dmagicglock

interesting... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw77TC1cCI0

well as my ol' college prof Dr. Lowry would always say, "In my uniformed opinion..." yes. haha I'd have to see what part of the "security pact" is that benefits with us. What did we receive in exchange for letting them go? I know they said it wasn't part of a deal, but pact = deal. I know this might seem like nails on a chalkboard, but I really don't think you should or can "negotiate with terrorists." It's like trying to rationalize with a criminal. It's one of the greatest mistakes you can make, to assume they think rationally or logically like you. When you do things like that, you end up becoming a victim. Not to get too off tangent tho', you bring up a good point about the security pact, I'd really have to see what that entailed on our end as well to see how this could possibly translate into a good decision.

here's a bbc article with similar info http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8141974.stm a little more straight forward without an Op-ed piece. I guess what I was getting at, is they shouldn't have been released. Whether it was this president, or the last, I don't think its good for U.S. Security and we shouldn't be worried about appeasing Iran. I find it interesting that you're saying the Quds are innocent and didn't provide support overtly or covertly to Shiites in Iran. I guess they were innocently in Iraq in the middle of a war. Its pretty well documented aside from being covert forces that they're open supporters of Shiite militias in Iraq.

yay +1 iranian terrorists, americans 0 http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjY0MjkwOWVkYTNlYzE2ZjM1N2E5M2M0MTdiYTI3MzM= "Obama Frees Iranian Terror Masters The release of the Irbil Five is a continuation of a shameful policy. By Andrew C. McCarthy July 11, 2009 7:00 AM There are a few things you need to know about President Obama’s shameful release on Thursday of the “Irbil Five” — Quds Force commanders from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) who were coordinating terrorist attacks in Iraq that have killed hundreds — yes, hundreds — of American soldiers and Marines. First, of the 4,322 Americans killed in combat in Iraq since 2003, 10 percent of them (i.e., more than 400) have been murdered by a single type of weapon alone, a weapon that is supplied by Iran for the singular purpose of murdering Americans. As Steve Schippert explains at NRO’s military blog, the Tank, the weapon is “the EFP (Explosively Formed Penetrator), designed by Iran’s IRGC specifically to penetrate the armor of the M1 Abrams main battle tank and, consequently, everything else deployed in the field.” Understand: This does not mean Iran has killed only 400 Americans in Iraq. The number killed and wounded at the mullahs’ direction is far higher than that — likely multiples of that — when factoring in the IRGC’s other tactics, such as the mustering of Hezbollah-style Shiite terror cells. Second, President Bush and our armed forces steadfastly refused demands by Iran and Iraq’s Maliki government for the release of the Irbil Five because Iran was continuing to coordinate terrorist operations against American forces in Iraq (and to aid Taliban operations against American forces in Afghanistan). Freeing the Quds operatives obviously would return the most effective, dedicated terrorist trainers to their grisly business. Third, Obama’s decision to release the five terror-masters comes while the Iranian regime (a) is still conducting operations against Americans in Iraq, even as we are in the process of withdrawing, and (b) is clearly working to replicate its Lebanon model in Iraq: establishing a Shiite terror network, loyal to Iran, as added pressure on the pliant Maliki to understand who is boss once the Americans leave. As the New York Times reports, Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, put it this way less than two weeks ago: Iran is still supporting, funding, training surrogates who operate inside of Iraq — flat out. . . . They have not stopped. And I don’t think they will stop. I think they will continue to do that because they are also concerned, in my opinion, [about] where Iraq is headed. They want to try to gain influence here, and they will continue to do that. I think many of the attacks in Baghdad are from individuals that have been, in fact, funded or trained by the Iranians. Fourth, President Obama’s release of the Quds terrorists is a natural continuation of his administration’s stunningly irresponsible policy of bartering terrorist prisoners for hostages. As I detailed here on June 24, Obama has already released a leader of the Iran-backed Asaib al-Haq terror network in Iraq, a jihadist who is among those responsible for the 2007 murders of five American troops in Karbala. While the release was ludicrously portrayed as an effort to further “Iraqi reconciliation” (as if that would be a valid reason to spring a terrorist who had killed Americans), it was in actuality a naïve attempt to secure the reciprocal release of five British hostages — and a predictably disastrous one: The terror network released only the corpses of two of the hostages, threatening to kill the remaining three (and who knows whether they still are alive?) unless other terror leaders were released. Michael Ledeen has reported that the release of the Irbil Five is part of the price Iran has demanded for its release in May of the freelance journalist Roxana Saberi. Again, that’s only part of the price: Iran also has demanded the release of hundreds of its other terror facilitators in our custody. Expect to see Obama accommodate this demand, too, in the weeks ahead. Finally, when it comes to Iran, it has become increasingly apparent that President Obama wants the mullahs to win. What you need to know is that Barack Obama is a wolf in “pragmatist” clothing: Beneath the easy smile and above-it-all manner — the “neutral” doing his best to weigh competing claims — is a radical leftist wedded to a Manichean vision that depicts American imperialism as the primary evil in the world. You may not have wanted to addle your brain over his tutelage in Hawaii by the Communist Frank Marshall Davis, nor his tracing of Davis’s career steps to Chicago, where he seamlessly eased into the orbit of Arafat apologist Rashid Khalidi, anti-American terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, and Maoist “educator” Michael Klonsky — all while imbibing 20 years’ worth of Jeremiah Wright’s Marxist “black liberation theology.” But this neo-Communist well from which Obama drew holds that the world order is a maze of injustice, racism, and repression. Its unified theory for navigating the maze is: “United States = culprit.” Its default position is that tyrants are preferable as long as they are anti-American, and that while terrorist methods may be regrettable, their root cause is always American provocation — that is, the terrorists have a point. In Iran, it is no longer enough for a rickety regime, whose anti-American vitriol is its only vital sign, to rig the “democratic” process. This time, blatant electoral fraud was also required to mulct victory for the mullahs’ candidate. The chicanery ignited a popular revolt. But the brutal regime guessed right: The new American president would be supportive. So sympathetic is Obama to the mullahs’ grievances — so hostile to what he, like the regime, sees as America’s arrogant militarism — that he could be depended on to go as far as politics allowed to help the regime ride out the storm. And so he has. Right now, politics will allow quite a lot: With unemployment creeping toward 10 percent, the auto industry nationalized, the stimulus revealed as history’s biggest redistribution racket (so far), and Democrats bent on heaping ruinous carbon taxes and socialized medicine atop an economy already crushed by tens of trillions in unfunded welfare-state liabilities, Iran is barely on anyone’s radar screen. So Obama is pouring it on while his trusty media idles. When they are not looking the other way from the carnage in Iran’s streets, they are dutifully reporting — as the AP did — that the Irbil Five are mere “diplomats.” Obama frees a terrorist with the blood of American troops on his hands, and the press yawns. Senators Jeff Sessions and Jon Kyl press for answers about the release of the terrorist and Obama’s abandonment of a decades-old American policy against trading terrorists for hostages, and the silence is deafening. Except in Tehran, where the mullahs are hearing exactly what they’ve banked on hearing. — National Review’s Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and the author of Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad (Encounter Books, 2008)."

don't drink and drive... you might spill your beer

I just love that you fml'd. I go to that website every now and then to feel better about my life... anyways, f yer life

+1 on joe's cycle, they are awesome people!

On ol' 63 huh? whatcha doing there, stoppin by Uncle Larry's? http://www.insiderpages.com/b/14057105094

I thought we already did that? at least the king part check out this king of the world greeting in ghana! http://uk.reuters.com/news/video?videoChannel=75&videoId=107767

http://www.thedeal.com/dealscape/2009/07/franks_tarp_for_main_street.php interview with barney on CNN on June 12th http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2009/06/12/news.barney.franktarp.cnnmoney/ He mentions some of the dividends are used for "repayment" or "other purposes" The actual legislation itself from the library of congress http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.+3068: Mark Calabria's testimony before house committee about repayment of Tarp funds and the ridiculous cost to the tax payers http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-mac-20090709-1.html

J you're killin me man, where in this article is it bias? everything in this article is objective, i'll see what I can do to find another link to a story on this, I dunno if CNN or MSNBC report on stuff like this?

LOL'd so hard I almost woke up the baby

okay so this story is just making its way to the main stream, but here's a link to an article from July 1st. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Barney-Frank--49649362.html Basically, barney introduced legislation the other day to take interest already earned from the Tarp funds and instead of repaying it to the taxpayers as ORIGINALLY described in the stimulus plan, he now wants to use those profits to fund special interests. Here's a snipet of the article. "Frank, however, wants to spend the money before it can be used to pay down anything. First, the "TARP for Main Street" proposal would take $1 billion "from dividends paid by financial institutions that have received financial assistance provided under…the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act" and apply it to a trust fund that Frank has long wanted to create for low-income rental housing. (The measure, unfunded, was part of last year's bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.) Next, Frank would take $1.5 billion from TARP dividends for a so-called "neighborhood stabilization" fund. Republican critics have charged that both measures might allow federal dollars to be distributed to activist groups like the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now, or ACORN. The "TARP for Main Street" bill would also spend $2 billion, apparently from remaining TARP funds, to subsidize people who are delinquent on their mortgages, and another $2 billion to "stabilize multifamily properties that are in default or foreclosure." This has really got me worked up... I'm so sick of barney frank, I pray that he doesn't get re-elected, and I hope this legislation never passes. Let's be honest, we're never getting that Tarp money back, and these socialists will continue to do everything they can to redistribute wealth. I think I just threw up in my mouth, blah

... and I thought I liked M&M's...

it was the best i could find in a google image search... shoulda tried bing this is what i found there...

lol maybe we'd all have given her a ride home, meow! totally kidding

poor HD riders... http://www.whiotv.com/news/20043518/detail.html# i hope its not anyone on here, wear those helmets! preferably full face

amen brother, here's another link to the story previously mentioned by the OP. I know I know its from fox news, and when I'm not clinging to my guns and religion, I occasionally check their website along with many others... anyways, it TURNS OUT the secret program was to get rid of al qaeda, WEIRD!? How dare that evil cheney come up with such a devious plan and keep it secret, argh! http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/13/cia-secret-al-qaeda-plan/

so which vehicle was winning before the crash? the yaris or the fit?

did it look like this? but with wings?

I'm gonna play devil's advocate on this one. I really never cared about "terrorists rights" but I definitely didn't care when they started beheading American's (google daniel pearl if you forgot) and then letting Al Jazeera air the tapes. This was probably kept secret because the nancy pelosi's of the world are too worried about terrorists rights... I mean they have Al Jazeera on dish t.v. in Gitmo afterall. Sometimes if you wanna get things done, ya gotta do it quietly.

"USAGE Affect and effect are both verbs and nouns, but only effect is common as a noun, usually meaning 'a result, consequence, impression, etc.': : my father’s warnings had no effect on my adventurousness. The noun affect is restricted almost entirely to psychology (see affect 2 ). As verbs, they are used differently. Affect most commonly means 'produce an effect on, influence': : smoking during pregnancy can affect the baby's development. Affect also means 'pretend to have or feel (something)' (see affect 3 ): : she affected a concern for those who had lost their jobs. Effect means 'bring about': : the negotiators effected an agreement despite many difficulties." -Mac Dictionary

affect and effect... anyone?

^^^^ I like that cause its free