Moktada al-Sadr, Emperor of Iraq

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Tyrone, maybe in the circles you travel,

Tyrone doesn't travel in circles. He struts into the room.

Damn straight!!

Usually accompanied by Curtis Mayfield's Superfly as background music.

[Joemailman]

Tyrone, maybe in the circles you travel,

Tyrone doesn't travel in circles. He struts into the room.

Damn straight!!

Usually accompanied by Curtis Mayfield's Superfly as background music.

I was thinking more along the lines of Shaft.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Tyrone, maybe in the circles you travel,

Tyrone doesn't travel in circles. He struts into the room.

Damn straight!!

Usually accompanied by Curtis Mayfield's Superfly as background music.

I was thinking more along the lines of Shaft.

Shaft is for good guys. Tyrone favors:

Hard to understand
What a hell of a man
This cat of the slum
Had a mind, wasn't dumb

Tyrone sometimes also employs Ice-T's "I'm your pusher"

I know you're lovin' this drugs as it's comin' out your speaker
Bass thru the bottons,highs thru the tweeters
But this base you don't need a pipe
Just a tempo to keep your hype

[texaspackerbacker]

As I've said a couple of times, I don't even believe Tyrone is black--maybe a wannabe or something.

You lefties are letting me down. Are none of you gonna chime in and claim America is saturated with druggies, homosexuals, and other degenerates in some ridiculous percentage? I'm sure Obama thinks so, Reid and Pelosi too, probably even Hillary. You guys aren't gonna stand up for your team?

[hoosier]

As I've said a couple of times, I don't even believe Tyrone is black--maybe a wannabe or something.

You lefties are letting me down. Are none of you gonna chime in and claim America is saturated with druggies, homosexuals, and other degenerates in some ridiculous percentage? I'm sure Obama thinks so, Reid and Pelosi too, probably even Hillary. You guys aren't gonna stand up for your team?

What's the point in arguing statistics and percentages with someone who feels free to make it all up as they go and conveniently disregard whatever facts don't fit their ideology? It's like trying to convince my three-year old that there aren't witches in her closet.

Just for yucks, though...

Estimated percentage of US military that is gay according to the non-partisan Urban Institute: 2.8%

http://www.urban.org/publications/411069.html

Estimaged percentage of young adults (18-25) in Vermont who have smoked dope: 40%

Who have used coke or heroin in last year: 12%

http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080307/NEWS04/803070370/1004/NEWS03

[texaspackerbacker]

This is a clear example of exactly what I'm talking about: Some half-assed organization--self-proclaimed to be "non-partisan"--or maybe proclaimed by some other equally off-the-wall source to be non-partisan, and you damn fools are gullible enough to believe it!

Anything that makes America look bad just HAS TO BE true for you sick bastards of the left.

And anything that advances the sick degenerate agendas connected with the left, those you not only swallow also, but embrace as a means of dragging down America to the level of rottenness you leftists fantasize already exists.

[hoosier]

This is a clear example of exactly what I'm talking about: Some half-assed organization--self-proclaimed to be "non-partisan"--or maybe proclaimed by some other equally off-the-wall source to be non-partisan, and you damn fools are gullible enough to believe it!

Anything that makes America look bad just HAS TO BE true for you sick bastards of the left.

And anything that advances the sick degenerate agendas connected with the left, those you not only swallow also, but embrace as a means of dragging down America to the level of rottenness you leftists fantasize already exists.

The Urban Institute is hardly a "half-assed organization." It was founded by LBJ in the late 60s and is currently directed by the former head of the Congressional Budget Office. It is one of the most respected research centers on urban issues in the country; its researchers are traineed economists, social scientists, and experts in public policy and administration.

Your reaction just proves my point, which has also been made by others here: you make it up as you go, and when the data doesn't suit your ideology you either pretend it doesn't exist or you try to discredit the source. In doing so, you come across as a fool.

[Freak Out]

Gates: U.S. Should Engage Iran With Incentives, Pressure

By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 15, 2008; A04

The United States should construct a combination of incentives and pressure to engage Iran, and may have missed earlier opportunities to begin a useful dialogue with Tehran, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said yesterday.

"We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with them," Gates said. "If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us."

In the meantime, Gates told a meeting of the Academy of American Diplomacy, a group of retired diplomats, "my personal view would be we ought to look for ways outside of government to open up the channels and get more of a flow of people back and forth." Noting that "a fair number" of Iranians regularly visit the United States, he said, "We ought to increase the flow the other way . . . of Americans" visiting Iran.

"I think that may be the one opening that creates some space," Gates said.

The Bush administration has said it will talk with Iran, and consider lifting economic and other sanctions, only if Iran ends a uranium enrichment program the administration maintains is intended to produce nuclear weapons, a charge Iran denies. Although the U.S. and Iranian ambassadors to Baghdad met three times last year for discussions on Iraq, Iran has refused to continue that dialogue.

Others, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who is running for president, have said that talks with Iran on a range of issues might be useful.

Gates publicly favored engagement with Iran before taking his current job in late 2006. In 2004, he co-authored a Council on Foreign Relations report titled "Iran: Time for a New Approach." At the time, he explained yesterday, "we were looking at a different Iran in many respects" under then-President Mohammad Khatami. Tehran's role in Iraq was "fairly ambivalent," he said. "They were doing some things that were not helpful, but they were also doing some things that were helpful."

"One of the things that I think historians will have to take a look at is whether there was a missed opportunity at that time," Gates said. Khatami was replaced in 2005 by hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Gates was also a member of the bipartisan 2006 Iraq Study Group, which advocated reaching out to Iran. He resigned from the group when President Bush nominated him as defense secretary in November that year; the report was published on Dec. 6, the day of his confirmation.

The administration charges that Iran is now deeply engaged in training and arming Shiite militias fighting U.S. troops in Iraq. In his remarks yesterday, Gates said evidence to that effect is "very unambiguous."

But, he said, "I sort of sign up" with New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman, who wrote yesterday that the "right question" for the United States is not whether to talk with Iran but "whether we have leverage or don't have leverage."

"When you have leverage, talk," Friedman advised. "When you don't have leverage, get some -- by creating economic, diplomatic or military incentives and pressures that the other side finds too tempting or frightening to ignore. That is where the Bush team has been so incompetent vis-à-vis Iran."

A number of senior U.S. military officials have emphasized the need for robust diplomacy toward Iran, while not ruling out the use of force. "I'm a big believer in resolving this diplomatically, economically and politically," Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a recent interview with The Washington Post. "The military aspect of this, which I think is a very important part of the equation and must stay on the table," Mullen said, is an option of "last resort."

Gates said yesterday that the U.S. military remained "stretched" by deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, although he said that all service branches had met their recruitment and retention goals last month. "There is no doubt that . . . we would be very hard-pressed to fight another major conventional war right now," he said. "But where would we sensibly do that, anyway?"

Future conflicts, Gates said, will be asymmetric. "Other countries are not going to come at us in a conventional war."

[texaspackerbacker]

This is a clear example of exactly what I'm talking about: Some half-assed organization--self-proclaimed to be "non-partisan"--or maybe proclaimed by some other equally off-the-wall source to be non-partisan, and you damn fools are gullible enough to believe it!

Anything that makes America look bad just HAS TO BE true for you sick bastards of the left.

And anything that advances the sick degenerate agendas connected with the left, those you not only swallow also, but embrace as a means of dragging down America to the level of rottenness you leftists fantasize already exists.

The Urban Institute is hardly a "half-assed organization." It was founded by LBJ in the late 60s and is currently directed by the former head of the Congressional Budget Office. It is one of the most respected research centers on urban issues in the country; its researchers are traineed economists, social scientists, and experts in public policy and administration.

Your reaction just proves my point, which has also been made by others here: you make it up as you go, and when the data doesn't suit your ideology you either pretend it doesn't exist or you try to discredit the source. In doing so, you come across as a fool.

So there it is IN YOUR OWN WORDS: an organization founded by liberals. Headed by a former head of the CBO? Gee, I wonder which party controlled Congress when the guy held that position.

If the organization exists to try and give credibility to rotten anti-American agendas, then it simply is what it is: a propaganda machine with NO CREDIBILITY--except to other liberals gullible enough to swallow the crap.

And when I call you gullible, Hoosier, I'm actually giving you the benefit of the doubt--assuming that you actually believe the sick anti-American idiocy, as opposed to being a demagogue, and dishonestly spewing anti-American crap knowingly. If I didn't give you that benefit of the doubt, I have to break my perfect record of not calling anybody in the Rats forum an America-hater.

[hoosier]

This is a clear example of exactly what I'm talking about: Some half-assed organization--self-proclaimed to be "non-partisan"--or maybe proclaimed by some other equally off-the-wall source to be non-partisan, and you damn fools are gullible enough to believe it!

Anything that makes America look bad just HAS TO BE true for you sick bastards of the left.

And anything that advances the sick degenerate agendas connected with the left, those you not only swallow also, but embrace as a means of dragging down America to the level of rottenness you leftists fantasize already exists.

The Urban Institute is hardly a "half-assed organization." It was founded by LBJ in the late 60s and is currently directed by the former head of the Congressional Budget Office. It is one of the most respected research centers on urban issues in the country; its researchers are traineed economists, social scientists, and experts in public policy and administration.

Your reaction just proves my point, which has also been made by others here: you make it up as you go, and when the data doesn't suit your ideology you either pretend it doesn't exist or you try to discredit the source. In doing so, you come across as a fool.

So there it is IN YOUR OWN WORDS: an organization founded by liberals. Headed by a former head of the CBO? Gee, I wonder which party controlled Congress when the guy held that position.

If the organization exists to try and give credibility to rotten anti-American agendas, then it simply is what it is: a propaganda machine with NO CREDIBILITY--except to other liberals gullible enough to swallow the crap.

And when I call you gullible, Hoosier, I'm actually giving you the benefit of the doubt--assuming that you actually believe the sick anti-American idiocy, as opposed to being a demagogue, and dishonestly spewing anti-American crap knowingly. If I didn't give you that benefit of the doubt, I have to break my perfect record of not calling anybody in the Rats forum an America-hater.

You dismiss any information that doesn't come from the extreme Right as demogogery, and you thereby condemn yourself to living in a world of ignorance. Which you then proceed to celebrate by wrapping in the false flag of ostentatious patriotism. As if limiting your information to reactionary sources were proof of love of country. Talk about spewing crap. Go and break your "perfect record"--your words are nothing more than the repetetive rantings of a right wing lunatic.

[texaspackerbacker]

Hoosier, I dismiss any information that defies logic and common sense.

You, on the other hand, enthusiastically lap up any shit that could possibly be construed as anti-American. Why is that?

[hoosier]

Hoosier, [b]I dismiss any information that defies logic and common sense.

You, on the other hand, enthusiastically lap up any shit that could possibly be construed as anti-American. Why is that?

No, you dismiss anything that threatens your ideology, anything that doesn't reconfirm the imaginary world you're living in. You're nothing more than a dogmatist who tries to pass off his own self-assured ignorance as truth.

[texaspackerbacker]

Hoosier, [b]I dismiss any information that defies logic and common sense.

You, on the other hand, enthusiastically lap up any shit that could possibly be construed as anti-American. Why is that?

No, you dismiss anything that threatens your ideology, anything that doesn't reconfirm the imaginary world you're living in. You're nothing more than a dogmatist who tries to pass off his own self-assured ignorance as truth.

Hoosier, all I have to do--all anybody with a brain in their head has to do--is open my eyes and look around at the wonderfulness of America and the American Way.

Fantasy world? That would be the socialist dream, the amoral dream, nanny-state/government intrusion/tax increasing, the absolute idiocy of manmade the theory of manmade global warming, preaching multi-culturalism and moral equivalence in our schools, the delusion of an all world idiot that he can/should negotiatate with the Hitler-esque Holocaust denying genocidal maniac ruling Iran, the overall sick leftist agenda of dragging America down. Show some backbone, for once, Hoosier, and try DEFENDING some of this CRAP which constitutes YOUR fantasy world--and that of your piece of shit America-hating presidential candidate.

As for me, my "dogma" is right here for all the world to see--America and Americanism in action, and the concept that we and our way are far and away superior to anything else out there--all of which is also on display for all the world to see.

[Zool]

all of which is also on display for all the world to see.

I knew you were an exhibitionist.

[texaspackerbacker]

all of which is also on display for all the world to see.

I knew you were an exhibitionist.

If you want to see an old fat guy in a red, white, and blue thong, you can subscribe to my webcam--but it ain't cheap.