Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Grizzle

  1. Grizzle

    TV - Eureka

    Thanks SC! I built an HTPC not long ago, but just haven't gotten around to getting it all automated, maybe this will give me a reason to finish it.
  2. Grizzle

    TV - Eureka

    I missed it. Does anyone know if it will repeat before the next episode?
  3. Thanks Cruis.In, I needed that. Snakes on a Plane!
  4. Orchestrated? That would mean that Rove or someone thought it would be a good idea to catch him saying shit in a candid moment and that would somehow increase his appeal to a certain portion of the population. Then convince the naive, leftist, American hating CNN executives that running it as a top story would allow them to put another check in the win column for their efforts to destroy America. Very sinister indeed. It was a mistake, it doesn't matter to any rational person and the world has bigger things to worry about right now.
  5. [raises hand] Does the movie in anyway explain the really stupid title? Don't know what it is but it seems so contrived in an effort to pique interest or be 'hip', but I find it very irritating. Why not call it A Trashcan Smartly or A Pencil Swiftly or A Movie Stinky? Please help me here, I'm afraid I might kill someone over this.
  6. People consider bush 'stupid' because he's not very articulate. The Decider has undoubtedly said some of the 'stupidest' things of any President in modern history. I don't think he's stupid, but he often comes across that way.
  7. Well, I gotta weigh in and say, who gives a shit?
  8. quote:Originally posted by aramike: Again, I don't mind. Sure the roads were built with YOUR tax dollars. But YOUR tax dollars were replaced when the company purchased the road. As for the company profiting, so what? At least they would fall under the state and federal laws to prevent them from gouging, which, by the way, the government itself doesn't have to worry about. The government can fleece us, but it is okay, because it is the government. A private company cannot charge us fair amounts, though? No, it's the fleecing I object to. No matter who is doing it. I don't care if the company that owns these lands and roads is US or foreign, I do care that my tolls go directly into the pockets of the investors without a return (or so it seems) instead of being invested back into maintaining the infrastructure. As it stands it doesn't seem all that different from modern day 'highway robbery.'
  9. I agree with Soback on this one. The money collected from toll roads is *supposed* to be placed in funds to help maintain that road.. that's the whole point of having tolls in the first place. Now I don't know if those funds are required to be reinvested in the upkeep of the roads, but it almost sounds as if it's just profit. Which means our tax dollars go to replace the funds collected from tolls and passed to foreign interests. So not only did we pay taxes to build the roads, we pay tolls which aren't applied to the upkeep and consequently pay more taxes when the road needs repair... it all sounds a little odd to me.
  10. This is a bad, bad thing. While I agree that Israel knows how to throw it down and in this particular case is on the right side of justice, if it becomes a war of attrition, they'll lose. Of course that won't happen though because the world won't just stand by and let it. You can figure out the rest. Look on the bright side though. If Syria does have Saddam's WMD's, we may soon find out for sure.
  11. quote:Originally posted by aramike: I'm NOT saying that I'm advocating it, but a nearby community has banned smoking in restaurants and the businesses have seen sales INCREASE... This is true Mike, pretty much everywhere that smoking bans have been enacted, businesses eventually show an upturn. Good for them. Personally it doesn't affect my decision about where to eat or hang out at all, and even though I am a smoker, I never smoke in restaurants anyway. There's two sides to every story and this is just one case I really can't get all riled up about with the possible exception that I'd prefer these decisions be left to the businesses themselves and not mandated by law.
  12. I agree that it's all a load of crap, but as a smoker, I can honestly say I'm not bothered by it. I realize smoking is bad for my health, but it's my choice and I fully accept the consequences and would no more sue a tobacco company than I would sue automobile manufacturers for their polluting vehicles. It is about greed and on those grounds I would protest, but not on the grounds that my choice to smoke is somehow beyond my control and needs government intervention to set me straight. No thanks. I stayed in a hotel in California once, where it was clearly marked a non-smoking hotel (damn those PC Liberals!!). I grumbled under my breath a bit, but laughed at the hipocrisy of the posted placards stating that "chemicals used in the carpet within this building are known to contain cancer causing agents". Idiots.
  13. Not sure why I'm responding... but some time ago I was cruising the net and found a similar product you stick in your pants!. It was a pad with adhesive on one side and fart filter material sewn into it. The site was pretty hilarious (diagrams and all) because it was so serious. I travel quite frequently for my job and one thing that always bothered me is people that use the toilet as soon as they board the plane. Now, I don't know if they are 'marking their territory' or what, but it's friggin RUDE to take a dump and stink up the plane before it even leaves the gate. Use the toilet in the airport for chrissakes. As for the simple act of passing gas, I was on a flight once when someone let one go that was SO BAD that I could taste it! Disgusting I know, but I kid you not.
  14. GAAAAA!!! The Recording Industries Association of A-holes must die! There's gotta be a way to put these farks out of business. Do they serve ANY purpose other than to bring lawsuits against people?
  15. ROFL! Eww... I played X3... I feel unclean.
  16. Where the Hell is Matt?
  17. I'm right there with you on this one Prez. I do not believe murderers or sex offenders can be rehabilitated and there should be no second chances. I believe these are situations where once the line has been crossed there's no going back. And I'm not talking just about sexual abuse, beating a child should be treated just as harshly. While I do believe that childhood abuse does play a part it is not a justification. If our laws allowed for locking them up and throwing away the key then they wouldn't be able to create the next generation of abusers. This may not erradicate the problem, but it would stop the self perpetuating cycle.
  18. It's all good Mike. I don't take your style personally. I've just been engaged in enough intractable arguments on this board to have learned that they quickly degrade into completely irrelevant shouting matches. When the form of debate becomes the topic and assumptions are made as to what one is thinking it's time to close the book and agree to disagree. It's apparent you and I operate on completely different wavelengths, but I'm sure we'll have plenty of opportunity to butt heads on other topics.
  19. Knock yourself out Mike, be as harsh as you like, but exactly how is being harsh making your point any more valid? Nothing you can say will change the basic premise that regardless of the content of the issue, this is about free speech and freedom of the press which can only be resolved in a court of law. I've said my piece and likely won't respond, so you'll be talking to a wall. If however, you feel the need to vindicate yourself and prove how clueless I am, be my guest.
  20. quote: Umm, no. You said the story was "debunked". I asserted that it was not "debunked". If you want to change the scope of the story in order to debate it, go ahead ... but start another thread. No, you are arguing semantics because I used the term debunked which you seem to feel does not apply in this case. IÔÇÖll even grant that youÔÇÖre correct, debunk wasnÔÇÖt the proper term to use. I assumed most people would understand my intent, which is to say that SantorumÔÇÖs claim that this evidence vindicates the government and validates the WMD story is bullshit. There, bullshit is a much better term anyway. Thanks. quote: Doubt it. Either you weren't familiar, or you didn't understand it because you said "Besides, who didn't already know the government was tracking financial transactions in an effort to hunt down terrorists?", and that wasn't at ALL the center-point to the problem over the story. So either you, like a typical liberal, IGNORED what wouldn't support your argument or you simply didn't care. Why so testy?ÔǪ not only do you accuse me of lying you assume IÔÇÖm a ÔÇÿtypical liberalÔÇÖ. Sorry Mike, besides those comments being completely unnecessary theyÔÇÖre both completely incorrect. quote: You have NO IDEA how it works! There are SEVERAL clearinghouses that handles transactions. We caught the terrorists using one (S.W.I.F.T.) and were able to monitor them. Now, all they have to do is find banks not associated with SWIFT and we can't monitor said transactions. You're operating under two FALSE assumptions. 1: All banks use all clearinghouses (not even remotely true). 2: All financial clearinghouses cooperates with the US government (also not true). SWIFT does in fact track information on *most* international financial transactions which is why they were chosen. The likelihood of an international transfer showing up in the SWIFT database is very high but not all inclusive. In addition, the government has acknowledged that terrorists had already started using other means: ÔÇ£Current and former U.S. officials said the effort has been only marginally successful against Al Qaeda, which long ago began transferring money through other means, including the highly informal banking system common in Islamic countries.ÔÇØ So exactly how does this ÔÇ£newÔÇØ information change anything? You assume the terrorists are stupid and lack knowledge of international banking transactions and regulation, that they themselves have no way of finding out what we are doing to hunt them down. ThatÔÇÖs a really poor assumption. Will there be some negative repercussion? Probably, but itÔÇÖs certainly not the crippling blow everyone wants to make it out to be. And again itÔÇÖs a side effect of a free press that we must accept. quote: As far as carrying around cash in suitcases, I am trying hard not to laugh. You see, most countries have a thing called "customs" which would make "carrying suitcases" infeesible. Sure, MAYBE some would get through, but do you think terrorists with limited funds would RISK losing them? IÔÇÖll assume you are laughing with me because that was exactly my point. If the terrorists want to be effective they are forced to use banks, if they want to transfer money across international boundaries they have no choice but to use a bank. quote: OK, but we're NOT letting them do things without oversight. Congress was made aware of the financial program. Sorry, being informed of a policy after it has been implemented doesnÔÇÖt even come close to democratic ideology or respecting the will of the people. If the executive branch of government has nothing to fear then allowing these processes to take place wonÔÇÖt be a problem. quote: As for these "subpoenas" which you're making up... they are NOT (or should I say, "would not" be) binding because SWIFT is based in BELGIUM, not the US. Belgium's banking laws are nearly as strict as Switzerland's, and there is no treaty governing cooperation between the US and Belgium with regards to banking and subpoenas issued by US courts. What subpoenas am I making up? HereÔÇÖs a quote compliments of SWIFT themselvesÔǪgot it from their website: ÔÇ£In the aftermath of the September 11th attacks, SWIFT responded to compulsory subpoenas for limited sets of data from the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the United States Department of the Treasury.ÔÇØ Look up the term compulsory, then do some research to find the international finance laws that support it. I canÔÇÖt do all of the homework for you. quote: Seriously, why do you think that so many people are PISSED over the NY Times lack of discretion? I donÔÇÖt know, maybe they have an axe to grind? As a firm believer in freedom of speech, I will always defend anyoneÔÇÖs right to speak their mind especially when it comes to the government and if that means putting ourselves in harms way then thatÔÇÖs the risk we must all be willing to take to preserve and protect the freedoms granted us in the Constitution. I cannot (nor did our forefathers, nor should you) trust the government enough to let them make up the rules as they go along, to consistently ignore due process and to increase the executive powers. quote: Now, that program is WORTHLESS. Hardly worthless. LetÔÇÖs check back in a few months and see if itÔÇÖs still being used. quote: I'll bet Jefferson didn't think that the press would have access to classified information. No, there was much debate over the limits of freedom of the press and it was decided there should be none. There are laws to deal with lawbreakers (albeit after the damage might have been done as in this case), but to place limits on the press was deemed to be antithetical to the idea of freedom and democracy. If the press breaks the law then itÔÇÖll be decided in court. quote:Furthermore, the information leaked and reported stands perfectly up to scrunity because it indicates NO wrongdoing whatsoever ... it only indicates what the administration was doing to protect us, and makes that tool useless.You are correct, but keep in mind this is also after several modifications and limits were placed after the program started and some of the institutions involved expressed concern that it went too far and there were too many loosely defined limits. Only time will tell what harm has been done and if the government has a legal case against the NYT. I'm not saying people don't have reason to be angry at the NYT and I'm not saying their decision was necessarily the right one. This is clearly a case of freedom of the press and in those cases the power of the people will always triumph because the day that it doesn't is the day this is no longer the United States of America. Interestingly just as I was finishing this I hear the Supreme Court ruled against Bush regarding Gitmo War Trials stating GWB "lacks the authority" to schedule military trials for detainees... strike two.
  21. quote: The story has NOT been "debunked". NO ONE has said that we did NOT find those weapons. The only argument was over whether or not it is relevent to the discussion on WMDs and Iraq. But, again, there was NO DEBUNKING of ANY story. We found EXACTLY was the report said we found - that not being true was NEVER the debate. Pure semantics. Im not arguing that the report is false, just that what has been reported is not new information nor a vindication of the WMD story. Im still waiting for the administration to support Santorums and Hoekstras claims that this is the smoking gun, but Im not going to hold my breath. I suggest you dont either. quote: Doubt it. We'll revisit this in two weeks. Deal. quote: Right, but you're OBVIOUSLY not familiar with the story. EVERYONE knew we were tracking financial transactions, that's NOT the issue. The issue is that the NY Times IDENTIFIED the SPECIFIC clearinghouses we use to track such transactions, therefore equipping our enemies to AVOID said clearinghouses.  The problem becomes that the NY Times has gone from reporting the news to CREATING it. Due to their GENIOUS reporting, now terrorists will be better able to conceal their activities. The terrorists concealing their activities is news. Get it? Um yeah, I am familiar with the story. I read the article. Rather than tussle over the details, lets take it down a notch and talk about how money moves. The only way for terrorists to avoid being traced through financial transactions is to stop using financial institutions. Thats not going to happen. At most they will reduce their usage or find other banks whose transactions circumvent the infrastructure used to transfer international funds. Guess what, there are no banks that circumvent the infrastructure, they cant because all banking transactions are regulated and will eventually pass through the gates of these clearing houses. So now all they can do is carry tons of cash around in suitcases and even at that, at some point theyll need to visit a bank to get more. This is why the administration, while in talks with the NYT about the story, explained that running the story might cause these clearing house to retract their cooperation (which by the way they cannot do because the subpoenas required to gather the information are legally binding). The administration is not concerned that this information will make it harder to track the transactions because long before this story ran, the terrorists had already been made aware of the tracking and had begun using couriers to move some money but have not stopped using banks. quote: Funny how the left always has a problem with how the administration goes about their business, but they never have a solution. That tells me that the REAL problem is that the left doesn't like the administration and there isn't anything it can do right. Kind of reminds me of another recent administration who coincidentally had many unflattering articles about them printed in the NYT. Only that time it was the Republicans who felt they could do nothing right. Why are we even talking about this? quote: The people want to be safe and, I'll bet that most people would rather be in the dark about the specifics of an ongoing investigation that risk compromising their safety. If we continue to allow the administration to do whatever the hell they want without oversight or accountability, then well all have reasons to hide in dark places. quote: The government is trying to keep us safe, which IS our bidding. What is wrong with that?Not a darn thingas long as they follow the policies and procedures set forth to facilitate the efforts they want to implement. quote: Here's another CLASSIC example of a liberal's catch-22: Our bidding, Mr. Government, is for you to keep us safe. However, we are compelled to take actions to make your accomplishing our bidding markedly more difficult. How is the government to be realistically successful in accomplishing the tasks the people give it, if the people (which is the government) works against it? See how convoluted it is? Good. Yes it is a double edged sword. Jefferson once said of the press a government that could not stand up under criticism deserved to fall. even though he himself was the subject of such scrutiny. Clearly he understood the importance of a free press. I dont know about you, but I would much rather live in a country with freedom of the press, even if that very freedom has the potential to cause harm, than a country that has little or none like North Korea, China, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia and Iran. So for anyone that doesnt like a free press, there are places where you might feel right at home. As I said before, lets see how this plays out. Lets see if actions against the NYT (and LAT and WSJ) are successful. Lets trust in the wisdom of our forefathers and our present judicial system to discern if this has been an act of treason or if indeed any harm has or will come of it. Rail on the NYT all you want, but let's not forget for every story they publish that casts the government in a bad light, there's one they didn't. In the meantime well continue to monitor phone calls and track banking transactions in an effort to catch terrorists. Hopefully we'll catch a few doing money transfers over the phone.
  22. Prez, You are right. I find sensationalistic journalism very distasteful and I certainly don't support it, I'm just trying to tell it like it is. Maybe Rush gets a little bit more attention because of who he is, but I don't see this treatment as anything different from the way the media treats other celebrities. He's in the public eye and this sort of stuff just goes with the territory. Look at it this way, how many celebrities have given up their public life because the heat was too much to bear? I can't recall any and I can only assume that the benefits of being in the public eye ($$$) outweigh the downside of having one's private life paraded before the masses. If I were Rush, I'd be upset too, but hey I'd certainly be willing to put up with it for that kind of dough. Busy day, gotta run.
  • Create New...