“I Will Be Looking Out for All of You”
[Guest post by DRJ]
AboveTheLaw reprints a not-to-be-missed fond farewell from a staff/office clerk at the Reed Smith law firm – apparently in the San Francisco office – to his/her fellow employees.
It begins “My fellow Americans” and continues by describing how the author will be attending American University’s School of International Service in Washington, D.C., “pursuing a combined Master’s Degree in Int’l Politics and Int’l Peace and Conflict Resolution with concentrations in Int’l Security and Human Rights. In addition, I will also be working towards a Professional Certificate in Peacebuilding.”
Then, in the “distant future” when the author has solved all America’s foreign policy problems, s/he will then:
“… return my attention towards our domestic issues like health care and education. The interests of the American people will become my top priority and someday, I will be looking out for all of you.”
I guess we don’t need President Obama now that we have this former Reed Smith clerk looking out for us.
— DRJ
The going away party likely took place the day after this person’s last day, if you know what I mean… 🙂
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 5/12/2008 @ 8:39 pmI missed the
at first, and thought that they were headed off to join the Marines.
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 5/12/2008 @ 9:01 pmKids say the darndest things. (Caveat: Daughter story.)
nk (a0613e) — 5/12/2008 @ 9:04 pmnk,
Oh what a lovely moment with your little girl.
Unfortunately she makes one Reed Smith appear mighty silly.
Dana (48960f) — 5/12/2008 @ 9:12 pmI love how our soon-to-be benevolent protector makes a point of noting that American U’s School of International Service is “ranked 8th in the nation for preparing future foreign policy professionals.” A whole slew of questions came to mind: How many International Service Schools are there that are ranked? Is 8th towards the top, middle, or bottom? Who the hell ranks these schools and on what criteria (yeah, I know, U.S. News and World Report)? Did this guy or gal get rejected from the top seven schools?
Bet anyone here dollars to dimes that this particular fellow citizen is completely moonstruck over Barack Obama. Probably volunteers to canvass for him or something.
JVW (c86819) — 5/12/2008 @ 10:08 pmThis person was channeling his or her inner Jimmy Carter!
Mike Myers (31af82) — 5/12/2008 @ 10:43 pmYhey are spoofing us, no one could be this arrogent or stupid.
Hazy (d671ab) — 5/13/2008 @ 1:31 amHazy,
From San Francisco, CA? Of course this is an idiot. The first time this idiot gets a taste of Sharia, they’ll be EDUCATED, but not until then.
I could do a better job than this dweeb, and I don’t have a degree in “Advanced Liberal Stupidity and Surrendering”.
PCD (5c49b0) — 5/13/2008 @ 5:16 amWho do you think would be best for the american economy, Mccain or Obama? And this not another partisan question.
love2008 (d2a57f) — 5/13/2008 @ 5:43 amMcCain, hands down. The only harpooning of the economy he’s talking about – so far – is this BS for AGW. Obama has Socialized health care, stiffer AGW BS, Capital Gains increases, and he want sto decide for companies just how much is too much profit.
Obama is only a couple of steps removed from making oli companies and the like state run.
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 5/13/2008 @ 6:05 amlove2008 – I will be puking a lot bit in the back of my mouth when I vote for McCain, but even with all of his flaws, and there are A LOT, Baracky would be worse for the economy, to the point where it would not be measured in degrees, but by orders of magnitude.
JD (75f5c3) — 5/13/2008 @ 6:25 amBut Mccain has said the economy is not one his strong suits. Obama seems to be running a democratic program. The democrats have touted themselves as economic wonks for years. They always refer to the Clinton years as evidence. Question is; who will benefit most from either of these two candidates, the middle class or the rich?
love2008 (d2a57f) — 5/13/2008 @ 6:40 amObama is “running a” straight socialist program.
In case you haven’t been paying attention lately, nobody benefits from socialism except the small party of elites in positions of power and authority. Look to the Soviet Union, Peoples Republic of China, East Germany, Myanmar, Venezuela, Cuba …
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 5/13/2008 @ 6:48 amOh yeah, clintoon was just great managing a dot.com bubble economy while ignoring jihad and turning down opportunities to imprison bin laden.
madmax333 (671642) — 5/13/2008 @ 6:54 amI recall the nasdaq was over 5000
at one point. Where is it now?
bush had 911 big stock market dip and actually went after jihadists. The UN had all those resolutions ignored by Iraq, who was shooting at American planes on a daily basis. Billy Boy pursued war in former Yugoslavia without UN approval that the moonbats always seem to worship otherwise. Oh yeah, Billy promised to be out of Kosovo by 1999. You don’t hear the left decrying that occupation though, eh?
love2008 wrote: “The democrats have touted themselves as economic wonks for years. They always refer to the Clinton years as evidence.”
There is a contradiction in what you wrote. Bill Clinton campaigned and mostly governed in a very pro-business manner – abandoning most of the traditional Democrat economic policies. As much as I despise Bill Clinton, this remains the reality – that his economic policies were in fact little different from the preceding Republican administrations and relatively successful. After the failed attempt to create a national takeover of health care and the reverse in Congressional seats engineered by Newt Gingrich, Bill Clinton’s economic policies became more centrist. In 2000, Al Gore campaigned with a more explicit liberal economic platform – implicitly rejecting the policies that produced the relative economic growth that Al Gore also claimed credit for. Likewise, Kerry in 2004 ran on a more explicitly liberal economic platform.
Obama is not running on a Clinton version economic platform at all. His proposals are very vague but evoke a more anti-business attitude.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/13/2008 @ 7:15 amBull. Aside from Signing or Vetoing what Congress passes, the PotUS has little control over the economy. Running a “Democrat” program – as far as Senator Obama is concerned – appears to involve huge tax increases for pretty much everyone.
Baring extensive exploration into domestic oil (Oil Shale, Coastal drilling, ANWAR), the people who will suffer will be the poor and middle class. Of the two, I suspect Senator Obama to oppose such ventures more.
The “rich” already pay a massive portion of this country’s taxes, FAR out of scale with their wealth. To punish them further with MORE taxes seems… Ignorant some how.
But please; explain to me why you think Senator Obama would do such a great job on the economy. I need a good laugh.
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 5/13/2008 @ 7:28 amBut Scott, think how much better off we’ll be once Obama drives off all those evil rich people.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/13/2008 @ 8:05 amRegarding Obama’s plan on taxing the “rich;” someone should ask him and his wife if they harbor any self – loathing about their fantastical fortunes accrued over the past few years. Uh, probably not.
Dmac (9dd3a1) — 5/13/2008 @ 8:16 amso…where is osama bin laden these days, anyway? did bush cut some kind of deal with the saudis not to pursue him, and isn’t that close to treason?
assistant devil's advocate (8ee4c8) — 5/13/2008 @ 8:30 amDmac,
O-Bomb-A isn’t thinking of himself as rich yet, not until he has a chance to act like Robert Mugabe for a decade or more.
PCD (5c49b0) — 5/13/2008 @ 8:30 amada, where are your brains?
PCD (5c49b0) — 5/13/2008 @ 8:31 ampcd, where is the man who murdered 3000 americans, and why is there no effort whatsoever to apprehend him? why were american units ordered to back off from tora bora when they had him cornered?
assistant devil's advocate (8ee4c8) — 5/13/2008 @ 8:47 amBy saying Obama seems to be running a “democratic” program I meant a “democrat party program.”
love2008 (d2a57f) — 5/13/2008 @ 8:50 amBut please; explain to me why you think Senator Obama would do such a great job on the economy. I need a good laugh.
I never indicated any personal opinion in my comment. I am simply trying to set a stage for what will be the major argument in the GE and MCcain doesnt seem to me like he grasps the depth of these issues. He will do better in the foreign policy argument but not in the economy. Not with the present state of things; job losses, foreclosures, falling dollar, sky rocketting cost of living and fuel hike. Not a good scenario for a convincing argument especially with the democrats tying him to Bush’s failed policies. How do you suggest Mccain will win the economoic argument?
ada,
The scoop is that Osama bin Laden had a sex-change operation and is now known as “Osaba bin Stacked” in Third World beauty contests.
nk (a0613e) — 5/13/2008 @ 8:54 amObama’s “Democratic program”: Where everybody gets to vote on how to spend my money, how to share my property, and what I should do with my talents.
They used to call this Economic Democracy until some pointed out that it was just plain old Socialism. So they’ve got new lipstick on the pig. Still a pig.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 5/13/2008 @ 9:07 amlove2008, what policies of Bush are “failing” in the economic sphere? That’s just vapid rhetoric. We are currently seeing the beginning of what appears to be a mild recession at the end of his term, much as Clinton’s presidency was followed by a mild recession. The recent credit crunch was no more serious than the collapse in business tech capital investment at the end of the ’90’s.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/13/2008 @ 9:16 amAnd, to be precise, there is currently no recession…
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 5/13/2008 @ 9:19 amADA, if you view 9/11 as a crime, the failure to get bin Laden is a big deal. If you view it as an act of war (as Bush does) then it’s not. What Bush wants to do is defeat the enemy, not punish the perpetrators. I can think of several reasons why getting bin Laden is not especially useful, or even detrimental to the central goal of defeating the enemy.
So unless you can explain how getting bin Laden is critical to the war goal, those of us who support the war effort are not going to care very much.
Doc Rampage (01f543) — 5/13/2008 @ 9:22 amIf “getting” Bin Laden pushes Pakistan out of alliance with us, then it will be a disaster, not a victory.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/13/2008 @ 9:29 amPakistan’s alliance with us is vulnerable enough that it may collapse anyway, though. A democratically elected government in Pakistan is likely to be fairly hostile to us.
aphrael (db0b5a) — 5/13/2008 @ 9:41 amwow, obl gets a free pass for mass murder from #28 and #29.
#28, 9/11 was both a crime and an act of war. those two things are not mutually exclusive. can you explain how getting bin laden would be “detrimental to the central goal of defeating the enemy”? isn’t he our enemy? it was he, not saddam hussein, iraq or iran, that killed all those people.
#29, thank you for acknowledging that it’s worth pardoning a mass murderer to maintain good relations with pakistan. i guess that puts the lie to bush’s statement that countries which harbor terrorists will be regarded as terrorists. 3000 dead americans isn’t too high a price for you to keep pervez musharraf as our buddy. question: where would you draw the line? would 10,000 americans be too many? what if he nuked new york city? how high is too high for you?
assistant devil's advocate (8ee4c8) — 5/13/2008 @ 9:44 am#26
love2008 (d2a57f) — 5/13/2008 @ 9:48 amThen you agree with me that just as the failing economy towards the end of Clinton’s term affected the democrats, leading to a Bush first term, so also will it hurt Mccain this fall. Its a difficult argument for him to make when the democrats are tying him to Bush’s policies. The question is not whether you think the economic problem is Bush’s fault or not, the fact is that it does not auspicate well for a republican candidate. How does Mccain win this argument?
LOL, a Certificate in Peacebuilding!!!
Book a conference room in Jerusalem, pronto!
Patricia (aaa977) — 5/13/2008 @ 9:52 amA democratically elected government in Pakistan is likely to be fairly hostile to us.
Really? What do you base that upon, their heretofore unknown disdain for American aid dollars? Their wish to submit to Wahabbis?
They may not love us–even if OBambi is elected to save us all–but they need us. You think Musharref loved having us looking over his shoulder?
spongeworthy (9b4e06) — 5/13/2008 @ 9:54 amada,
Osama bin Stacked is most likely dead or dying and totally debilitated from acute kidney failure. Should the Allies, in WWII, have concentrated all their efforts on killing Hitler and ignored his armies to the east, west, north or south?
nk (397bef) — 5/13/2008 @ 9:56 am#25
love2008 (d2a57f) — 5/13/2008 @ 9:57 amKevin, do you believe in absolute capitalism? Do you think it exists? Yes in theory but not practically. There is socialism in every capitalism. The question is to what degree.
22, ada, I know you were out there protesting instead of reading the news. We let Afghan units take the lead, but OBL was in the caves and heavily defended. Bombs work real well on caves.
You ought to know, you survived.
Now, if your boy, Bubba bin pants-around-his-ankles, had taken OBL when Sudan offered him, you would be without even this shread to hang your anti-american, surrender to the terrorists mentality on.
PCD (5c49b0) — 5/13/2008 @ 10:01 amoh, ada, since you couldn’t answer where your brains were, I’ll have to assume you don’t have any at the moment.
PCD (5c49b0) — 5/13/2008 @ 10:03 am#35
love2008 (d2a57f) — 5/13/2008 @ 10:04 amNk, killing Hitler was crucial to ending the genocide. After he committed suicide, the Germans basically surrendered. Its an old principle that states ” Strike the shepherd and the sheep will scatter.” Killing OBL may not end the war on terror but it will signal the beginning of the end for his devotees. Just think of the psychological blow it will deal on them.
Spongeworthy: oh, they like the US aid dollars, sure. But it’s mostly the military that sees the benefit of those dollars.
Neither Sharif nor the Bhutto’s heirs have been particularly friendly to the US in their public rhetoric, and there’s a deep wellspring of popular animosity. It’s not quite as bad, yet, as Iran in 1978, but it’s fairly clear that the regime’s friendliness to us, and the public perception that it puts our interest above Pakistan’s interest, is part of why Musharraf is as unpopular as he is.
aphrael (db0b5a) — 5/13/2008 @ 10:06 am#36
The degree should be “As little as possible”. This includes removing Farm Subsidies and never even TRYING Socialized Healthcare…
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 5/13/2008 @ 10:13 amnk, unless you have a secret channel to bin laden’s doctor, your statement about his health is pure speculation of dubious relevance. i’m not content with imagining him on hemodialysis, i want to see his head on a pike.
your ww2 question is interesting, killing hitler early on might have saved millions of lives, but he was in berlin most of the time, deep in the interior of his position and hard to reach. i’m sure the allies explored this option. by contrast, osama bin laden was known to be at tora bora, and we could easily have reached that with tactical nuclear weapons. i’ve never understood the neoconservative approach of undue belligerence toward certain parties, coupled with undue deference and restraint toward our real enemies. one moment a roaring tiger, then a craven pussy, why can’t we have a consistent message? why can’t we have a defined objective other than our willingness to sacrifice as many of our soldiers as it takes for sunnis and shiites to start making nice with each other?
assistant devil's advocate (8ee4c8) — 5/13/2008 @ 10:13 amI want the same thing, ada, but a slow, lingering death is just fine in my book. His wasting away on a cot somewhere also robs him of becoming a martyr…
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 5/13/2008 @ 10:16 amlove2008 #39,
No. Hitler committed suicide when his country had been more than decimated, the Russians were within hours of reaching his bunker, and his most trusted people, Goering, Himmler and Steiner, had “betrayed” him. He had also lost his two presumptive heirs, Hess and Heydrich.
What good is a head without a body?
nk (397bef) — 5/13/2008 @ 10:19 amWhat good is a head without a body?
Or what good is a body without a head? Whatever the case, the war ended after his demise. Though you may argue that he took his life because the war was lost. Anyway. So what do you think will happen to al queda if OBL were to suddenly take his life?
love2008 (d2a57f) — 5/13/2008 @ 10:45 amADA-
Are you seriously suggesting we should have gone nuclear at Tora Bora? Can you imagine the outcry from Europe and the American left? Not to mention Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and other Muslim countries? There are few circumstnces where an American President would cross the nuclear threshhold before our enemies did-Tora Bora is not one of them.
MartyH (52fae7) — 5/13/2008 @ 10:56 amlove2008, #32, so now you’ve abandoned your claims that Bush’s “failed policies” are the cause of the economic woes you see.
Amusing how fast that line was discarded. Why do I suspect you’ll continue to use it elsewhere?
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/13/2008 @ 10:58 amADA #42, I find your reference to tactical nuclear weapons use in Afghanistan to be among the most silly and reckless statements I’ve seen from you.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/13/2008 @ 11:00 amI’ve got to agree with SPQR at #48. Use of tactical nuclear weapons in Afghanistan would have been a political disaster; even if it succeeded in killing bin Laden, it would have been an own goal of gigantic proportions.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 5/13/2008 @ 11:07 amNow, ada wants us to initiate the use of Nukes in a country we are allegedly liberating from a totalitarian scourge?
Another Drew (8018ee) — 5/13/2008 @ 11:11 amWhere is your head? Up your backside?
There is a contradiction in what you wrote. Bill Clinton campaigned and mostly governed in a very pro-business manner – abandoning most of the traditional Democrat economic policies. As much as I despise Bill Clinton, this remains the reality – that his economic policies were in fact little different from the preceding Republican administrations and relatively successful. After the failed attempt to create a national takeover of health care and the reverse in Congressional seats engineered by Newt Gingrich, Bill Clinton’s economic policies became more centrist.
Not many people look at the stock chart of the Dow-Jones and note when the bull market took off.
Scroll down to Update Dec 2006 (half way down) and look at the chart. It was after the 1994 election when Congress changed to Republican. I invested in gold when Clinton was elected and made some money but I did not realize the effect of the election until too late to really cash in. Republicans make the stock market go up. Obama will show us what Democrats do.
Whooooeee !
Mike K (ea7caa) — 5/13/2008 @ 11:47 amthe next head of al-qaeda is taking comfort from the reassurance of the last few commenters that all he need do after killing 3000 of us is escape to remote caves and we lack the will to go after him with the utmost force at our disposal. he relishes our fear of censure from europe, muslim countries and the “american left”. now who’s acting like surrender monkeys?
assistant devil's advocate (8ee4c8) — 5/13/2008 @ 11:52 amlove2008, #32, so now you’ve abandoned your claims that Bush’s “failed policies” are the cause of the economic woes you see.
Amusing how fast that line was discarded. Why do I suspect you’ll continue to use it elsewhere
love2008 (d2a57f) — 5/13/2008 @ 12:00 pmDont blame me, SPQR, blame the democrats. The “Bush’s failed policy” has become more of a mantra used to draw contrasts. Whatever the case, I can see you agree with me that a failing economy does not bode well for an incumbent party in an election year.
love2008, our economy is not failing.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/13/2008 @ 12:00 pmADA, by utmost force at our disposal do you suggest nuclear weapons? I hardly think that risking a nuclear war is the best way to take out OBL. It will be doing exactly what he wanted. Its like burning the house down to kill a rat. There are other better ways to kill a rat.
love2008 (d2a57f) — 5/13/2008 @ 12:09 pmADA-
The Soviets/Russians never went nuclear in Afghanistan or against the Chechens. Surrender monkeys? Or do you just lack any moral sense?
MartyH (52fae7) — 5/13/2008 @ 12:09 pmADA-
And with arguments like that, there’s no way they’ll ever promote you to a full devil’s advocate.
MartyH (52fae7) — 5/13/2008 @ 12:12 pmSPQR – They like to think that if they chant that long enough, and loud enough, it will become so. A decrease in the rate of growth becomes practically a depression in the media.
JD (75f5c3) — 5/13/2008 @ 12:12 pm#54
love2008 (d2a57f) — 5/13/2008 @ 12:14 pmlove2008, our economy is not failing.
You would be the first person I ve heard make that kind of assertion. So how would you rather describe it?
I didn’t think you read much of what was posted here…
Economies can not sustain record growth indefinately. Economies slow, growth lags…
But our economy has not LOST ground in GDP. It has continued to increase, though admittedly at a smaller rate that it was previously.
A drop in the gain is not the same as a drop.
6% to 1% isn’t a recession. Hate to tell you.
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 5/13/2008 @ 12:17 pmlove2008, you need to consider who you are listening to.
First of all, a recession is not the economy “failing”. That’s just ludicrous rhetoric. Secondly, the economic signals are mixed as to whether or not the economy will actually enter a recession, it has not yet.
But this is no surprise, Bill Clinton was claiming that the US economy was in recession for months after it had come out of the recession in ’92.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/13/2008 @ 12:18 pmif the chechens had hijacked four airplanes full of innocent russian civilians and flown them into sites around moscow to kill as many russians as they could, and the russians found the ringleaders in chechnya, i would have had no problem with russia nuking them. i like to go after the people who did it, and the people harboring them, i guess that makes me less morally nuanced than you.
assistant devil's advocate (8ee4c8) — 5/13/2008 @ 12:22 pm“After he committed suicide, the Germans basically surrendered.”
In reality, many of the more fanatical elements of the Third Reich fought on in terrorist actions, leading to our need to keep a large troop presence in Germany, in order to keep additional uprisings to a minimum:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0802008623//yourdotcomfor-20
Dmac (9dd3a1) — 5/13/2008 @ 12:23 pmADA, a nation that used nuclear weapons against an irregular force the size of a brigade with no heavy weapons at all would become a pariah nation.
And justifiably so.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/13/2008 @ 12:28 pmADA: so you have no concern for the innocents in the town and its environs who know nothing of the terrorists?
How … illiberal … of you.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 5/13/2008 @ 12:35 pmlike we aren’t a pariah nation now, for attacking a country that hadn’t attacked us first, killing several hundred thousand of its people so far, and threatening to attack yet another country which hasn’t attacked us yet?
ronald reagan had a good line “if there’s going to be a bloodbath, let’s get it over with.” seems like we’re gonna be a pariah one way or another, unless we unilaterally disarm, forgive our attackers and beg their forbearance from further attacks. since that isn’t my style, i go with “let’s get it over with.”
assistant devil's advocate (8ee4c8) — 5/13/2008 @ 12:35 pmADA, your assumptions in your first sentence are false. And you even know it. But more to the point, that was an amazingly weak attempt at non sequitur.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/13/2008 @ 12:38 pmaphrael, if we rolled the nuke into the tora bora caves before setting it off, most of the blast would be confined underground, where the bad guys were, with only minimal casualties on the surface. additionally, the innocents on the surface could be warned to evacuate. if that makes me illiberal, sue me.
spqr, my assumptions are not false just because you say so.
assistant devil's advocate (8ee4c8) — 5/13/2008 @ 12:45 pmNo, they are false because you have zero evidence to support them.
Iran saying “America is weak” doesn’t count, btw.
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 5/13/2008 @ 12:53 pmada, if you have anything that would actually back up your claim, please quote and link it.
An attempt to use sources that aren’t blatantly anti-Bush would be nice for a change, also…
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 5/13/2008 @ 12:55 pmwikipedia isn’t too blatantly anti-bush for you, is it?
blatantly anti-bush. i like that. count me among them!
assistant devil's advocate (8ee4c8) — 5/13/2008 @ 1:09 pmWikipedia is a joke source, ADA.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/13/2008 @ 1:14 pm“like we aren’t a pariah nation now, for attacking a country that hadn’t attacked us first, killing several hundred thousand of its people so far, and threatening to attack yet another country which hasn’t attacked us yet?”
Germany hadn’t attacked us in 1941. Should Roosevelt be retroactively impeached because he lied us into war ? ADA, your historical understanding, or lack of same, is showing.
Mike K (6d4fc3) — 5/13/2008 @ 1:22 pmNot to mention, Mike K., that we did have an ongoing state of conflict going with Iraq since ’91. And in addition to the resistance to the armistice terms and attacks on shia and kurds under UN protection, Iraq did attack us several times since, first with the WTC bombing in ’93 that had Iraq’s fingerprints on it, and the planned attempt on President Bush’s life in Kuwait.
ADA’s knowledge of history is poor. But then bumper sticker slogans seldom show much knowledge.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/13/2008 @ 1:29 pmshould roosevelt be retroactively impeached because he lied us into war?
no sir (your question made me laugh). roosevelt should be retroactively impeached because he extended pervasive federal control over the states through the commerce clause and the trick of withholding federal funds in order to compel unconstitutional state mandates.
retroactive (indeed, posthumous) impeachment is not without precedent. one of the early catholic popes disinterred his predecessor, put the rotting corpse on trial, excommunicated it, then dismembered it. i vote we start with nixon, then do roosevelt, and put it on reality tv.
assistant devil's advocate (8ee4c8) — 5/13/2008 @ 1:35 pm“Wikipedia is a joke source, ADA.”
– SPQR
What a bullshit dismissal. Wikipedia isn’t a “source”, in and of itself. It’s a collection of other sources. Try tracing the links back to a source that suits you and go from there.
Leviticus (35fbde) — 5/13/2008 @ 1:44 pmIt isn’t anti-Bush per se (though it’s highly fluid nature makes it shakey at best), but you link to an “article” about casualties.
I asked for sources that prove we’re now international pariahs.
Once again, you fail. Care to try again?
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 5/13/2008 @ 2:04 pmI am not sure what the point of this post was supposed to be. Sounds like a harmless overly idealistic young person who is a bit too self-important. Reality may or may not set in for him/her. This post isn’t really up to the usual standards for this site.
Roberta Schwartz (aaa955) — 5/13/2008 @ 2:18 pmShush.
We all know someone at work like the guy in the article. This just lets us poke fun.
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 5/13/2008 @ 2:20 pmLeviticus, wikipedia is a joke source period – your profanity notwithstanding. And it is not a “collection” of other sources. It has been a failure in its purpose to be an open source form of encyclopedia. It has instead seen every topic of any political dimension whatsoever taken over by partisans.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/13/2008 @ 2:26 pmOf either side.
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 5/13/2008 @ 2:28 pmSometimes, Scott, but that would at least provide a form of balance. We’ve seen lately that Wikipedia’s administrators have been secretly intervening in favor of partisans.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/13/2008 @ 2:30 pm“It has been a failure in its purpose to be an open source form of encyclopedia.”
– SPQR
Oooo, if you say so!
Leviticus (35fbde) — 5/13/2008 @ 2:32 pmcant impeach nixon retroactively, he was pardoned.
chas (a235bf) — 5/13/2008 @ 2:38 pmIt would be nice if you grew up, Leviticus, but I guess that’s a forlorn hope.
Lawrence Solomon describes his experiences with Wikipedia.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/13/2008 @ 2:56 pmhere’s an article to help show how credible wikipedia is as a source.
chas (a235bf) — 5/13/2008 @ 4:08 pmYep, Siegenthaler’s is another good example.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/13/2008 @ 4:17 pmSome points…
“…A decrease in the rate of growth becomes practically a depression in the media…”
This ranks right up there with calling a slow-down in the rate-of-growth of the Federal Budget a cut in funds.
But then, everyone with an IQ above room-temperature knows the media (and the Dem party) is composed of econ morons.
Now, for Tora Bora…
Another Drew (a3eda6) — 5/13/2008 @ 7:39 pmJust how are we supposed to roll nukes into those caves? How many caves are there? How much of Afghanistan do you want to make “hot” for the next X thousand years? If you make the delay long enough for the “rollers” to get away, what keeps OBL from pushing the damn thing out, and down the hill before it detonates?
Moron!
#48 SPQR:
I don’t know about “reckless,” as its just too damn silly to get to “reckless.”
The geography and topography of the Tora Bora region make it an area where an event as large and powerful as Hurricane Katrina could go unremarked, let alone something as puny as a nuclear weapon.
All in all, almost as silly as his assertion that OBL has gotten a “free pass” and that there aren’t people in the employ of the US working on determining his fate with as great a degree of confidence as possible, under the circumstances.
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 5/14/2008 @ 6:06 amLolla, lolla now! heh
Vermont Neighbor (ef4b44) — 5/14/2008 @ 8:50 pm