners. The "damaged" country has cause to go to war. (But keep in mind that the years between WW1 and WW2 were really only a long ceasefire. Some of the agreements that spilled out of WW1 were also part of what contributed to war and to the economic conditions that drove the protectionism. War really was inevitable since the problems that caused the 1st World War were not resolved by that war.) (b) Here we begin with a trade deficit which is the largest between two trading partners in history. Any added tariffs would serve to equalize the existing deficit ...not the opposite. (c) If imposing tariffs on a country (causing economic damage) gives that country a reason to go to war, then why would resistance to a tariff that would give balance to a trading partnership not also cause that economically damaged country to go to war over it? (Because the economically damaged country is US and we are showing restraint by not forcing parity.) Or? I still don't think I'm communicating my point. Simply ... A large imbalance can cause war no matter what the cause (tariffs or refusal to participate on an equal basis or by failing to accept an equalizing tariff) And this is the largest imbalance ever, so if no war over this one then no war over lesser imbalances between two other countries. BTW - Brazil is increasing tariffs on imports from the USA and China, claiming trade inequities. I hope they don't get attacked before I can visit there.

We are clearly getting the big confucious weenie. At 273 billion a year how long before you take action. I'm suggesting it's already later than we think. Is there, or has there ever been, a greater trade inequity between two countries in the history of economic relationships? The trade deficit between China and the US has hovered around a quarter of a trillion dollars per year over the last few years in favor of China. If "protectionism" in the form of tariffs could lead, and has led to war, then might also such a grossly imbalanced trade relationship (encouraged and maybe even engineered by the government of China) also lead to conflict. The US government must be showing either great restraint or great incompetence in not trying to force parity in this trading partnership (by using economic tools, of course). More at work here than free trade?