-
It's that time of year again - our ISP is asking for money. If you have some spare change, please click the Donate link... Thanks!
- About Us
- Search
- Need Help?
- Donate
- Login/Register
Latest Entries
Actions Menu
Blog Roll
- 4F Facebook Page
- Turn Up The Night with Kenny Pick
- Stephanie Miller Show
- The Tim Corrimal Show
- The Rachel Maddow Show
- Angry Americans with Paul Rieckhoff
- Thom Hartmann Program
- Turnips! Fans of Turn Up the Night Facebook Page
- Snopes.com
- Factcheck.org
- Official White House Page, if you must.
- The Brad Blog / Green News Report
- The Poorly Written Political Blog (Joe Santorsa)
Ask A Vet
Author: TriSec
Date: 07/20/2010 10:12:55
Good Morning.
Today is our 2,680th day in Iraq and our 3,177th day in Afghanistan.
We'll start this morning as we always do; with the latest casualty figures from our ongoing wars, courtesy of Antiwar.com:
American Deaths
Since war began (3/19/03): 4412
Since "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03): 4273
Since Capture of Saddam (12/13/03): 3951
Since Handover (6/29/04): 3553
Since Obama Inauguration (1/20/09): 184
Other Coalition Troops - Iraq: 318
US Military Deaths - Afghanistan: 1,190
Other Military Deaths - Afghanistan: 757
Contractor Employee Deaths - Iraq: 1,457
Journalists - Iraq: 338
Academics Killed - Iraq: 437
We find this morning's cost of war passing through:
$ 1, 019, 052, 575, 000 .00
Remember back during the immediate aftermath of the Iraq invasion? Among the many problems created was the looting of the Baghdad museum, and the pillaging of countless archeologic sites throughout the region. After the scandal came to light, there were some half-hearted efforts to protect or recover the artifacts, and the story slowly faded from view.
There was a recent story that the practice never really stopped. The loss to our collective human society could be incalcuble. We all know it, but it's worth repeating. Iraq encompasses that nebulous region of "Mesopotamia", where we all learned that human civilization began.
Meanwhile....the problems continue in Afghanistan. Only there, it's not artifacts; it's human lives.
It's interesting to ponder...Iraq was in this state a few years ago; despite everything we still see and read, the violence there has steadied, or even declined. Here's hoping that Afghanistan follows the same pattern.
Finally this morning....war news is cyclical like everything else. There are issues that have had everyone up in arms for a couple of days, then they fade away and nobody remembers them anymore. The McCrystal affair is one such story; as it slowly fades away, a year from now we'll probably not even remember what it was all about. But at the height of the entire affair, there was another story going on that was pushed off the front page forever.
We've had a loss of our own around here; if you only read 'above the fold', please take a moment to read Bob's post from last night. Although it was quiet of late, we all got our start on the forum. RIP.
Today is our 2,680th day in Iraq and our 3,177th day in Afghanistan.
We'll start this morning as we always do; with the latest casualty figures from our ongoing wars, courtesy of Antiwar.com:
American Deaths
Since war began (3/19/03): 4412
Since "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03): 4273
Since Capture of Saddam (12/13/03): 3951
Since Handover (6/29/04): 3553
Since Obama Inauguration (1/20/09): 184
Other Coalition Troops - Iraq: 318
US Military Deaths - Afghanistan: 1,190
Other Military Deaths - Afghanistan: 757
Contractor Employee Deaths - Iraq: 1,457
Journalists - Iraq: 338
Academics Killed - Iraq: 437
We find this morning's cost of war passing through:
Remember back during the immediate aftermath of the Iraq invasion? Among the many problems created was the looting of the Baghdad museum, and the pillaging of countless archeologic sites throughout the region. After the scandal came to light, there were some half-hearted efforts to protect or recover the artifacts, and the story slowly faded from view.
There was a recent story that the practice never really stopped. The loss to our collective human society could be incalcuble. We all know it, but it's worth repeating. Iraq encompasses that nebulous region of "Mesopotamia", where we all learned that human civilization began.
DHAHIR, Iraq — The looting of Iraq’s ancient ruins is thriving again. This time it is not a result of the “stuff happens” chaos that followed the American invasion in 2003, but rather the bureaucratic indifference of Iraq’s newly sovereign government.
Thousands of archaeological sites — containing some of the oldest treasures of civilization — have been left unprotected, allowing what officials of Iraq’s antiquities board say is a resumption of brazenly illegal excavations, especially here in southern Iraq.
A new antiquities police force, created in 2008 to replace withdrawing American troops, was supposed to have more than 5,000 officers by now. It has 106, enough to protect their headquarters in an Ottoman-era mansion on the eastern bank of the Tigris River in Baghdad and not much else.
“I am sitting behind my desk and I am protecting the sites,” the force’s commander, Brig. Gen. Najim Abdullah al-Khazali, said with exasperation. “With what? Words?”
The failure to staff and use the force — and the consequent looting — reflects a broader weakness in Iraq’s institutions of state and law as the American military steadily withdraws, leaving behind an uncertain legacy.
Many of Iraq’s ministries remain feeble, hampered by corruption, the uncertain divisions of power and resources and the political paralysis that has consumed the government before and after this year’s election.
In the case of Iraq’s ancient ruins, the cost has been the uncountable loss of artifacts from the civilizations of Mesopotamia, a history that Iraq’s leaders often evoke as part of the country’s once and, anticipating archaeological research and tourism, future greatness.
“The people who make these decisions, they talk so much about history in their speeches and conferences,” said the director of the State Board of Antiquities and Heritage, Qais Hussein Rashid, referring to the plight of the new police force, “but they do nothing.”
The looting today has not resumed on the scale it did in the years that immediately followed the American invasion in 2003, when looters — tomb raiders, essentially — swarmed over sites across the country, leaving behind moonlike craters where Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian and Persian cities once stood.
Even so, officials and archaeologists have reported dozens of new excavations over the past year, coinciding with the withdrawal of American troops, who until 2009 conducted joint operations with the Iraqi police in many areas now being struck by looters again. The antiquities police say they do not have the resources even to keep records of reported lootings.
Here in Dhahir, the looting is evident in the shattered bits of civilization — pieces of pottery, glass and carved stone — strewn across an expanse of desert that was once a Sumerian trading town known as Dubrum.
The bowls, vases and other pieces are destroyed and discarded by looters who seek gold, jewelry and cuneiform tablets or cylinders that are easy to smuggle and resell, according to Abdulamir al-Hamdani, a former antiquities inspector in Dhi Qar Province. The nearest city, Farj, is notorious for a black market in looted antiquities, he said.
“For me, for you, it is all priceless,” he said, “but for them it is useless if they can’t sell it in the market.”
Meanwhile....the problems continue in Afghanistan. Only there, it's not artifacts; it's human lives.
Afghanistan Rights Monitor says 1,074 civilians were killed between January and June - a slight increase compared with the same period in 2009.
However, the number of people killed in Nato air strikes in the same period has halved, the report says.
Changes to rules of engagement helped reduce that figure, the report says.
Former Nato commander Gen Stanley McChrystal issued instructions in 2009 severely limiting the circumstances in which troops could call in an air strike or fire into buildings.
The newly arrived coalition international forces commander, Gen David Petraeus, has vowed to carry on with the policy.
Violence in Afghanistan is now at its worst since the conflict began in 2001, the report says.
"The Afghan people have only witnessed and suffered an intensifying armed conflict over the past six months and insurgency has become more resilient, multi-structured and deadly," it adds.
Violence has soared across Afghanistan in recent months, with 212 civilians killed during June alone, Afghanistan Rights Monitor says.
Most of the deaths documented by the report were caused by insurgents, the report notes, with the widespread use of roadside bombs particularly deadly, killing almost 300 civilians.
Suicide bombs were also a major cause of death, the organisation said.
It does acknowledge that Nato-led forces have been trying hard to reduce civilian casualties, partly in response to pressure from the Afghan government.
And the new counter-insurgency strategy introduced by Gen McChrystal does seem to have had some effect, the report says.
According to its data, 94 Afghans were killed in air strikes between January and June 2010 - compared to 207 for the previous year.
In all 210 civilians had died in the past six months as a result of Nato-led strikes, shootings and raids, the report said.
"Dozens of people, including women and children, were shot dead during violent and barbaric intrusions, raids into houses and other counter-insurgency operations by US-Nato forces," the report's authors say.
Whilst the deaths of foreign soldiers often make headlines, the widespread deaths of Afghan civilians receive much less attention.
The United Nations has also charted rising civilian deaths in Afghanistan - it says 2,400 people were killed in 2009, up from 2,118 in 2008.
It's interesting to ponder...Iraq was in this state a few years ago; despite everything we still see and read, the violence there has steadied, or even declined. Here's hoping that Afghanistan follows the same pattern.
Finally this morning....war news is cyclical like everything else. There are issues that have had everyone up in arms for a couple of days, then they fade away and nobody remembers them anymore. The McCrystal affair is one such story; as it slowly fades away, a year from now we'll probably not even remember what it was all about. But at the height of the entire affair, there was another story going on that was pushed off the front page forever.
While all eyes were trained on the McChrystal/Obama/Petraeus drama in Washington Tuesday, Army officials quietly exonerated three soldiers who'd been accused of incompetence for their role in the deadliest attack on US soldiers in the Afghanistan war.
The service approved a recommendation by a soon-to-retire investigator, Gen. Charles Campbell, that "withdrew, cancelled and annulled" (PDF) the official reprimands of those three unnamed officers. The now-forgotten punishments stemmed from their roles in a July 13, 2008, ambush by foreign fighters on a US outpost in Wanat province. That grisly firefight left nine paratroopers dead and 27 more injured; it also fueled a fiery cry by the families of many fallen Afghanistan soldiers, who say incompetent tactics and leadership have been killing soldiers without anyone being held accountable.
Advertise on MotherJones.com
Ironically, those families' concerns are what led to Campbell's flip-flop. The three officers had been found guilty of "neglect or culpable inefficiency" in their duties after a three-month investigation by US Central Command, endorsed by Gen. David Petraeus. According to Army Times, the CENTCOM investigation determined that "the troops at Wanat were left at the remote outpost with insufficient supplies to build defenses, and they were also short of water."
Yet the families wanted a wider investigation, one that also looked at the conduct of the soldiers' commanding generals. According to Sen. James Webb (D-Va.), a former Marine and secretary of the Navy who backed the families, there was further evidence "of negligence at senior levels in the chain of command." That's when Campbell was called in by Army Secretary John McHugh to review the review.
The families expected swift justice. They probably didn't expect that their loved ones' commanders would get their careers back. "After careful consideration of the additional information, Campbell concluded that the officers were neither negligent nor derelict in the performance of their duties and that their actions were reasonable under the circumstances," the Army reported today. "Therefore, he withdrew the adverse administrative actions."
The timing of today's decision raises questions about whether the Army hoped the Wanat findings would be overshadowed by bigger national news. That bigger story, of course, was the removal of Afghanistan commander Stanley McChrystal for this Rolling Stone profile, and his replacement by Petraeus, who'd signed off on the original soldiers' reprimands. (It's also unclear whether Petraeus' departure from Central Command made it easier for Army officials to overturn the initial investigation he'd endorsed.)
We've had a loss of our own around here; if you only read 'above the fold', please take a moment to read Bob's post from last night. Although it was quiet of late, we all got our start on the forum. RIP.
Comments:
Order comments Newest to Oldest Refresh Comments
Comment by 
wickedpam on 07/20/2010 12:37:48
wickedpam on 07/20/2010 12:37:48
Morning 
Comment by 
Raine on 07/20/2010 12:52:49
Raine on 07/20/2010 12:52:49
Good Morning!
Been trying to find any caches of anything from the forum -- nothing is out there. This is all very very strange.
Been trying to find any caches of anything from the forum -- nothing is out there. This is all very very strange.
Comment by 
TriSec on 07/20/2010 12:53:48
TriSec on 07/20/2010 12:53:48
Say ex- and current New York wing of the blog, what say you about the proposed Mosque near "that hole in the ground"?
Since Sarah and the Right are all up in arms about it....
I say, since the government and the private sector don't seem interested in building anything there, let them build it. Maybe it will attract some more businesses to the area. Of course we know it will attract the ignorant haters.
Since Sarah and the Right are all up in arms about it....
I say, since the government and the private sector don't seem interested in building anything there, let them build it. Maybe it will attract some more businesses to the area. Of course we know it will attract the ignorant haters.
Comment by Raine on 07/20/2010 13:06:33
Here is what I think --
There has been a center in that area since 1970.
This is pure fear and bigotry -- which is the very thing the people who want to build this mosque has said it wants to counter. Personally, I think this could be an opportunity for everyone to embrace to show to the rest of the world that they are not afraid of the muslim's, and sadly, many in NYC don;t want to see that chance.
NIMBY. (and they are missing the chance for some great food...
)
Raine on 07/20/2010 13:06:33
Quote by TriSec:
Say ex- and current New York wing of the blog, what say you about the proposed Mosque near "that hole in the ground"?
Since Sarah and the Right are all up in arms about it....
I say, since the government and the private sector don't seem interested in building anything there, let them build it. Maybe it will attract some more businesses to the area. Of course we know it will attract the ignorant haters.
There has been a center in that area since 1970.
This is pure fear and bigotry -- which is the very thing the people who want to build this mosque has said it wants to counter. Personally, I think this could be an opportunity for everyone to embrace to show to the rest of the world that they are not afraid of the muslim's, and sadly, many in NYC don;t want to see that chance.
NIMBY. (and they are missing the chance for some great food...
)
Comment by Raine on 07/20/2010 13:12:24
Raine on 07/20/2010 13:12:24
I like Richard Wolfe.
Comment by TriSec on 07/20/2010 13:22:45
TriSec on 07/20/2010 13:22:45
I hate NIMBYs. Look up "Cape Wind" sometime.
Then there is the group I hate so much that I won't mention their name; they are the people that moved to Lexington, Concord, Bedford, (MA) and were shocked, SHOCKED, I tell ya, to discover a working airport in their town.
I also file the people that move to the country and complain about animal smells in this group.
Nobody forced you to move there. Shut the hell up.
Then there is the group I hate so much that I won't mention their name; they are the people that moved to Lexington, Concord, Bedford, (MA) and were shocked, SHOCKED, I tell ya, to discover a working airport in their town.
I also file the people that move to the country and complain about animal smells in this group.
Nobody forced you to move there. Shut the hell up.
Comment by TriSec on 07/20/2010 13:39:13
TriSec on 07/20/2010 13:39:13
In honour of Sarah comparing herself to the Bard, I have penned a commemorative Haiku:
Palin tweets the word.
Shakespeare looks down upon it.
Surely, he spinneth.
Palin tweets the word.
Shakespeare looks down upon it.
Surely, he spinneth.
Comment by Raine on 07/20/2010 13:40:54
Raine on 07/20/2010 13:40:54
Wha? Glenn beck is going blind?
Comment by Raine on 07/20/2010 13:44:12
I refudiate that. and I accept your apology.
Raine on 07/20/2010 13:44:12
Quote by TriSec:
In honour of Sarah comparing herself to the Bard, I have penned a commemorative Haiku:
Palin tweets the word.
Shakespeare looks down upon it.
Surely, he spinneth.
Comment by Raine on 07/20/2010 13:47:14
For the record -- I don't believe him.
This is why.
Disgusting wretch.
Raine on 07/20/2010 13:47:14
Quote by Raine:
Wha? Glenn beck is going blind?
For the record -- I don't believe him.
This is why.
Disgusting wretch.
Comment by wickedpam on 07/20/2010 13:49:19
so who's gonna be struck dumb? O'Reilly or Hannity?
wickedpam on 07/20/2010 13:49:19
Quote by Raine:Quote by Raine:
Wha? Glenn beck is going blind?
For the record -- I don't believe him.
This is why.
Disgusting wretch.
so who's gonna be struck dumb? O'Reilly or Hannity?
Comment by Raine on 07/20/2010 13:53:50
You know, I miss rational debate.
Raine on 07/20/2010 13:53:50
Quote by wickedpam:Quote by Raine:Quote by Raine:
Wha? Glenn beck is going blind?
For the record -- I don't believe him.
This is why.
Disgusting wretch.
so who's gonna be struck dumb? O'Reilly or Hannity?
Comment by wickedpam on 07/20/2010 13:54:41
wickedpam on 07/20/2010 13:54:41
given: Main Stream Media is media that is most watched
given: Faux news is #1 as reported by them (not sure abotu nielsen)
Then: Faux news is MSM
given: Faux news is #1 as reported by them (not sure abotu nielsen)
Then: Faux news is MSM
Comment by TriSec on 07/20/2010 13:55:46
TriSec on 07/20/2010 13:55:46
I'd rather have him go mute.
Comment by wickedpam on 07/20/2010 13:58:30
I think alot of people do too
wickedpam on 07/20/2010 13:58:30
Quote by Raine:You know, I miss rational debate.Quote by wickedpam:Quote by Raine:Quote by Raine:
Wha? Glenn beck is going blind?
For the record -- I don't believe him.
This is why.
Disgusting wretch.
so who's gonna be struck dumb? O'Reilly or Hannity?
I think alot of people do too
Comment by wickedpam on 07/20/2010 14:00:15
I thought that's what dumb meant in an old school way - you know being struck deaf, dumb and blind? Or am I refering to something completely offense and I don't realize it?
wickedpam on 07/20/2010 14:00:15
Quote by TriSec:
I'd rather have him go mute.
I thought that's what dumb meant in an old school way - you know being struck deaf, dumb and blind? Or am I refering to something completely offense and I don't realize it?
Comment by TriSec on 07/20/2010 14:08:55
TriSec on 07/20/2010 14:08:55
A couple more tidbits from the weekend....
I had to ask for it, but you can still find and buy a souvenir ashtray at Clark's Trading Post in Lincoln, NH.
The general store in Woodstock, NH still carries actual candy cigarettes. I was so surprised to see them, I let Javi buy some. (Don't tell his grandmas, though.)
I had to ask for it, but you can still find and buy a souvenir ashtray at Clark's Trading Post in Lincoln, NH.
The general store in Woodstock, NH still carries actual candy cigarettes. I was so surprised to see them, I let Javi buy some. (Don't tell his grandmas, though.)
Comment by Al from WV on 07/20/2010 14:12:29
Welcome to thinking like a conservative... chuckle
Quote by TriSec:
I hate NIMBYs. Look up "Cape Wind" sometime.
Then there is the group I hate so much that I won't mention their name; they are the people that moved to Lexington, Concord, Bedford, (MA) and were shocked, SHOCKED, I tell ya, to discover a working airport in their town.
I also file the people that move to the country and complain about animal smells in this group.
Nobody forced you to move there. Shut the hell up.
Welcome to thinking like a conservative... chuckle
Comment by TriSec on 07/20/2010 14:15:04
TriSec on 07/20/2010 14:15:04
I'd rather file that under "common sense". 
Comment by Al from WV on 07/20/2010 14:16:10
"Dumb=mute" is my understanding of the primary use of "dumb."
"Dumb=stupid" is what I understand to be a very common misuse of the word "dumb" and I wonder if it doesn't exist as an outcropping of people c100 years ago saying that those who could not speak were stupid.
When I hear or see "deaf, dumb, and blind" for instance, I understand it to mean "can't hear, can't speak, and can't see."
Quote by wickedpam:Quote by TriSec:
I'd rather have him go mute.
I thought that's what dumb meant in an old school way - you know being struck deaf, dumb and blind? Or am I refering to something completely offense and I don't realize it?
"Dumb=mute" is my understanding of the primary use of "dumb."
"Dumb=stupid" is what I understand to be a very common misuse of the word "dumb" and I wonder if it doesn't exist as an outcropping of people c100 years ago saying that those who could not speak were stupid.
When I hear or see "deaf, dumb, and blind" for instance, I understand it to mean "can't hear, can't speak, and can't see."
Comment by Al from WV on 07/20/2010 14:18:55
Exactly where all the conservative people I personally know would file it, but it's refreshing to hear someone who is not a conservative sort of admit that conservative can at least occaionally contain common sense.
Not gonna make much of it, Tri, just thought it ironic from my point of view.
Have a great day.
Quote by TriSec:
I'd rather file that under "common sense".
Exactly where all the conservative people I personally know would file it, but it's refreshing to hear someone who is not a conservative sort of admit that conservative can at least occaionally contain common sense.
Not gonna make much of it, Tri, just thought it ironic from my point of view.
Have a great day.
Comment by Raine on 07/20/2010 14:25:08
Raine on 07/20/2010 14:25:08
AL!
Have I ever mentioned to you how amazing Gonzo was?
I am very glad to see you here, friend.
Have I ever mentioned to you how amazing Gonzo was?
I am very glad to see you here, friend.
Comment by TriSec on 07/20/2010 14:26:29
TriSec on 07/20/2010 14:26:29
Heh.
There are plenty of conservatives about that have common sense. I believe I shocked the assembled a while back when I admitted to listening to, and enjoying immensely, a conservative talk show. Not Right-Wing, mind you.
Dan Rea up here in Boston, on WBZ Radio, is a self-described conservative libertarian. His show is truly a breath of fresh air. (You're not that far away, WBZ's signal reaches Florida on a good night.)
Nightside with Dan Rea
Of course, I still pick up the Olbermann, Maddow, and Miller podcasts....
There are plenty of conservatives about that have common sense. I believe I shocked the assembled a while back when I admitted to listening to, and enjoying immensely, a conservative talk show. Not Right-Wing, mind you.
Dan Rea up here in Boston, on WBZ Radio, is a self-described conservative libertarian. His show is truly a breath of fresh air. (You're not that far away, WBZ's signal reaches Florida on a good night.)
Nightside with Dan Rea
Of course, I still pick up the Olbermann, Maddow, and Miller podcasts....
Comment by Al from WV on 07/20/2010 14:28:10
I'm glad you enjoyed it. (smile)
Quote by Raine:
AL!
Have I ever mentioned to you how amazing Gonzo was?
I am very glad to see you here, friend.
I'm glad you enjoyed it. (smile)
Comment by Al from WV on 07/20/2010 14:30:29
Oh yes, I've heard WBZ at night for a long time, but I no longer do political radio. I appreciate the suggestion, though, thanks.
Quote by TriSec:
Heh.
There are plenty of conservatives about that have common sense. I believe I shocked the assembled a while back when I admitted to listening to, and enjoying immensely, a conservative talk show. Not Right-Wing, mind you.
Dan Rea up here in Boston, on WBZ Radio, is a self-described conservative libertarian. His show is truly a breath of fresh air. (You're not that far away, WBZ's signal reaches Florida on a good night.)
Nightside with Dan Rea
Of course, I still pick up the Olbermann, Maddow, and Miller podcasts....
Oh yes, I've heard WBZ at night for a long time, but I no longer do political radio. I appreciate the suggestion, though, thanks.
Comment by Raine on 07/20/2010 14:32:19
So yes, I think that Mala was correct in her line of questioning.
personally, I would very much like for Beck to go quiet first. This man is not conservative. George Will is conservative. David Brock is conservative. I disagree with them, but they offer valid points to debate.
Glenn Beck is a cartoon posing as a legitimate news source.
Raine on 07/20/2010 14:32:19
Quote by Al from WV:Quote by wickedpam:Quote by TriSec:
I'd rather have him go mute.
I thought that's what dumb meant in an old school way - you know being struck deaf, dumb and blind? Or am I refering to something completely offense and I don't realize it?
"Dumb=mute" is my understanding of the primary use of "dumb."
"Dumb=stupid" is what I understand to be a very common misuse of the word "dumb" and I wonder if it doesn't exist as an outcropping of people c100 years ago saying that those who could not speak were stupid.
When I hear or see "deaf, dumb, and blind" for instance, I understand it to mean "can't hear, can't speak, and can't see."
So yes, I think that Mala was correct in her line of questioning.
personally, I would very much like for Beck to go quiet first. This man is not conservative. George Will is conservative. David Brock is conservative. I disagree with them, but they offer valid points to debate.
Glenn Beck is a cartoon posing as a legitimate news source.
Comment by Al from WV on 07/20/2010 14:32:46
Oh, Tri, left a note for you on the Board is Gone blog comment stream, re: recovering mission statement, rules, etc. Let me know if you're interested. Possibly better to do by email, al.from.wv@hotmail.com.
Comment by Al from WV on 07/20/2010 14:37:50
I don't know about "cartoon" but certainly he is an advocate posing as a legitimate news source. Then again, the list of advocates posing as legitimate news sources is long and not limited to either idealogy.
Perhaps "cartoon" is merely a much disliked advocate posing as a legitimate news source, depending on who is liking or disliking the advocate.
Quote by Raine:
Glenn Beck is a cartoon posing as a legitimate news source.
I don't know about "cartoon" but certainly he is an advocate posing as a legitimate news source. Then again, the list of advocates posing as legitimate news sources is long and not limited to either idealogy.
Perhaps "cartoon" is merely a much disliked advocate posing as a legitimate news source, depending on who is liking or disliking the advocate.
Comment by TriSec on 07/20/2010 14:37:56
TriSec on 07/20/2010 14:37:56
I checked around my computer this am; I think we did everything online through the forum. I wrote the mission statement, but I don't have a copy.
Comment by wickedpam on 07/20/2010 14:38:09
And see first thing I usually think is - that kid sure plays a mean pinball
wickedpam on 07/20/2010 14:38:09
Quote by Al from WV:Quote by wickedpam:Quote by TriSec:
I'd rather have him go mute.
I thought that's what dumb meant in an old school way - you know being struck deaf, dumb and blind? Or am I refering to something completely offense and I don't realize it?
"Dumb=mute" is my understanding of the primary use of "dumb."
"Dumb=stupid" is what I understand to be a very common misuse of the word "dumb" and I wonder if it doesn't exist as an outcropping of people c100 years ago saying that those who could not speak were stupid.
When I hear or see "deaf, dumb, and blind" for instance, I understand it to mean "can't hear, can't speak, and can't see."
And see first thing I usually think is - that kid sure plays a mean pinball
Comment by Raine on 07/20/2010 14:38:50
Raine on 07/20/2010 14:38:50
I refudiate the fact that the etymology world accepts Sarah Palin as a scholar. (Tri, can you haiku that?)
Comment by Raine on 07/20/2010 14:41:02
I do as well.
DAMN YOU TOMMY!!!
Raine on 07/20/2010 14:41:02
Quote by wickedpam:And see first thing I usually think is - that kid sure plays a mean pinball
I do as well.
DAMN YOU TOMMY!!!
Comment by Al from WV on 07/20/2010 14:44:37
crap. Well, I'll look, and hope that just maybe I'd have had a reason to copy/paste it (although I'm not hopeful, I'm not sure why I would have).
It will be much later today or more likely tomorrow, before I can look. Now that I work for Dell, I can't get to my hotmail accounts from work.
Quote by TriSec:
I checked around my computer this am; I think we did everything online through the forum. I wrote the mission statement, but I don't have a copy.
crap. Well, I'll look, and hope that just maybe I'd have had a reason to copy/paste it (although I'm not hopeful, I'm not sure why I would have).
It will be much later today or more likely tomorrow, before I can look. Now that I work for Dell, I can't get to my hotmail accounts from work.
Comment by TriSec on 07/20/2010 14:45:42
TriSec on 07/20/2010 14:45:42
Listening to TRMS right now.
What the hell is that Rubio ad about? (I'll have to check it out at home - streaming blocked here.) And new-age lounge music? Really?
What the hell is that Rubio ad about? (I'll have to check it out at home - streaming blocked here.) And new-age lounge music? Really?
Comment by wickedpam on 07/20/2010 14:48:56
wickedpam on 07/20/2010 14:48:56
Quote by Raine:Quote by wickedpam:And see first thing I usually think is - that kid sure plays a mean pinball
I do as well.
DAMN YOU TOMMY!!!
Comment by Al from WV on 07/20/2010 14:49:45
Got the rules from a Google cache. At least that's not blocked here.
Also got the mission statement from a cache. Both in word docs.
Send me an email addy via al.from.wv@hotmail.com if you want them.
Also got the mission statement from a cache. Both in word docs.
Send me an email addy via al.from.wv@hotmail.com if you want them.
Comment by Raine on 07/20/2010 14:49:50
An advocate for what? What is he posing for?
and I preface this, I want to talk about Beck. I am LONG tired of people telling me that he is the same as (a) (b) and © ...
He isn't.
George Will is. David Brock is.
Raine on 07/20/2010 14:49:50
Quote by Al from WV:Quote by Raine:
Glenn Beck is a cartoon posing as a legitimate news source.
I don't know about "cartoon" but certainly he is an advocate posing as a legitimate news source. Then again, the list of advocates posing as legitimate news sources is long and not limited to either idealogy.
Perhaps "cartoon" is merely a much disliked advocate posing as a legitimate news source, depending on who is liking or disliking the advocate.
and I preface this, I want to talk about Beck. I am LONG tired of people telling me that he is the same as (a) (b) and © ...
He isn't.
George Will is. David Brock is.
Comment by wickedpam on 07/20/2010 14:54:24
talking point, talking point, talking point
wickedpam on 07/20/2010 14:54:24
talking point, talking point, talking point
Comment by wickedpam on 07/20/2010 14:58:31
I've always equated Beck to one of those rather dangerous revival preachers - I'm not talking about the preachers, priests, pastors, and so on that honestly spread their beliefs - I'm talking the ones that roll into town set up a tent and who used to be snake oil sales men. They're power comes from usupring (sp) honesty.
wickedpam on 07/20/2010 14:58:31
Quote by Raine:An advocate for what? What is he posing for?Quote by Al from WV:Quote by Raine:
Glenn Beck is a cartoon posing as a legitimate news source.
I don't know about "cartoon" but certainly he is an advocate posing as a legitimate news source. Then again, the list of advocates posing as legitimate news sources is long and not limited to either idealogy.
Perhaps "cartoon" is merely a much disliked advocate posing as a legitimate news source, depending on who is liking or disliking the advocate.
and I preface this, I want to talk about Beck. I am LONG tired of people telling me that he is the same as (a) (b) and © ...
He isn't.
George Will is. David Brock is.
I've always equated Beck to one of those rather dangerous revival preachers - I'm not talking about the preachers, priests, pastors, and so on that honestly spread their beliefs - I'm talking the ones that roll into town set up a tent and who used to be snake oil sales men. They're power comes from usupring (sp) honesty.
Comment by Raine on 07/20/2010 14:58:52
Let me explain, Brock and Will are worthy people to debate about regarding the opinions they have. They have legitimate opinions, and I am quite tired of people who are unabashedly left leaning being compared as the political equivalent of Glenn Beck.
Beck offers nothing. He offers conspiracy. That's poisonous.
Raine on 07/20/2010 14:58:52
Quote by Raine:An advocate for what? What is he posing for?Quote by Al from WV:Quote by Raine:
Glenn Beck is a cartoon posing as a legitimate news source.
I don't know about "cartoon" but certainly he is an advocate posing as a legitimate news source. Then again, the list of advocates posing as legitimate news sources is long and not limited to either idealogy.
Perhaps "cartoon" is merely a much disliked advocate posing as a legitimate news source, depending on who is liking or disliking the advocate.
and I preface this, I want to talk about Beck. I am LONG tired of people telling me that he is the same as (a) (b) and © ...
He isn't.
George Will is. David Brock is.
Beck offers nothing. He offers conspiracy. That's poisonous.
Comment by Al from WV on 07/20/2010 15:12:53
To address your questions and comments directly:
An advocate for what? -- for his political point of view to become or remain (as applicable) the prevailing political point of view.
What is he posing for? -- He is posing for the hopeful addition of legitimacy; that he would appear more legitimate by appearing to be objective since there is a thought that most Americans still want news reporting to be objective, not from one side or the other.
You want to talk about Beck. -- Fine, but I can't. I don't listen to Beck, or any of the rest of them. All I know about him is what I happen to read that someone else says about him. I will not discuss anyone very often based solely on that.
You are LONG tired of people telling me that he is the same as (a) (b) and ©, except, you say, he isn't. -- Except that he is. He is the same as the rest of them just like my Ford Ranger is the same as a Isuzu box truck. They have the same basic function, the same basic purpose, the same basic intent. Are they exactly the same in every aspect? Of course not. Is it these specific aspects that form the basis of your wish to condemn Beck? Well and good, but I do not know them and do not care to, so I cannot discuss that with you.
I was merely pointing to principle, that all of them bring their advocacy to their "legitimate news outlet" efforts, from Maddow to Beck, from Olbermann to Limbaugh. If that deception (as I believe it is) is the source of your dislike of Beck, then I can agree. If your issue is how he uses that "transference" of advocacy to supposed legitimate news outlet, then, as I said, I am unequipped to evaluate that, and will remain so.
All the best,
Al
Quote by Raine:An advocate for what? What is he posing for?Quote by Al from WV:Quote by Raine:
Glenn Beck is a cartoon posing as a legitimate news source.
I don't know about "cartoon" but certainly he is an advocate posing as a legitimate news source. Then again, the list of advocates posing as legitimate news sources is long and not limited to either idealogy.
Perhaps "cartoon" is merely a much disliked advocate posing as a legitimate news source, depending on who is liking or disliking the advocate.
and I preface this, I want to talk about Beck. I am LONG tired of people telling me that he is the same as (a) (b) and © ...
He isn't.
George Will is. David Brock is.
To address your questions and comments directly:
An advocate for what? -- for his political point of view to become or remain (as applicable) the prevailing political point of view.
What is he posing for? -- He is posing for the hopeful addition of legitimacy; that he would appear more legitimate by appearing to be objective since there is a thought that most Americans still want news reporting to be objective, not from one side or the other.
You want to talk about Beck. -- Fine, but I can't. I don't listen to Beck, or any of the rest of them. All I know about him is what I happen to read that someone else says about him. I will not discuss anyone very often based solely on that.
You are LONG tired of people telling me that he is the same as (a) (b) and ©, except, you say, he isn't. -- Except that he is. He is the same as the rest of them just like my Ford Ranger is the same as a Isuzu box truck. They have the same basic function, the same basic purpose, the same basic intent. Are they exactly the same in every aspect? Of course not. Is it these specific aspects that form the basis of your wish to condemn Beck? Well and good, but I do not know them and do not care to, so I cannot discuss that with you.
I was merely pointing to principle, that all of them bring their advocacy to their "legitimate news outlet" efforts, from Maddow to Beck, from Olbermann to Limbaugh. If that deception (as I believe it is) is the source of your dislike of Beck, then I can agree. If your issue is how he uses that "transference" of advocacy to supposed legitimate news outlet, then, as I said, I am unequipped to evaluate that, and will remain so.
All the best,
Al
Comment by Al from WV on 07/20/2010 15:15:54
"Their power comes from usurping honesty." Wow. I'd like to think I could say it so correctly and succinctly. Well done, Mala. I plan to use that, probably in an upcoming blog post (http://theviewfromthestreet.blogspot.com/) because not only are you correct, you are inspirational. I hope "stealing" it for that purpose is ok with you.
Well said. Just well said.
Quote by wickedpam:Quote by Raine:An advocate for what? What is he posing for?Quote by Al from WV:Quote by Raine:
Glenn Beck is a cartoon posing as a legitimate news source.
I don't know about "cartoon" but certainly he is an advocate posing as a legitimate news source. Then again, the list of advocates posing as legitimate news sources is long and not limited to either idealogy.
Perhaps "cartoon" is merely a much disliked advocate posing as a legitimate news source, depending on who is liking or disliking the advocate.
and I preface this, I want to talk about Beck. I am LONG tired of people telling me that he is the same as (a) (b) and © ...
He isn't.
George Will is. David Brock is.
I've always equated Beck to one of those rather dangerous revival preachers - I'm not talking about the preachers, priests, pastors, and so on that honestly spread their beliefs - I'm talking the ones that roll into town set up a tent and who used to be snake oil sales men. They're power comes from usupring (sp) honesty.
"Their power comes from usurping honesty." Wow. I'd like to think I could say it so correctly and succinctly. Well done, Mala. I plan to use that, probably in an upcoming blog post (http://theviewfromthestreet.blogspot.com/) because not only are you correct, you are inspirational. I hope "stealing" it for that purpose is ok with you.
Well said. Just well said.
Comment by Al from WV on 07/20/2010 15:16:24
oops double post
Comment by wickedpam on 07/20/2010 15:23:04
aawww thanks
don't think anyone has ever refered to me as inspirational before thats nice to hear
wickedpam on 07/20/2010 15:23:04
Quote by Al from WV:Quote by wickedpam:Quote by Raine:An advocate for what? What is he posing for?Quote by Al from WV:Quote by Raine:
Glenn Beck is a cartoon posing as a legitimate news source.
I don't know about "cartoon" but certainly he is an advocate posing as a legitimate news source. Then again, the list of advocates posing as legitimate news sources is long and not limited to either idealogy.
Perhaps "cartoon" is merely a much disliked advocate posing as a legitimate news source, depending on who is liking or disliking the advocate.
and I preface this, I want to talk about Beck. I am LONG tired of people telling me that he is the same as (a) (b) and © ...
He isn't.
George Will is. David Brock is.
I've always equated Beck to one of those rather dangerous revival preachers - I'm not talking about the preachers, priests, pastors, and so on that honestly spread their beliefs - I'm talking the ones that roll into town set up a tent and who used to be snake oil sales men. They're power comes from usupring (sp) honesty.
"Their power comes from usurping honesty." Wow. I'd like to think I could say it so correctly and succinctly. Well done, Mala. I plan to use that, probably in an upcoming blog post (http://theviewfromthestreet.blogspot.com/) because not only are you correct, you are inspirational. I hope "stealing" it for that purpose is ok with you.
Well said. Just well said.
aawww thanks
don't think anyone has ever refered to me as inspirational before thats nice to hear
Comment by Al from WV on 07/20/2010 15:23:52
I was typing my 11:12:53 while you were posting your 10:58:52, which answers much of what I addressed.
Ergo, not much discussion to be had. Based on principle, I regard all "leaners" (which are those I said were advocates) as opinion bearers, not news reporters. News reporters remove ALL opinion without exception, including inference by content and delivery, and there are blessed few of them remaining.
Advocates and "leaners" have their place, and a legitimate place it is, but co-opting "reporter" is, as Mala pointed out so well, obtaining their power to be believed by usurping honesty.
Ergo, not much discussion to be had. Based on principle, I regard all "leaners" (which are those I said were advocates) as opinion bearers, not news reporters. News reporters remove ALL opinion without exception, including inference by content and delivery, and there are blessed few of them remaining.
Advocates and "leaners" have their place, and a legitimate place it is, but co-opting "reporter" is, as Mala pointed out so well, obtaining their power to be believed by usurping honesty.
Comment by Al from WV on 07/20/2010 15:24:59
It's been ages since I've wanted to add anything to my blog. What you wrote makes me want to, and gives me a center to write around. I'd say that's inspirational.
Quote by wickedpam:Quote by Al from WV:Quote by wickedpam:Quote by Raine:An advocate for what? What is he posing for?Quote by Al from WV:Quote by Raine:
Glenn Beck is a cartoon posing as a legitimate news source.
I don't know about "cartoon" but certainly he is an advocate posing as a legitimate news source. Then again, the list of advocates posing as legitimate news sources is long and not limited to either idealogy.
Perhaps "cartoon" is merely a much disliked advocate posing as a legitimate news source, depending on who is liking or disliking the advocate.
and I preface this, I want to talk about Beck. I am LONG tired of people telling me that he is the same as (a) (b) and © ...
He isn't.
George Will is. David Brock is.
I've always equated Beck to one of those rather dangerous revival preachers - I'm not talking about the preachers, priests, pastors, and so on that honestly spread their beliefs - I'm talking the ones that roll into town set up a tent and who used to be snake oil sales men. They're power comes from usupring (sp) honesty.
"Their power comes from usurping honesty." Wow. I'd like to think I could say it so correctly and succinctly. Well done, Mala. I plan to use that, probably in an upcoming blog post (http://theviewfromthestreet.blogspot.com/) because not only are you correct, you are inspirational. I hope "stealing" it for that purpose is ok with you.
Well said. Just well said.
aawww thanks
It's been ages since I've wanted to add anything to my blog. What you wrote makes me want to, and gives me a center to write around. I'd say that's inspirational.
Comment by wickedpam on 07/20/2010 15:32:07
just promise me you'll use it for good and not evil
wickedpam on 07/20/2010 15:32:07
Quote by Al from WV:Quote by wickedpam:Quote by Al from WV:Quote by wickedpam:Quote by Raine:An advocate for what? What is he posing for?Quote by Al from WV:Quote by Raine:
Glenn Beck is a cartoon posing as a legitimate news source.
I don't know about "cartoon" but certainly he is an advocate posing as a legitimate news source. Then again, the list of advocates posing as legitimate news sources is long and not limited to either idealogy.
Perhaps "cartoon" is merely a much disliked advocate posing as a legitimate news source, depending on who is liking or disliking the advocate.
and I preface this, I want to talk about Beck. I am LONG tired of people telling me that he is the same as (a) (b) and © ...
He isn't.
George Will is. David Brock is.
I've always equated Beck to one of those rather dangerous revival preachers - I'm not talking about the preachers, priests, pastors, and so on that honestly spread their beliefs - I'm talking the ones that roll into town set up a tent and who used to be snake oil sales men. They're power comes from usupring (sp) honesty.
"Their power comes from usurping honesty." Wow. I'd like to think I could say it so correctly and succinctly. Well done, Mala. I plan to use that, probably in an upcoming blog post (http://theviewfromthestreet.blogspot.com/) because not only are you correct, you are inspirational. I hope "stealing" it for that purpose is ok with you.
Well said. Just well said.
aawww thanks
It's been ages since I've wanted to add anything to my blog. What you wrote makes me want to, and gives me a center to write around. I'd say that's inspirational.
just promise me you'll use it for good and not evil
Comment by Raine on 07/20/2010 15:37:01
Raine on 07/20/2010 15:37:01
LIV?? are you that Steve from long Island???
Comment by Raine on 07/20/2010 15:49:29
Al, you have said that you cannot talk about Beck, (or the rest of them... ) So when you say how -- and I ask this honestly, after you stated that you do not listen to him or the rest of them -- (whoever they may be.) I must ask: are you saying that as a statement or as a question?
I refuse to throw EVERYONE out of the legitimate political discussion perspective. Beck should not be used as the political spectrum opposite of (a) (b) and (c )
I would suggest strongly that the conservative worldview use a better example to compare themselves to the left wing version. It might actually raise the debate.
Raine on 07/20/2010 15:49:29
Quote by Al from WV:Quote by Raine:An advocate for what? What is he posing for?Quote by Al from WV:Quote by Raine:
Glenn Beck is a cartoon posing as a legitimate news source.
I don't know about "cartoon" but certainly he is an advocate posing as a legitimate news source. Then again, the list of advocates posing as legitimate news sources is long and not limited to either idealogy.
Perhaps "cartoon" is merely a much disliked advocate posing as a legitimate news source, depending on who is liking or disliking the advocate.
and I preface this, I want to talk about Beck. I am LONG tired of people telling me that he is the same as (a) (b) and © ...
He isn't.
George Will is. David Brock is.
To address your questions and comments directly:
An advocate for what? -- for his political point of view to become or remain (as applicable) the prevailing political point of view.
What is he posing for? -- He is posing for the hopeful addition of legitimacy; that he would appear more legitimate by appearing to be objective since there is a thought that most Americans still want news reporting to be objective, not from one side or the other.
You want to talk about Beck. -- Fine, but I can't. I don't listen to Beck, or any of the rest of them. All I know about him is what I happen to read that someone else says about him. I will not discuss anyone very often based solely on that.
You are LONG tired of people telling me that he is the same as (a) (b) and ©, except, you say, he isn't. -- Except that he is. He is the same as the rest of them just like my Ford Ranger is the same as a Isuzu box truck. They have the same basic function, the same basic purpose, the same basic intent. Are they exactly the same in every aspect? Of course not. Is it these specific aspects that form the basis of your wish to condemn Beck? Well and good, but I do not know them and do not care to, so I cannot discuss that with you.
I was merely pointing to principle, that all of them bring their advocacy to their "legitimate news outlet" efforts, from Maddow to Beck, from Olbermann to Limbaugh. If that deception (as I believe it is) is the source of your dislike of Beck, then I can agree. If your issue is how he uses that "transference" of advocacy to supposed legitimate news outlet, then, as I said, I am unequipped to evaluate that, and will remain so.
All the best,
Al
An advocate for what? -- for his political point of view to become or remain (as applicable) the prevailing political point of view.
I refuse to throw EVERYONE out of the legitimate political discussion perspective. Beck should not be used as the political spectrum opposite of (a) (b) and (c )
I would suggest strongly that the conservative worldview use a better example to compare themselves to the left wing version. It might actually raise the debate.
Comment by 
livingonli on 07/20/2010 15:57:29
livingonli on 07/20/2010 15:57:29
Good morning everyone. Couldn't have been me on the phone since I just woke up 15 minutes ago. Damn this silly schedule. I do have to call back into the show at some point.
Comment by livingonli on 07/20/2010 15:59:59
Sounds like looney tunes Christian extremism is looking for any excuse to justify their new version of the crusades. Which probably explains why the demagogue Sarah Palin is jumping in on this with her "unique" take on the English language.
livingonli on 07/20/2010 15:59:59
Quote by Raine:Here is what I think --Quote by TriSec:
Say ex- and current New York wing of the blog, what say you about the proposed Mosque near "that hole in the ground"?
Since Sarah and the Right are all up in arms about it....
I say, since the government and the private sector don't seem interested in building anything there, let them build it. Maybe it will attract some more businesses to the area. Of course we know it will attract the ignorant haters.
There has been a center in that area since 1970.
This is pure fear and bigotry -- which is the very thing the people who want to build this mosque has said it wants to counter. Personally, I think this could be an opportunity for everyone to embrace to show to the rest of the world that they are not afraid of the muslim's, and sadly, many in NYC don;t want to see that chance.
NIMBY. (and they are missing the chance for some great food...
Sounds like looney tunes Christian extremism is looking for any excuse to justify their new version of the crusades. Which probably explains why the demagogue Sarah Palin is jumping in on this with her "unique" take on the English language.
Comment by wickedpam on 07/20/2010 16:01:08
wickedpam on 07/20/2010 16:01:08
off to do some more chores - talk to everyone later 
Comment by Al from WV on 07/20/2010 16:09:24
@wickedpam:
Chuckle... well, nothing that I think is evil.
Chuckle... well, nothing that I think is evil.
Comment by Al from WV on 07/20/2010 16:13:13
I can't talk about what specifically any of them say. Sorry, thought I was clearer. I can talk about the fairly obvious fact that ALL of them do what they do for the purpose of hoping to get more people to believe or continue to believe like they do. That this is the purpose of ALL the "leaners" by the mere fact that they are "leaners" should be plain and simple.
Again, as to specifically what they say? Not my baliwick.
As to whether that fundamental basis being the same is enough to call them "all the same?" Depends on the person. I believe you don't think so. That's fine, it's your right. As to my opinion? Yes, I think that's enough. Just my opinion.
Quote by Raine:Al, you have said that you cannot talk about Beck, (or the rest of them... ) So when you sayQuote by Al from WV:Quote by Raine:An advocate for what? What is he posing for?Quote by Al from WV:Quote by Raine:
Glenn Beck is a cartoon posing as a legitimate news source.
I don't know about "cartoon" but certainly he is an advocate posing as a legitimate news source. Then again, the list of advocates posing as legitimate news sources is long and not limited to either idealogy.
Perhaps "cartoon" is merely a much disliked advocate posing as a legitimate news source, depending on who is liking or disliking the advocate.
and I preface this, I want to talk about Beck. I am LONG tired of people telling me that he is the same as (a) (b) and © ...
He isn't.
George Will is. David Brock is.
To address your questions and comments directly:
An advocate for what? -- for his political point of view to become or remain (as applicable) the prevailing political point of view.
What is he posing for? -- He is posing for the hopeful addition of legitimacy; that he would appear more legitimate by appearing to be objective since there is a thought that most Americans still want news reporting to be objective, not from one side or the other.
You want to talk about Beck. -- Fine, but I can't. I don't listen to Beck, or any of the rest of them. All I know about him is what I happen to read that someone else says about him. I will not discuss anyone very often based solely on that.
You are LONG tired of people telling me that he is the same as (a) (b) and ©, except, you say, he isn't. -- Except that he is. He is the same as the rest of them just like my Ford Ranger is the same as a Isuzu box truck. They have the same basic function, the same basic purpose, the same basic intent. Are they exactly the same in every aspect? Of course not. Is it these specific aspects that form the basis of your wish to condemn Beck? Well and good, but I do not know them and do not care to, so I cannot discuss that with you.
I was merely pointing to principle, that all of them bring their advocacy to their "legitimate news outlet" efforts, from Maddow to Beck, from Olbermann to Limbaugh. If that deception (as I believe it is) is the source of your dislike of Beck, then I can agree. If your issue is how he uses that "transference" of advocacy to supposed legitimate news outlet, then, as I said, I am unequipped to evaluate that, and will remain so.
All the best,
Alhow -- and I ask this honestly, after you stated that you do not listen to him or the rest of them -- (whoever they may be.) I must ask: are you saying that as a statement or as a question?An advocate for what? -- for his political point of view to become or remain (as applicable) the prevailing political point of view.
I refuse to throw EVERYONE out of the legitimate political discussion perspective. Beck should not be used as the political spectrum opposite of (a) (b) and (c )
I would suggest strongly that the conservative worldview use a better example to compare themselves to the left wing version. It might actually raise the debate.
I can't talk about what specifically any of them say. Sorry, thought I was clearer. I can talk about the fairly obvious fact that ALL of them do what they do for the purpose of hoping to get more people to believe or continue to believe like they do. That this is the purpose of ALL the "leaners" by the mere fact that they are "leaners" should be plain and simple.
Again, as to specifically what they say? Not my baliwick.
As to whether that fundamental basis being the same is enough to call them "all the same?" Depends on the person. I believe you don't think so. That's fine, it's your right. As to my opinion? Yes, I think that's enough. Just my opinion.
Comment by livingonli on 07/20/2010 16:15:48
That's why Tommy was "the dead, dumb, and blind kid".
livingonli on 07/20/2010 16:15:48
Quote by Al from WV:Quote by wickedpam:Quote by TriSec:
I'd rather have him go mute.
I thought that's what dumb meant in an old school way - you know being struck deaf, dumb and blind? Or am I refering to something completely offense and I don't realize it?
"Dumb=mute" is my understanding of the primary use of "dumb."
"Dumb=stupid" is what I understand to be a very common misuse of the word "dumb" and I wonder if it doesn't exist as an outcropping of people c100 years ago saying that those who could not speak were stupid.
When I hear or see "deaf, dumb, and blind" for instance, I understand it to mean "can't hear, can't speak, and can't see."
That's why Tommy was "the dead, dumb, and blind kid".
Comment by livingonli on 07/20/2010 16:18:28
That's what I get for not finishing reading the posts before replying.
livingonli on 07/20/2010 16:18:28
Quote by Raine:Quote by wickedpam:And see first thing I usually think is - that kid sure plays a mean pinball
I do as well.
DAMN YOU TOMMY!!!
That's what I get for not finishing reading the posts before replying.
Comment by livingonli on 07/20/2010 19:12:39
livingonli on 07/20/2010 19:12:39
It sure got quiet here.
Comment by 
BobR on 07/20/2010 19:17:37
Just the usual post-lunch lull...
BobR on 07/20/2010 19:17:37
Quote by livingonli:
It sure got quiet here.
Just the usual post-lunch lull...
Comment by Raine on 07/20/2010 19:30:53
Raine on 07/20/2010 19:30:53
I'm back. I needed a nap. I took one.
The weekend, the drive and waking up very early just was too much for my tired old body and mind.
The weekend, the drive and waking up very early just was too much for my tired old body and mind.
Comment by Raine on 07/20/2010 19:31:44
Raine on 07/20/2010 19:31:44
Quote by livingonli:Quote by Raine:Quote by wickedpam:And see first thing I usually think is - that kid sure plays a mean pinball
I do as well.
DAMN YOU TOMMY!!!
That's what I get for not finishing reading the posts before replying.
Scoopster
Comment by TriSec on 07/21/2010 00:48:01
TriSec on 07/21/2010 00:48:01
Comment by Raine on 07/21/2010 02:10:10
What? Why?
Did something happen???
I could tell you about my weekend. It involves ex's and martyrs.... would that make you feel better?
Raine on 07/21/2010 02:10:10
Quote by TriSec:
What? Why?
Did something happen???
I could tell you about my weekend. It involves ex's and martyrs....
would that make you feel better?