Just curious if you think leaders of any country can do anything they want to protect their citizens during a time of war?

I believe Saddam was hung for protecting his citizens during a time of war (against Islamists, no less).

Not that it isn't obvious that W broke the law, I'm just curious if you are one of those "it's OK when my guy does it" guys.

A notorious beer chugger like Ruth didn't drink a drop between 1920 and 1933?

That could be true, but it's hard to believe.

I'm not trying to disparage the Babe (or defend Bonds). I'm just saying.

1) George W. Bush like baseball.

That's as long as the list gets.

BTW, when he owned a baseball team, he had no problem with spending tax money to pay for his team's stadium.

Like all good Republicans, he has principles*.

*sometimes

(specifically, principles can be dropped in times when they don't help him and his cronies---see rule of law/ Libby, accountability of the poor/ rich and powerful, etc).

I PRAY you're still reading these posts.

You think the Iraqi's killed 3000 Americans?

When and where?

Do you drink (the piss flavored) Kool-Aid much?

I'll say it one more time for you 9/11 idiots too slow to pick up the first 100 times I said it:

The President of the United States didn't give 2 shits about September 11th, 2001.

If he did, he wouldn't have originally been against having a commission look into what heppened. He wouldn't have underfunded the commission. He wouldn't have stonewalled the investigation by the commission. He wouldn't have had Condi bald-face lie to the commission.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

The President of the US on 9/11/2001 doesn't care about it. Why should I?

So, enough with the "3000 dead Americans". Come up with a better reason for killing innocent Iraqis.

I'm tired of the 9/11 mantra to excuse your genocide.

The next person that brings it up, is going to get a size 11 boot up their ass with the above stenciled on it.

Never let a Republican bring up 9/11 as an excuse for anything (including the war on terrorism).

Ask them how important could 9/11 be if the President of the US ON 9/11 doesn't think we should find out how it all went down.

W was against the creation of the 9/11 Commission, until the polls told him that was a loser (you know, because he's all resolute and shit). Then he underfunded the Commission. Then he stonewalled the commission. Then he had Condi bald-face lie to the Commission.

So ask them, why should any American care about 9/11 (unless they lost a loved one) if the President doesn't.

If they sputter, ask them if they think there is another reason W was against the commission, and infer that it might be they are one of those "wierdos" who think our own government was behind it (remember you're talking to a Republican).

This has helped me get past the "what about 3000 dead citizens" and "what about 9/11" arguements and get to the nut of the issue.

Don't let them use 9/11 as an excuse for everything they do. This arguement will render 9/11 useless to their view.

It usually frustrates them because I've taken away their biggest weapon in the debate. Now they are stuck trying to use "reason". It's fun to make them debate on your terms.

In one breath they'll tell you Republicans are the only ones tough enough to take on the terrorists.

In the next breath they swoon and faint when a liberal uses a bad word.

It's hilarious to those of us who actually pay attention for 2 seconds.

Is that because you don't think they could get a warrant for that scenario?

Are you sure Democratic politicians are against torture, telecom amnesty, the war, etc., or are they just trying to make us believe they are?

I'm thinking it's the latter.

Both parties are funded by the same people (the powerful moneyed interests who really run this country).

BTW: I'm not a fan of the war-mongering Mrs. Clinton, but her election would bring the GOP (and their 24%ers) over to the "anti" position on all of these issues.

Call that the "silver lining in the dark cloud".

I grew up in Boston, and have never been a Red Sox fan.

Why? It's not because the fans were "long-suffering", it's because they were (are?) insufferable.

They whined like 29 teams won the World Series, but only the poor Red Sox fans rooted for a team that didn't win.

Wrong!

One team wins, and 29 don't. That didn't make Red Sox fans special, it made them typical.

You hadn't seen the definition of "disconnect" until you heard Sox fans cry about Steinbrenner buying championships as if they were KC Royals fans.

BTW, if "passionate" means "stupid", then it's true that Red Sox fans are the most passionate in sports. If it was up to the fans, ROY Pedroia would have been shipped out of town the first week of May.

1) "Democrats" has 9 letters in it. "Republicans" has 11 letters in it.

2) Democrats begins with the letter "D". Republicans begins with the letter "R".

Feel free to add other differences to the list, if you can find any.

Note: They have to be real differences.

Exmaple: Republicans support the War in Iraq, but Democrats "say"they don't support the War in Iraq, doesn't count because they both actually support the War in Iraq.

Nice job by Lynx. I think you nailed it.

The other facet is that an NFL coaching 'genius' felt there was an advantage to breaking the rules, despite the punishment he and his team might face if caught. It's hard to think 'it's no big deal' if the best coach in the league (who won 3 Super Bowls as head coach and 2 others as defensive coordinator) is willing to take the risk.

Of course, his 'genius' label also took a big hit after he was thoroughly out-coached at this year's Super Bowl, too.