Wanna play the telemarketer game?
My buddy RT over at Untwisted Vortex posted a joke a bit ago about how a man dealt with a telemarketer that called his home. In his post RT supplied the link to their site: identafone. I went to their site and they had a link to a very cool game that can be used to deal with those annoying telemarketing calls you get at supper or during sex (please tell me you do NOT stop to answer the phone). So check it and play: The telemarketer game.
Sexy Sunday!
I was out and about on the net this evening and came across a site that had pictures of different sex positions. In this weeks edition of Sexy Sunday I give to you a picture that I think is very sexy. Though this position seems like it could be kind of hard for the woman on top I think that it is just what the doctor ordered. here is another great Sexy Sunday picture for you to think about it. If you try this or if you have already tried this please by all means leave me a comment and tell me what you think.
shrub should read his parties history
Shrub has said that those that do support the military operations in Iraq support the terrorist. Look at the way Cindy Sheehan has been treated. I think that he should take a class about what people in the past history of his very own party have said about this trashing of Americans who dare not agree with the bastard.
Here is a piece that gives proof that President Bush needs to research his party better:
John Bricker, governor of Ohio and vice presidential running mate of Thomas Dewey in 1944, at the Republican Convention, protesting FDR’s use of the phrase, “Win the War,” as a campaign slogan, June 24, 1944:
I resent any leader taking unto himself the motto, “Win the War.” That became the slogan of every American on December 7, 1941. The President of the United States is Commander in Chief of the armed forces, but he is not the Commander in Chief of the people. Like every governor of a state, he is the steward of the people–never their master.
Source: NYT, 6-25-44.
From the words of President Lincoln
The congress must control and stop this blank check. I know that some will not agree with me on this issue. Before I go any further in this subject let me be very clear on something. I completely and with out question support the very brave men and woman of the United States Military. These men and woman place their lives on the line for the work of this nation, it’s security, and its allies. They are the best there is, the best there was, and the best there will ever be. I wish to make that clear before I get any emails on how I do not support our troops. That would be a down right lie as I do support them. But I do believe that we should have never went into Iraq, that we should have stayed on the war path to hunt down Bin Laden and all his people and then kill them, and that we must stand up to this disgrace of a President and force him to get our troops out of Iraq and back to what is important.
Bush thinks that he can operate this nation in the manner that he chooses. He operates on, in my opinion, a belief that he can operate the military as he sees fit also. President Lincoln once addressed the issue of the President war making power. it is as follows:
Lincoln: On the President’s War-Making Powers (posted 10-11-02)
In 1845 President Polk dispatched a small army under Zachary Taylor to cross into territory claimed by Mexico south of the Nueces River. Subsequently, in March 1846 he ordered Taylor to move further south to the Rio Grande, to a position opposite a Mexican military post located at Metamoras. Polk later told Congress that he wanted to repel “any invasion of the Texas territory which might be attempted by the Mexican forces.”
In 1848 Abraham Lincoln, then a Whig member of the House of Representatives, condemned Polk’s action. Challenged by his former law partner William Herndon to defend his dissent, Lincoln explained his reasoning in a famous letter quoted by Sen. Robert Byrd during the debate over the Iraq resolution:
Let me first state what I understand to be your position. It is that if it shall become necessary to repel invasion, the President may, without violation of the Constitution, cross the line and invade the territory of another country, and that whether such necessity exists in any given case the President is the sole judge. …
Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose, and you allow him to make war at his pleasure.The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pre- tending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood.
Source: Lincoln to Herndon, February 15, 1848, Roy Basler, ed., The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln (1953), p. 451.
Cheney did not want to go into Iraq..
Keeping on this path I have come to the point that Dick Cheney is the biggest flip=flopper in DC..coming up almost to tiw his disgrace of a boss shrub. Here is proof:
Why Dick Cheney Opposed Going to Bagdad in 1991 at the Time of the Gulf War (posted 10-16-02)
Dick Cheney in April 1991, then Defense Secretary, as quoted in the Slate on October 16, 2002:
If you’re going to go in and try to topple Saddam Hussein,you have to go to Baghdad. Once you’ve got Baghdad, it’s not clear what you do with it. It’s not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that’s currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that government going to have if it’s set up by the United States military when it’s there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?
Information courtesy of: History News Network.
W should have listened to his father…
In light of the Democrat party leadership going back on their word to the American people I sought after some worth while content on this issue. Worth while content that would help better explain some of the things I am thinking right now. Now mind you I do not need them to explain my thoughts per se but I felt that they would add to and help expand te base of my thoughts.
Below is an something that shrub should have have read before starting this illegal military in Iraq. It was said by none other then his own father, President George H.W. Bush:
From George H.W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft, A World Transformed (1998), pp. 489-90:
Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in “mission creep,” and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable “exit strategy” we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations’ mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different–and perhaps barren–outcome.We discussed at length the idea of forcing Saddam personally to accept the terms of Iraqi defeat at Safwan just north of the Kuwait-Iraq border–and thus the responsibility and political consequences for the humiliation of such a devastating defeat. In the end, we asked ourselves what we would do if he refused. We concluded that we would be left with two options: continue the conflict until he backed down, or retreat from our demands. The latter would have sent a disastrous signal. The former would have split our Arab colleagues from the coalition and, de facto, forced us to change our objectives.
Information courtesy of: History News Network.






