Free Republic

Can you summarize how he slammed Gregory? I missed that.

If Kerry or Mrs. Bill is pres and we are taking 911 hits at home we will but probably not judiciously. I don't count on W or a Republican followup doing it at all.

Why do you believe Kerry or Hillary would be more likely to use nukes than a Republican?

“There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

This should be amended to read, "There are lies, damned lies, and Democrats."

Unless you are assuming that Republicans are flexible in their support, and Democrats are not, isn't there a flaw in your reasoning? In other words, you assume that Bush's "betrayal" of Republican positions on spending will cost him Republican votes. Fair enough. But wouldn't such taking of traditionally Democratic positions win him an equal and opposite number of (or at least some) Democratic votes?

Can you please add me to the ping list? Many thanks!

I believe he means "I would bet that things will go in the future as they have in the past." In other words, the fall of Europe will be marked by convulsions of violence, rather than a peaceful transition.

I've been brainwashed by nobody. Look, I don't for a minute think Sorenstam, or anyone else on the LPGA tour can compete with the men, at least not on a regular basis. Frankly, I thought she would shoot 80-77 -- and I was a bit surprised that she did as well as she did.

But the fact remains, her participation thrilled both TV and the sponsors. It led to huge publicity for the event itself, as well as for future LPGA events. Whether the other tours lose money or not is irrelevant -- they'd lose a helluva lot more without sponsors and TV. And frankly that's irrelevant too -- the sponsor can give an exemption to anyone they want to -- with the possibly limitation being that they must have a scratch handicap or better (I'm not sure of the exact rules).

Nothing prevented them from giving a spot to Sorenstam, just like nothing prevents them from giving exemptions to all kinds of over-the-hill or "local hero" players every week of the year. Funny we never hear about them taking bread off the table of the Hank Kuehnes of the world when they let Arnold Palmer play.

all she is doing is taking bread off of somebody else's table

Au contraire. She helped put lots of money in lots of people's pockets. Lest we forget, the huge purses that have benefit ALL of the tours are made possible (as is the huge amount of charity done by the Tours) because of -- you guessed it -- sponsors and television. Both of which were thrilled with Sorenstam's participation.

The only possible chance we have to change things at the ballot box is to elect renegades.

The whole point is that this is not possible.

Socialism continues to develope whether democrats or republicans dominate. I see no difference, except that the path to socialism wears jeans when the democrats dominate and suits when the republicans dominate.

I disagree. Do you really think there would be no difference had Al Gore been elected instead of George W. Bush? You may claim that any differences are just differences in degree. I claim that a few degrees' difference is the difference between being comfortable and uncomfortable (and eventually dead.) Kind regards,

OMG, just realized, that intern WAS Helen Thomas.

I doubt it. Wasn't Thomas in her sixties during the Kennedy administration?

The United States is best served when political calculations are not a part of the White House's most important decisions.

Definition of politics from Webster's on-line:

"the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy"

Hmmm. Now why would we ever want the art or science of influencing governmental policy to be a part of influencing governmental policy decisions?

This reminds me of the common canard about how partisanship (partisan= "firm adherent to a party , faction, cause, or person") is so bad. I mean, who would expect a firm adherent to a cause to actually take a position in support of that cause?

At times like this, we can only fall back on the famous Captain Renault quote from Casablanca:

"I'm shocked, shocked to see that there is gambling going on in here!"

You beat me to it!

I am now a Trail Blazers fan.

A perfect example of drawing the wrong conclusion based on one data point. This was indeed a great moment, and Maurice Cheeks is as far as I understand, a good guy. But the Trail Blazers have a reputation of being a bunch of thugs and malcontents. You could do better in your choice of teams to root for.

It's not something I ever really wanted to keep up with...

You're quite right -- we've already expended far too much time and bandwidth contemplating that heathenous wench's likeness and girth.

But that's more or less the look she had during the first term.

More "less" than "more". She would have to lose about 70 pounds to look that slim.

This is an excerpt from a John Derbyshire post on NRO's Corner:

From a reader with an email address indicating he is an employee of a large and famous software company whose name is an anagram of SNU: "Ever since 9/11 I have lamented the fact that I never joined the military and that my job (software engineering) does not contribute even remotely to the war effort. I am 28 years old, a college grad, have a wife, a house, and a child on the way, yet I feel my life is not complete. When I see our soldiers, airmen, sailors, marines, and coastguardsmen fighting for my country I regret not being one of them. Pride in the military was not fostered in my generation, we are the children of the Vietname era. As a result I was more interested in going to college, getting a job, and making money than joining the military. But over the years, as I've lived my life, I have developed a respect and pride for the military on my own. I have observed the actions of our military, in Kuwait, Iraq, Bosnia, Panama, Afghanistan, and many other places. Today I am extremely proud of our military and regret that I am not part of it. I plan to make sure that my children, and their generation know this pride from an early age, so that they can make a more informed decision than I did."

I agree very much with his sentiments.

Here was my comment on a Maureen Dowd thread the other day:

More to the point, since all her (and her colleagues') dire predictions about Bush and this war have been emphatically contradicted by actual events, she now has to chide the administration about things she thinks will occur. It's her version of "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em". She can't bring herself to "join 'em", so she is now going with "if you can't beat 'em, criticize something they haven't done yet, and set the bar so high they will never be able to succeed again."

Seems to me we're already seeing this phenomenon, as this article makes clear.

I'm still waiting for Ralph Peters' public apology to Donald Rumsfeld.

Therefore America is inherently immoral and illegitimate

The pot calling the kettle black, if you ask me. Especially, and specifically, with regard to the previous occupant of the Oval Office.

Our guys rule!

You can say that again!