Some fresh thinking from outside [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

equicom

08-04-2008, 01:51 PM

Here's a couple of random thoughts for today.

Firstly, if you guys really have separation of church and state, then why are churches allowed to make political contributions?

I think that should be banned because you get bottom-feeders like Bill Frist being propped up by radical southern baptists and wanting to ban gambling and so on. I don't think it is because he really wants to ban gambling (anyone who could do the sorta stuff he got up to when he was younger is clearly devoid of morals) but because he wants to keep suckling at the teat of religion.

And I think the whole stinking mess of them are the same. Religion does not belong in politics, and politics does not belong in religion (so you preachers out there, stop putting political messages in your sermons. Jesus will give you a good spanking when you get up there, you know).

The other issue today is that you're all on here all the time squabling: "The left is best"... "No the right is right" etc etc.

Meanwhile in DC they're not hearing you. They can't hear you because you're being drowned out by the sound they are really listening to. KA-CHING, KA-CHING.

You're paying $4/gal for gas now, to pay for a war you never wanted against people who never attacked you. Way to go.

Your government can spend trillions on fighting wars overseas for no real purpose (and certainly no visible advantage to Americans yet, except maybe a warm fuzzy glow that comes from being "best in show"). Yet when your own people get into trouble due to environmental disasters like hurricanes and tornados, they can't even airlift you out or give you medical supplies or police protection.

And your US dollar has fallen from being worth nearly AUD $2 to now only AUD $1.05. Your economy is f^$&# no matter who you vote for. But you'll be a lot less stressed if you stop all that fighting between yourselves and trying to "convert" each other.

If you think about it, nearly all the trouble in the world is from this silly notion that you have to convert others to your way of thinking. Christians vs Muslims, Catholics vs Protestants, Catholics vs Aztecs (actually it seems Catholics vs anybody), Celtics vs Lakers, Hillary vs Obama, Obama vs McCain.... come on! There are more important things in life.

Smell a flower. Eat a pie. Paint a picture. Ride a horse. Heck, ride a whore for that matter. Just don't let Bill Frist catch you doing it.

jcrabboy

08-04-2008, 02:21 PM

Hi Equicom:

I am in 100% agreement on all counts, but the 'brains of mush thanks to Rush' will never buy into it. They would much rather work against their own interests based on one or two pet issues and what they perceive as the moral high ground.

If they hop on this thread you will see what I mean.

The Hounds of this administration are laughing as they fill their satchels with swag.

Hello- I must be going.

Jimmie

Tom

08-04-2008, 02:29 PM

equicom

08-04-2008, 03:20 PM

So you'd rather wallow in animosity and hatred, trying to convert the heathens to your cause, than adopt a simple "live and let live" approach, Tom?

That sounds suspiciously like that guy who cut loose in the "liberal" church the other day. Hope somebody is keeping an eye on you. At least that you're getting the proper dosage.

As for your politics being none of my business, well you're absolutely wrong about that. If my neighbor does a big greasy number two, don't you think I have a right to complain about the stink?

What I mean is, your politics are affecting everyone else, even those who have no wish to be involved.

---> Update <---

And the last thinkg we need is advice from losers.

I just noticed this little gem of a statement. It's not a very grown up statement, Tom. I'd like to know what you base that on.

jcrabboy

08-04-2008, 03:29 PM

Don't worry about it - we will get by just fine without your input.
Our politics are none of your business. And the last thinkg we need is advice from losers. Smelly fish were once "fresh", too. I would classify your thinking as typical old hat crap - not a fresh idea anywhere in it. Small people need to vent, so have at it.

And crabby - just what great things have the DEMS accomplished since taking power? Come on, crabby, must be something. Oh, yeah, they totally ignored an energy bill and went on vacation.

Hi Tom:
Man you are one crusty dude. I like it.

Actually other countries do have a big stake in how the good ol' US of A is doing. We can help pull there economies down, we can involve them in wars, etc., etc. We can't live in a vacuum, even though, more and more, George Bush resembles 'The Boy in the Bubble".

If we don't understand other countries and societies we are destined to make critical diplomatic errors that will cost us more than we can afford. Do you handicap a race without knowing anything about the horses in the race? Of course not.

We should welcome input, positive or negative, if it helps us to a better understanding of a country or people.

Jimmie (Crabby)

Tom

08-04-2008, 04:01 PM

I just noticed this little gem of a statement. It's not a very grown up statement, Tom. I'd like to know what you base that on.

I thought it was geared to the childish level of your post. I based it on your posted ignorance.

boxcar

08-04-2008, 04:58 PM

I thought it was geared to the childish level of your post. I based it on your posted ignorance.

:lol: :lol:

See: The left wing extremists have no clue on how clueless they really are. :D

Boxcar

delayjf

08-04-2008, 05:10 PM

Firstly, if you guys really have separation of church and state, then why are churches allowed to make political contributions?

I think that should be banned because you get bottom-feeders like Bill Frist being propped up by radical southern baptists and wanting to ban gambling and so on

The answer is: the US does not really have a separation of Church and State - Christians have the right to vote and do influence policy despite the fact that their support is based on religious belief.

boxcar

08-04-2008, 05:23 PM

The answer is: the US does not really have a separation of Church and State - Christians have the right to vote and do influence policy despite the fact that their support is based on religious belief.

Geesh...and here all this while I've been thinkin' that only those who subscribe to Black Liberation Theology were allowed to be influenced by their religious beliefs at the ballot box. What was I thinkin'!? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

wonatthewire1

08-04-2008, 05:37 PM

Spot on about the political parties here in the US of A - both completely s*ck

but you'll need to become a bit more relevant in your 'current events'; Frist has been out of the picture for a few years - and like most 'merkins, nobody really remembers him being around.

equicom

08-04-2008, 05:47 PM

There's absolutely no reason why Christians should not be allowed to vote. Nor, for that matter, why any other religion should not have that right.

The only thing I see a problem with is organized religious groups exerting financial pressure to achieve political goals. This means that everyone is potentially subject to an agenda which is in the hands of a very powerful minority.

I take offense that it has been assumed that I am a "left wing extremist", when in fact at all times I have promoted a balanced view of all things. I don't believe anyone is totally right or totally wrong, but I do believe that the entire debate is silly.

My main point is that all politics is a shell game and you can't win, buddy.

And... by the way... Tom's answer to my challenge makes no sense. There is no logic in what he said in that response, or in fact in his original rant.

I truly believe he did not even read what I said in the original post, and just decided that it was an attack on his beloved right-wing ideals.

Just one more time for the record.... I do not support either of your ridiculous (yes! ridiculous!) political parties. If there is a third option, I'd encourage each and every one of you to support that option however crazy the policies are, just to throw a shock into the duopoly that you call a democracy.

Your vote can only make a difference if it causes a difference, but of course nobody will ever vote for the crazy third party, at least not in the kind of numbers that would ensure a change.

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Frist_medical_school_experiments_controversy) is the man who believes he is more moral than the rest of you. Who believes he should be able to tell you what you can do with your own money that you earned. Now, how can that be right? Just because he's a republican?

Last time I looked, republicans weren't supposed to care too much about social welfare. I thought that was the other bunch.

And even though I understand Frist has now bow-wow-ed out, there are hordes more just like him eager to step up to the plate and take a swing at eroding your rights to do what you want with your own money just to satisfy a bunch of bible thumping do-gooders who mostly don't even understand the book they're pushing (and that's presuming they can read it in the first place).

Tom, you don't have to wade in with the attack every time. You can try to give a considered opinion. Not everyone who makes a comment is attacking what you believe in, and besides, my whole point in the OP was to say that people should have the right to believe whatever the ^#$&* they want to believe without having someone else come along and try to push something new onto them.

In effect, you proved my point. I made a suggestion that you could drop all that BS and just let people vote for whoever the heck they want to vote for, or not vote at all (man it would be cool if nobody at all voted... where would that leave them?). But you could not resist politicizing the issue and making it a left vs right argument, where previously none had existed.

boxcar

08-04-2008, 06:57 PM

PaceAdvantage

08-05-2008, 01:18 AM

I am in 100% agreement on all counts, but the 'brains of mush thanks to Rush' will never buy into it.This is where you idiots lose all credibility...you have to bring 'Rush' into the equation. I'll tell you a little secret. YOU and the rest of the left-wingers on off-topic are WAY MORE obsessed and probably listen WAY MORE to 'Rush' than any of the righties on off-topic.

Me, personally? I can honestly say I have NEVER listened to Rush Limbaugh's radio show more than maybe 2 or 3 times in my entire life. And those 2 or 3 times, not for more than 10 or 15 minutes.

PaceAdvantage

08-05-2008, 01:22 AM

So you'd rather wallow in animosity and hatred, trying to convert the heathens to your cause, than adopt a simple "live and let live" approach, Tom?What righy on off-topic is trying to convert anyone? If there is any conversion being practiced, it's the far-left, with their constant, cult-like "Satan=Bush=Republican=KKK" bullshit mantra.

jcrabboy

08-05-2008, 02:44 AM

This is where you idiots lose all credibility...you have to bring 'Rush' into the equation. I'll tell you a little secret. YOU and the rest of the left-wingers on off-topic are WAY MORE obsessed and probably listen WAY MORE to 'Rush' than any of the righties on off-topic.

Me, personally? I can honestly say I have NEVER listened to Rush Limbaugh's radio show more than maybe 2 or 3 times in my entire life. And those 2 or 3 times, not for more than 10 or 15 minutes.

Hi PA:

I don't think I mentioned anyone specifically in my post, but it appears you guys are really taking things personally. Boxcar also took a swipe at my intellect. Oh well - If it floats your boat I will periodically pass you the oar.

As to Rush - the majority of my friends and relatives fall on the conservative side of the fence, so I have indeed logged more time than I care to think about listening to his drivel.

Still enjoy the site and occasionally stirring things up. Don't get too upset as it is unlikely any of us will change the world or even a single mind with our posts.

Now it's back to looking at today's races where my opinion might translate into profit, rather than pissing someone off.

Jimmie

PaceAdvantage

08-05-2008, 03:03 AM

I don't think I mentioned anyone specifically in my post, but it appears you guys are really taking things personally.You didn't have to mention anyone specifically for me to comment, did you? I am allowed to comment, am I not?

And no, I didn't take what you said personally, I simply shared my personal experience with 'Rush,' which isn't much.

And yeah, it pisses me off that just because I happen to fall to the right of the ledger, I am automatically associated with 'Rush' and can have no opinions of my own other than what is pre-approved by 'Rush.'

Is that how it works on your side, only replace 'Rush' with 'Soros?'

Tom

08-05-2008, 07:30 AM

In effect, you proved my point. I made a suggestion that you could drop all that BS and just let people vote for whoever the heck they want to vote for, or not vote at all (man it would be cool if nobody at all voted... where would that leave them?). But you could not resist politicizing the issue and making it a left vs right argument, where previously none had existed.

If you were to take time and READ post, you would see that jrcrabby brought left/right into it, and the second paragraph of my post was directed to him, not you. I did notprove your piont...did you have one?
Hey, everyone is entitles to their opinion. Mine is that yours is BS.:D We have gottenalong jsut fine without your wisdom and will continue to do so.

equicom

08-07-2008, 09:44 AM

Hey, everyone is entitles to their opinion. Mine is that yours is BS.:D We have gottenalong jsut fine without your wisdom and will continue to do so.

Tom, how can you say that you're "getting along fine"? Have you looked out the window lately? I mean, you know, your country is at war, your economy is stuffed, your fuel prices are ridiculous, your constitutional rights are seriously eroded and seem to be headed for even more radical upheaval, the environment is being butchered.... none of these things fall within my definition of "fine".... except perhaps in the context of "this is a fine mess we're in".

You don't believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion, either, unless it agrees with yours. If you genuinely meant what you said about that, you'd give considered responses that are carefully thought out, instead of these simple blunt attacks that you seem to have a habit of being involved in.

As I've said, I have no real interest in who the bunnies vote for. You could elect the Pilsbury Doughboy and I wouldn't even bat an eyelid.

What I do say - and I can't be alone in thinking this, even if I'm alone in saying it - is that if you fellas spent even a fraction as much time bitching at your elected officials as you do bitching at each other, you'd probably get real results.

But you don't see any problem with organized secular groups exerting financial pressure to achieve political goals, right? Even when they are a powerful minority presuming to speak for all?

Boxcar, I don't even understand what you're saying here. I had just previously said that I do see a problem with it. I am not in support of religious groups (mainstream or otherwise) meddling in politics, nor for that matter do I feel comfortable with politicians meddling with religion.

What righty on off-topic is trying to convert anyone? If there is any conversion being practiced, it's the far-left, with their constant, cult-like "Satan=Bush=Republican=KKK" bullshit mantra.

Actually, it may not be the overt purpose, but it sure looks that way since you're all trying to convince one another that either the left or the right is wrong (eh?).

But the "look both ways" saying should apply to voting just as much as it does to crossing the street. If you just blindly look in one direction without turning your head to see if there is something else approaching, you could get yourself plastered.

What I have in mind - since I have a deeply vested interest in seeing your country climb out of the economic toilet bowl and once again prosper - is that you should be speaking out to your president (regardless of which political party he/she happens to be in) and getting him/her to stop whatever current mad scheme he/she is involved in.

At any given moment, you can be sure whatever given scheme is going on, it is probably a mad one. I'd be fairly surprised if any sane person has ever been elected, since from what I have been able to work out you have to be crazy to run for election in the first place.

So it is up to the sane members of your society to control all those crazy politicians. That's the responsible thing to do. I think just letting them run amok is a form of cruelty, and really you can't blame them for the consequences if you just let them "have at it" to do what they please.

Tom

08-07-2008, 10:54 AM

Tom, how can you say that you're "getting along fine"? Have you looked out the window lately? I mean, you know, your country is at war, your economy is stuffed, your fuel prices are ridiculous, your constitutional rights are seriously eroded and seem to be headed for even more radical upheaval, the environment is being butchered.... none of these things fall within my definition of "fine".... except perhaps in the context of "this is a fine mess we're in". Yadda yadda yadda......your definition of fine is irrelevant. Your opinon of how things are here are meaninngless. Our rights are not in any kind of jeopardy, gas is high all over the world, our economy goes through cycles and wil be just fine, and if you believe that enviromental BS you are not very bright.

You don't believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion, either, unless it agrees with yours. If you genuinely meant what you said about that, you'd give considered responses that are carefully thought out, instead of these simple blunt attacks that you seem to have a habit of being involved in. I have little time or patience for stupidity or a-hole snipes. So your opinion of how I should respond and a buck will get you a cup of coffee.

As I've said, I have no real interest in who the bunnies vote for. You could elect the Pilsbury Doughboy and I wouldn't even bat an eyelid. But you have the need to analyze us and offer your ignorant criticisms

You are pretty transparent and so is your agenda.
Like I said, were get along just fine with out you. I'll take our worst over your best any day. At least I have no shame of who I am or where live. You seem to be hiding out pretty good. :lol:

equicom

08-07-2008, 11:40 AM

So, just what is my agenda then, if it so transparent?

BTW, as for hiding, that pic on the left is actually me. Your pic is of a monkey with alopecia and bad taste in clothing. Which of us is really hiding?

And if you have an IQ above room temperature, then your (undoubtedly fine) education in geography, botany and the location of the brands on that horse's shoulder, you can't help but figure out where I'm "hiding"....

Gosh, and it's on my website and all.... I'm hardly Agent Thirteen.

Tom

08-07-2008, 11:55 AM

Whatever.........

equicom

08-07-2008, 12:03 PM

Still waiting to hear from you (or anyone else) what my "agenda" is...

46zilzal

08-07-2008, 12:15 PM

Still waiting to hear from you (or anyone else) what my "agenda" is...
This board reminds me a bit of what I heard my secretary say about growing up in Northern Ireland. "Whatever ideas you state, it doesn't matter there, since you are labeled from cradle to grave as belonging to ONE side or the other and NO ONE LISTENS, they just recall from which group they perceive you to belong to and close off their brains."

When confronted with what a bumbling incompetent fool the Rutabaga is, one gets attacked as he is "their boy." If the leadership were Democrat, Federalist, Whig or Republican that would not alter the harm this idiot as done to the country.

PaceAdvantage

08-09-2008, 02:08 AM

This board reminds me a bit of what I heard my secretary say about growing up in Northern Ireland. "Whatever ideas you state, it doesn't matter there, since you are labeled from cradle to grave as belonging to ONE side or the other and NO ONE LISTENS, they just recall from which group they perceive you to belong to and close off their brains."Ahhh...the pot calling the kettle black. How fun!

PaceAdvantage

08-09-2008, 02:10 AM

Can somone please point out the "fresh thinking" that was promised by the original poster? I can't find it, and I've read through the thread more than once.

Thanks.

HUSKER55

08-09-2008, 06:07 AM

Our founding fathers, according to Blackstone and others, deemed that any government must be run by men of moral charactor and good conscience. Therefore they had to have religion and live that religion to be that person. Ergo, man and God and government could not and should not be seperated.

In the early years the church was responsible for proper schooling and it wasn't until the government tried to deal with those who had ho skils did and no means to attend school did public education come into existence.

The only problem I have with religion is that muslims have this idea that by the word or by the sword you will be converted. I really have trouble with that. I have been told there are many types of muslims and I do not know how to tell one from the other. Does anybody?

Democrats have traditionally held the view that we should have a program for everything so everybody can have every thing. That does not work and it will never work. All it does is create a lot of administrators and damed few measurable results.

Republicans tend to be the more independent type. More conservative. Less government is better. The idea that government should only do for the people what the people can't do for themselves

for example, a democrat will say lets make our signs based on pictures for people who can't read. A republican will say learn how to read and hand you a book.

As for the notion that americans want to spread our dominence I would say that not all americans believe that. I may be in the minority but I am far from being alone. I never wanted to get involved in Iraq (or anywhere else) and I sure as hell know how to fight a war and so far nobody in DC has convinced me that they do.

so be glad I am not in charge.

Now, lets stir this fire some more.

husker55

equicom

08-10-2008, 05:01 PM

Well, like I said, there is nothing wrong with having religion. In fact it is probably (with a few whacky excpetions) a good thing.

What I object to is that there is an ever-growing movement by certain religious groups (and Pentecostals, Adventists and Baptists in particular) to try and influence political and other events to a religious agenda that may not be palatable to all.

These groups are made up of a minority of citizens except in some areas such as Texas where I understand there are zillions of them. But the thing is that they have HUGE amounts of money and apparently there is nothing in the bible that says "thou shalt not grease palms".

This may be hard to swallow, but the Hillsong Religious movement in Australia (really an offshoot of Pentecostals) are actually playing a huge role in what music gets to the top of the charts, and of course this in turn influences to some extent the general culture of the people. That has alarming undercurrents because you can imagine that if a certain performer like Eminem is unfavorable to them then they can try to push that out of contention. It's not quite privately run censorship, but definitely very close to that.

We also have the situation of leading government officials being "close friends" with high profile religious figures, and if you haven't figured out that most of those characters are extremely corrupt (morally and financially) then you're probably one of those who has helped them to yet another private jet and 84 carat pinkie ring.

It bothers me because you have a situation where politicians are being persuaded that it is a good thing to ban gambling. This extends to banning advertizing for gambling. And that extends to shutting down websites such as this one (which I consider to be a violation of your constitutional right to free speech, but apparently I am not very smart).

I'm also not at all keen on this scheme that monitors your credit card transactions to try and prevent you spending your money on gambling services. My view is that it is your money and you should be able to spend it on gambling if you want to. If you get scammed, that should be your problem. I don't see why the govt should get involved, except to prosecute the scammers if they can.

equicom

08-12-2008, 01:28 PM

Well, it is official. It only took 26 posts in this thread to shut Tom up. Now you know how to win. Logic always beats bluster.

Marshall Bennett

08-12-2008, 03:18 PM

All your babbling probably killed the thread . :D

Tom

08-12-2008, 07:43 PM

Well, it is official. It only took 26 posts in this thread to shut Tom up. Now you know how to win. Logic always beats bluster.

Two things - I've been at Saratoga and not on the board, and did it ever occur to you that you are just not worth interacting with. Big mouth e-jerks are a dime a dozen. You don't have the entertainment value to bother with.

HAND

NJ Stinks

08-12-2008, 08:21 PM

A few thoughts from NJ - where the skies are always blue!;)

1. Anyone who wants to save me from myself can go to hell.;) That includes gambling, drugs, tobacco - you name it. Save yourself. Just leave me out of it. I don't need or want your intervention.

2. The mortgage crisis started in the US has negatively affected banking institutions around the world. Since Republicans - as noted above by Huskers55- don't believe in government bureaucracy, nobody was regulating US financial institutions that gave out loans to undeserving applicants. Later these US mortgages were bundled and sold to foreign banks among others. Losses have been so staggering that now real estate markets in other countries have been negatively affected. (Just an example of why equicom and others around the world have a vested interest in seeing the US get straightened out.)

3. PaceAdvantage, I don't know how old you are but I hope you are young. Mainly because I want you to be around in 30 or 40 years so you can see how GWB is perceived at that time. Good luck with that.

4. I used to like it a lot more when other countries didn't like us much because they were jealous. Now it appears that other countries are worried about us more than anything else. Not a good sign, is it?

riskman

08-12-2008, 08:58 PM

Me, personally? I can honestly say I have NEVER listened to Rush Limbaugh's radio show more than maybe 2 or 3 times in my entire life. And those 2 or 3 times, not for more than 10 or 15 minutes.

Those 10 or 15 minutes are enough for a life time.

JustRalph

08-12-2008, 09:48 PM

3. PaceAdvantage, I don't know how old you are but I hope you are young. Mainly because I want you to be around in 30 or 40 years so you can see how GWB is perceived at that time. Good luck with that.

Seems like he is looking better all the time..........but those who control the press make the history books.....right or wrong.......in that same vein...

http://www.slate.com/id/2197007/

Let's just hope in the same history books where they describe the U.S. winning the war in Iraq.........they have Harry Reid and the rest of the surrender monkeys in the next chapter

somehow, I doubt it.........

JustRalph

08-13-2008, 12:18 AM

From the link above:

It is in no spirit of revenge that I remind you that, as little as a year ago, the whole of smart liberal opinion believed that the dissolution of Baathism and militarism had been a mistake, that Iraq itself was a bottomless pit of wasted dollars and pointless casualties, and that the only option was to withdraw as fast as possible and let the inevitable civil war burn itself out. To the left of that liberal consensus, people of the caliber and quality of Michael Moore were describing the nihilist "insurgents" as the moral equivalent of the Minutemen, and to the right of the same consensus, people like Pat Buchanan were hinting that we had been cheated into the whole enterprise by a certain minority whose collective name began with the letter J.

Had any of this sinister nonsense been heeded, it wouldn't even be Saddam's goons who were getting their hands on that fantastic wealth in such a strategic country. It would have been the gruesome militias who answer either to fanatical Wahhabism on one wing or to fanatical Shiism on another, and who are the instruments of tyrannical forces in neighboring countries. Hardly a prospect to be viewed with indifference. I still reel when I remember how many supposedly responsible people advocated surrendering Iraq without a fight.

equicom

08-13-2008, 02:50 PM

You don't have the entertainment value to bother with.

I'm not here to entertain you. Your entertainment is none of my concern.

You still haven't told me what my agenda is. That's why I posted that comment.

Tom

08-13-2008, 04:02 PM

:sleeping::sleeping::sleeping:

46zilzal

08-13-2008, 04:06 PM

I'm not here to entertain you. Your entertainment is none of my concern.

You still haven't told me what my agenda is. That's why I posted that comment.
The mouth that roars hounding you too. Relax he thinks that the mass of response somehow makes them more literate. A real champion of catachresis.

magwell

08-13-2008, 04:15 PM

The Biker and the Lion

A biker is riding by the zoo, when he sees a little girl
leaning into the lion's cage.

Suddenly, the lion grabs her by the cuff of her jacket and
tries to pull her inside to slaughter her, under the eyes
of her screaming parents.
The biker jumps off his bike, runs to the cage and hits the
lion square on the nose with a powerful punch.

Whimpering from the pain the lion jumps back letting go of
the girl, and the biker brings her to her terrified parents,
who thank him endlessly.

A New York Times reporter has watched the whole event.
The reporter says, 'Sir, this was the most gallant and brave
thing I saw a man do in my whole life.'

The biker replies, 'Why, it was nothing, really, the lion was
behind bars. I just saw this little kid in danger, and acted
as I felt right.'

The reporter says, 'Well, I'm a journalist from the New
York Times, and tomorrow's paper will have this story
on the front page... So, what do you do for a living and
what political affiliation do you have? '

The biker replies, 'I'm a U.S. Marine and a Republican.'
-----------------

The following morning the biker buys The New York Times to
see if it indeed brings news of his actions, and reads, on front
page:

U.S. MARINE ASSAULTS AFRICAN IMMIGRANT
AND STEALS HIS LUNCH

equicom

08-13-2008, 04:21 PM

Best post of the week, Magwell. At least in this thread at any rate. Funny.

However....

The reporter did actually report that story accurately. The lion wasn't really doing anything wrong, was he?

In fact the biker was the bad guy right from the start, because he shouldn't have been riding his bike in the zoo.

***
Edit: just re-read that joke and it says he was "riding by the zoo", not actually in the zoo. But you can't see the lion's cage from outside the zoo if you're riding past, so he must have been inside the zoo.

wonatthewire1

08-13-2008, 06:51 PM

Seems like he is looking better all the time..........but those who control the press make the history books.....right or wrong.......in that same vein...

http://www.slate.com/id/2197007/

Let's just hope in the same history books where they describe the U.S. winning the war in Iraq.........they have Harry Reid and the rest of the surrender monkeys in the next chapter

somehow, I doubt it.........

Somehow, I think that it will be judged by what happens in the region next or over the next 10-15 years to determine the effectiveness of the effort. For some reason, I get the feeling that the Iraqis are going to take their freedom from Saddam and do with it as they wish.

While the US of A could feel as though there would be something "owed" for all that was poured in there; I get the feeling that that isn't going to happen. And we may want to keep troops there, but will be met with a defiant Iraqi government; sooner or later, it will become hostile, but that is just a feeling that I've been getting.

Just looking at the recent revival of the Chinese/Iraqi oil deal sort of prompted that feeling...hope I'm wrong, just getting that vibe.