Congratulations to our 500,000th post winner!

[Adam's Apple]

Congrats to RSR. I think of him as the "Fox News" of USMB. He pumps out the "gospel" and draws the liberals like flies to the flame.

 

[Paul Revere]

What does RSR get for being the one millionth winner?

He is only about 3 weeks away.

 

[red states rule]

rsr jumped in while i was trying to post, the ps3 should be mine. rsr wont mind, just mail it to me, thanks a bunch

Do you want a recount?

 

[red states rule]

What does RSR get for being the one millionth winner?

He is only about 3 weeks away.

Besides your personality Paul, what is your problem?

 

[Scooter]

Do you want a recount?

I can't claim to have read all your posts...but I'd wager this is the funniest thing you've ever said.

Well done.

 

[Kagom]

RedStatesRule wins for this post:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?p=557382#post557382

What does he win?

A new PS3....mostly because it has been sitting unopened in my office for 3 months.

Please PM me, RSR.

Damn, wish I had won.

 

[red states rule]

I can't claim to have read all your posts...but I'd wager this is the funniest thing you've ever said.

Well done.

Thank you - I tired to keep it tame

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Hey Scott RSR is a cheater!!!

According to the rules, "no cross posting is allowed."

RSR double posted the same post twice in two different threads!!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=557529&postcount=42
http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=557525

Clearly he broke the rules!!!

I think RSR should be disqualified and the prize should go to the poster who posted after him.

 

[Scooter]

I think RSR should be disqualified and the prize should go to the poster who posted after him.

I think you're being silly.

Relax, it's just a video game system.

It's not like I gave him a new car.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

I think you're being silly.

Relax, it's just a video game system.

It's not like I gave him a new car.

Nope, not being silly. I could care less if you gave him a new car.

But clarify for me then, is cross posting against the rules? Yes or no?

 

[Shattered]

Nope, not being silly. I could care less if you gave him a new car.

But clarify for me then, is cross posting against the rules? Yes or no?

*pinches you HARD*

Not to be overly picky, or anything, but it's "I couldn't care less." "Could care less:" means you care a LOT.

Sorry. Pet peeve.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

*pinches you HARD*

Not to be overly picky, or anything, but it's "I couldn't care less." "Could care less:" means you care a LOT.

Sorry. Pet peeve.

LOL. Thank you for the correction.

 

[Shattered]

LOL. Thank you for the correction.

That's really one of the only ones I'll point out..

 

[Paul Revere]

Hey Scott RSR is a cheater!!!

According to the rules, "no cross posting is allowed."

RSR double posted the same post twice in two different threads!!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=557529&postcount=42
http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=557525

Clearly he broke the rules!!!

I think RSR should be disqualified and the prize should go to the poster who posted after him.

They may contain the same quote, but they are not exactly the same. He is NOT GUILTY!

Congradulations RSR, I hope you bought a lottery ticket also..



Take a closer look:

The WSJ poll has VP Cheney's approval rating at 25% and Harry Reid at 22%

Reid has a lower rating then Pres Bush

So much doing the will of the American people


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117752895118782401.html?mod=politics_primary_hs

Responding to VP Dick Cheney's comment on the Dems surrender bill, Harry Reid sneered:

"I'm not going to get into a name-calling match with someone who has a 9 percent approval rating," he said of Cheney.

Not so fast Harry. The WSJ poll has VP Cheney's approval rating at 25% and Harry Reid at 22%

So much doing the will of the American people


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117752895118782401.html?mod=politics_primary_hs

RSR -

 

[Dirt McGirt]

They may contain the same quote, but they are not exactly the same. He is NOT GUILTY!

Congradulations RSR, I hope you bought a lottery ticket also..

Well coming from his board archrival, I'll rescind that he be disqualified...but it is a cross post. I've no problems with RSR or his intellectual dishonesty. But I do have a problem with his cross posting AKA spamming. I've said as much in some of his posts and have complained to Scooter about it before. Rewarding him only reinforces his "spammish" behavior.

STOP THE SPAM, RSR!!!!

 

[Paul Revere]

Well coming from his board archrival, I'll rescind that he be disqualified...but it is a cross post. I've no problems with RSR or his intellectual dishonesty. But I do have a problem with his cross posting AKA spamming. I've said as much in some of his posts and have complained to Scooter about it before. Rewarding him only reinforces his "spammish" behavior.

STOP THE SPAM, RSR!!!!

I also agree with you concerning his intellectual dishonesty.

I admit that I do not know the technical definition of cross posting on this board, but it seems normal to me that if the same answer works for two different questions or equations, then using that same answer is the normal thing to do. Besides that, each post had some different words sprinkled about. Too bad they were words of others and not original to RSR.

 

[wiggles]

I need an MP3 player.

Two Parties, One Law

By ARNOLD I. BURNS
Published: May 3, 2007

AS a former Justice Department official, I have been inundated lately with questions from friends, family and acquaintances about Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Should he stay or should he go? To some extent, I think that’s the wrong question.

As for the current matter, involving the dismissal of several United States attorneys, the fact is that the president is entitled to fire the people in those jobs without cause. As far as we know, no crime has been committed. Mr. Gonzales is being accused not of criminal conduct but of ineptitude. But the issue raised by this highly unfortunate set of circumstances transcends the question of the present attorney general’s tenure.

There is no doubt that the confidence of the American public in the ability of the department to administer justice evenhandedly has been badly shaken, and the morale at the department has been significantly eroded. Why? Because the overall perception, right or wrong, is that the department is highly political and that when Mr. Gonzales left his job at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to become attorney general at 10th and Constitution, he did not appreciate that he had truly changed jobs.

Whatever happens to Mr. Gonzales, the taint will remain. That’s why the only real solution is to depoliticize the Justice Department, to do away with the appearance of anyone playing politics there.

I suggest we begin by making the attorney general job no longer a cabinet position. When the nation was established, the president needed a lawyer at his side. But today the president has a White House staff full of them — a veritable law firm in his own home.

The solution is to have the attorney general appointed to a fixed term — say, 15 years — that wouldn’t be coterminous with the tenure of the president who appoints him. As with the director of the F.B.I. (a 10-year term) and the chairman of the Federal Reserve (a four-year, renewable term), the appointment would be made by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate. Congress’s oversight would ensure that no political hack or crony of the president could be handed the job.

Likewise, the 93 United States attorneys should not be political apparatchiks, but talented lawyers selected half from Republican ranks and half from Democratic, following the system used for regulatory bodies like the Federal Communications Commission. These men and women should also be subject to Senate confirmation.

Changes in the occupant of the White House should not affect the way justice is administered. If the Gonzales mess ends up giving us an apolitical Department of Justice, the American people will be well served.

Arnold I. Burns was the deputy attorney general in the second Reagan administration.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

I need an MP3 player.

Two Parties, One Law

By ARNOLD I. BURNS
Published: May 3, 2007

AS a former Justice Department official, I have been inundated lately with questions from friends, family and acquaintances about Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Should he stay or should he go? To some extent, I think that’s the wrong question.

As for the current matter, involving the dismissal of several United States attorneys, the fact is that the president is entitled to fire the people in those jobs without cause. As far as we know, no crime has been committed. Mr. Gonzales is being accused not of criminal conduct but of ineptitude. But the issue raised by this highly unfortunate set of circumstances transcends the question of the present attorney general’s tenure.

There is no doubt that the confidence of the American public in the ability of the department to administer justice evenhandedly has been badly shaken, and the morale at the department has been significantly eroded. Why? Because the overall perception, right or wrong, is that the department is highly political and that when Mr. Gonzales left his job at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to become attorney general at 10th and Constitution, he did not appreciate that he had truly changed jobs.

Whatever happens to Mr. Gonzales, the taint will remain. That’s why the only real solution is to depoliticize the Justice Department, to do away with the appearance of anyone playing politics there.

I suggest we begin by making the attorney general job no longer a cabinet position. When the nation was established, the president needed a lawyer at his side. But today the president has a White House staff full of them — a veritable law firm in his own home.

The solution is to have the attorney general appointed to a fixed term — say, 15 years — that wouldn’t be coterminous with the tenure of the president who appoints him. As with the director of the F.B.I. (a 10-year term) and the chairman of the Federal Reserve (a four-year, renewable term), the appointment would be made by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate. Congress’s oversight would ensure that no political hack or crony of the president could be handed the job.

Likewise, the 93 United States attorneys should not be political apparatchiks, but talented lawyers selected half from Republican ranks and half from Democratic, following the system used for regulatory bodies like the Federal Communications Commission. These men and women should also be subject to Senate confirmation.

Changes in the occupant of the White House should not affect the way justice is administered. If the Gonzales mess ends up giving us an apolitical Department of Justice, the American people will be well served.

Arnold I. Burns was the deputy attorney general in the second Reagan administration.

LOL. You should ask Scooter to change your user name to Blue States Rule.

 

[wiggles]

LOL. You should ask Scooter to change your user name to Blue States Rule.

Yeah? Well here's my response to that.

Lost in the Fog With Commander Guy

By Eugene Robinson
Friday, May 4, 2007; Page A23

Is George W. Bush even trying to make sense anymore?

On Wednesday, speaking to the Associated General Contractors of America, Bush gave himself a new nickname. Responding to a question from the audience, he asked rhetorically whether "the Congress or the commanders" should decide how many U.S. troops are needed in Iraq.

"And as you know," he went on, "my position is clear -- I'm the Commander Guy."

That leaves me somewhat confused. If he's now the Commander Guy, does that mean I have to stop calling him The Decider? Or does he spend some days deciding and other days commanding?

Maybe there were further clues to the president's decision-making style in the rambling talk he gave a couple of weeks ago at Tippecanoe High School in Tipp City, Ohio. He recalled that just before his inauguration in 2001, the head usher at the White House called and asked what color rug he wanted in the Oval Office. He delegated the task of designing a new presidential rug to his wife, Laura.

"But I said, I want it to say something -- the president has got to be a strategic thinker and I said to her, make sure the rug says 'optimistic person comes to work.' Because you can't make decisions unless you're optimistic that the decisions you make will lead to a better tomorrow." The result, he said, is "this fantastic rug that looks like the sun. And it just sets the tone for the Oval Office."

While discussing the situation in Iraq, Bush told the Tipp City audience that "I happen to think there will be an additional dividend when we succeed -- remember the rug?"

Does that make the rug an Assistant Decider? Will the rug get a Medal of Freedom, just like George Tenet?

That Ohio appearance generated so many new Bushisms that it's hard to know where to begin. Asked about the polls showing the unpopularity of the war and his own low approval rating, Bush said, "I've been in politics long enough to know that polls just go poof at times." Asked about immigration, Bush said, "There are jobs Americans aren't doing. . . . If you've got a chicken factory, a chicken-plucking factory or whatever you call them, you know what I'm talking about."

Um, sure, Mr. President, we follow you. All the way to the chicken factory.

Those in the crowd at Tipp City also learned from the president that Iraq is definitely not another Vietnam. But the president added, "There are some similarities, of course -- death is terrible."

Okay, I know that most of the president's off-the-wall locutions are dangerous only to the English language. But to the extent that carelessness of speech reflects carelessness of mind, much more is at stake. The Commander Guy's rationale for sending more U.S. troops to fight and die in Iraq is as elusive as his reason for starting the war in the first place. He says his goal is victory, but he can't explain coherently what victory would look like, much less how to get there.

In Tipp City, just before his reminder about the Oval Office rug, Bush said success in Iraq would be defined as "a country that is stable enough for the government to work, that can defend itself and serve as an ally in this war on terror, that won't be a safe haven, that will deny the extremists and the radicals."

But that doesn't necessarily mean an end to bloody suicide bombings, he added. "Think about that: If our definition is no more suiciders, you've just basically said to the suiciders, go ahead."

Speaking to the contractors' group Wednesday, the president elaborated: "Either we'll succeed or we won't succeed. And the definition of success as I described is sectarian violence down. Success is not, no violence. There are parts of our own country that have got a certain level of violence to it. But success is a level of violence where the people feel comfortable about living their daily lives. And that's what we're trying to achieve."

What is the man talking about? What "parts of our own country" experience violence remotely comparable to that in Iraq? Is he serious?

President Bush now says that even after "success" in Iraq -- after more American and Iraqi deaths -- there will still be sectarian violence and there will still be suicide bombers killing innocent civilians. Which is the situation right now. So why stay in Iraq even one more day, except to validate the unwise decisions of our ineloquent Commander Guy?

 

[red states rule]

I also agree with you concerning his intellectual dishonesty.

I admit that I do not know the technical definition of cross posting on this board, but it seems normal to me that if the same answer works for two different questions or equations, then using that same answer is the normal thing to do. Besides that, each post had some different words sprinkled about. Too bad they were words of others and not original to RSR.

So if you admit you do not know the technical definition of cross posting, why are you complaining?