Posted on 11/04/2006 6:20:58 PM PST by Sergeant Tim
I've got a case each of 7.62x51 and .45 ACP I can loan you. Heck if you make good use of it, it's a gift.
JarJar's profile: could it be...
SPIKE LEE?
I don't know how jar-jar is outed, but I know from watching this video that he exists no more...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6013179560191291686&q=jar+jar+binks&hl=en
God be with them.
ping
There's somebody postng to that thread under the name "Blair," too, lol. Jar-Jar's buddy.
My favorite years: (1977-1980)1977
jar jar
From...
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2006/07/academic_bureau.html
"Henry Hansmann has no e in his last name.
Posted by: jar jar at Jul 11, 2006 10:01:06 AM"
Curser on "jar jar" shows email " rabam002@yahoo.com "
Search on "rabam002" shows reviews on amazon.com by...
http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A39ZF6F1RXOYZZ/ref=cm_cr_auth/103-6713156-7962221
Could be?
The very next post after "jar jar" on http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2006/07/academic_bureau.html
is made by "Alec". When you place the curser over that screen name you get sent here " http://www.the-editors.blogspot.com/ "
which seems to tie back in pretty well.
Nice job. How difficult would it be to cross reference to find out if he did work for "Slam" magazine? I am guessing he is around 45-50 years old if those are his favorite years.
It looks like these are two different "jar jar"'s
Hmm. Do you think it is one of these guys? I thought these guys were all college students, or close to it. Unless the guy was just blowing it out of his butt with the "favorite years" comment in the bio.
Doesn't look like it is Brandon or Anesi, I read some of their stuff and it sounded reasonable and doesn't fit that profile at all...I am probably barking up the wrong tree here.
I've not a clue what that photo means yet it is hillarious.
Donald Sutherland from the remake of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"
Take a closer look at this guy.
____________________________________________________________
http://mralec.blogspot.com/2006/03/saddam-and-zarqawi.html
While Christopher Hitchens is using the evil of al Qaeda terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as a reason to reinvigorate the fight in Iraq and the Weekly Standard is trying for the 80th time to draw a link between Saddam and al Qaeda, it turns out Saddam was just as interested in getting rid of Zarqawi as the United States is now.
Juan Cole points that recently released documents show that Saddam felt Zarqawi was a threat to his regime and in August of 2002 called on an intelligence officer to capture the terrorist.
My favorite part of this news is that it sticks it to both Saddam and Bush/Cheney. Saddam for now encouraging an insurgency led by a man that he would have happily murdered four years ago and Bush/Cheney for once using Zarqawi as a way to link Saddam with al Qaeda.
Too bad this has received next to no press.
-Mr. Alec
____________________________________________
http://mralec.blogspot.com/2005/11/constitutional-right-to-privacy.html
A Constitutional Right to Privacy
A non-European post from the European correspondant? You'll live.
Dan Savage has an incredible op-ed in today's New York Times. Titled, "Can I Get a Little Privacy?" it describes one of the best ideas yet for a Democratic victory in 2006. Before getting into why this can really help the Democrats in the next Congressional cycle, I will summarize Savage's idea.
Savage suggests that Democrats go on the offensive with an amendment to the constitution to counter the proposed amendment banning gay marraige. This amendment would guarentee every citizen a right to privacy. (Of what degree and language still to be decided, of course)
This solves the major problem of Supreme Court judges disagreeing over whether or not the constitution gives people a right to privacy in debates about abortion, gay marraige, and whatever else may eventually come up. If it is made explicit, there is no longer an argument on constitutional lines in these issues.
Now, this is an excellent idea for Democrats to push in 2006 because opposing an amendment that gives people a right to privacy is incredibly difficult. Who doesn't want an explicit right to privacy from their government? If it is made a central issue of the 2006 campaign, many Republicans will either have to support the amendment (A Democratic victory) or oppose it and lose elections.
I applaud Dan Savage for coming out with this idea and I hope he will push it even more. Democrats need positive ideas for 2006. We need to be a party that says that the government should do, not what it shouldn't.
_________________________________________________________
http://mralec.blogspot.com/2005/10/rove-and-libby.html
__________________________________________________________
http://mralec.blogspot.com/2005/10/my-fellow-democrats-frame-debate.html
_____________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.