I recommend you obtain: 1 rifle...wait after Sept. 13th, so you can get a bushmaster M16A2 in semi-auto. with all the cute trimmings...I recommend one type of ammunition Q3131 winchester white box. This is 55 grain FMJ made to military M193 specs. ...It shows explosive fragmentation, and is a 1 shot stopper...Plus get at least (10) 30-round Wilson Combat 30 round mags....They will be available for only $14.95 each! Plus they are mil. spec. high quality (after sept.13th) 1 shotgun...any "tactical" will do. I recommend the 18 inch barreled Remington 870 police pump, or step up to the Wilson Combat scattergun... 1 pistol...Forget the high capacity 9mm that will be available after Sept. 13th, get an 8 round Kimber TLE/RL in .45 ...with hollowpoints, I doubt anything is a better round for CQB, but trust your rifle or shotgun first...from 25 yards to 150 yards, use the rifle...0 to 25 yards, use the shotgun, with your pistol at ready on your hip...use 8 round Wilson Combat magazines only...throw the 7 round that it comes with away... Keep at least 1000 rounds of the Q3131a winchester white box in a dry box. Put silica paks in there to absorb the moisture...You don't need as many of the 12 guage or .45 bullets, but try to retain at least 100 of each at all times...Also it would be helpful to get a tactical vest...mine holds 4 rifle magazines, 5 pistol magazines, my combat Gerber knive, plus a few 12 Gauge shells, and a light among the pockets...
Roxran, I think he is talking about Iraq. Maybe since you fantasize about a Red Dawn scenario you can understand how the Iraqis view foreign American invaders.
Well it is good to see that Will seems to have finally come around on the war. Agreed it is amazing that Bush can distract from his failures by attacking a war hero's medals when he cowardly used his famiy's political influence to get Lt. Governor Barnes to get him into the National Guard and jump him above hundreds of more qualified applicants.
i'm getting into it thanks to episodes on IControl. Just watched the one today where Jeri goes on a hunger strike because her nude photo wasn't allowed in the "Freedom" week exhibit.
The only thing I disagree with in the WS piece is this assessment which is a bit unfair: THe economic havoc wrought by Bush with his disastrous spending policy and inequitable tax giveaways will be most acutely felt by future generations - when interest rates rise due to the massive public and private debt load, and/or even worse. He's driving the economy of 2010 into the ground. Giving presdients credit or blame for short term econmic performance is too much, however their policies can definitely set the stage for future good or bad performance (see Clinton era balanced budgets for the counter example)
Check out nyt.com , the front page picture of the stage Bush will walk out onto. While these convention stages have been becoming more elaborate this is one is over the top and seems Hitlerian in its imagery. Hopefully isn't a copy of the presidential seal he will be standing on. With kudo's to Will, I think we might be seeing the beginning of the cult of personality and or the identification of the president (Bush) with the state with America. Big daddy who can protect us from those scary foreigner/terrorists and our other fears. This stuff is getting wierd.
Check out nyt.com , the front page picture of the stage Bush will walk out onto. While these convention stages have been becoming more elaborate this is one is over the top and seems Hitlerian in its imagery. Hopefully it isn't a copy of the presidential seal he will be standing on. With kudo's to Will, I think we might be seeing the beginning of the cult of personality and or the identification of the president (Bush) with the state with America. Big daddy who can protect us from those scary foreigner/terrorists and our other fears. This stuff is getting wierd.
I wonder if Will will ever recover from the "high school" condemnation. I think his career is ruined. Have the rest of you guys read reviews of Will's abortion book? Some pretty solid people are just as complimentary as we on the board are. I remember something about "one of the country's best political journalists." I have said this before to Will, but I am somewhat envious that my life's work and writing will go mostly unnoticed, unread, etc. (even if I am "big" in my field), but Will gets a kind of instant gratification and appreciation from a fairly wide audience. Foreign. At least he is a good guy on this bbs and is a Rockets fan.
thought this was funny, another columnist calling Will out (while complimenting him) in his column. CLARENCE PAGE: A MAN FOR ALL RACIAL SEASONS http://www.southernillinoisan.com/rednews/2004/08/29/build/opinions/OPI002.html [Sat Aug 28 2004] Some people, particularly those who are tone deaf to the ironies of life, have a problem with Barack Obama's race. They have a hard time deciding what it is. Ever since the front-running candidate for the U.S. Senate from Illinois burst onto the national stage with a riveting keynote address at the Democratic National Convention, I've been hearing from readers who question why the media, including me, insist on referring to Obama as "black" or "African-American" when he is "really" biracial. Are we trying to render his white Kansas mother irrelevant? No, I say, we're just recognizing that the realities of race have more to do with psychology, sociology and politics than actual science. The perspective of my questioners was well-expressed by one of my favorite political writers, William Saletan, in his coverage of the convention for Microsoft's Slate.com Web site: "Obama isn't exactly black," Saletan wrote "His mother is white and came from Kansas. His father came from Kenya. Obama is, in short, African-American -- a term that (the Rev. Jesse) Jackson Sr. has too casually applied to people many generations removed from Africa, often through other continents. Obama's father went back to Africa years ago but that doesn't change the hue of his son's skin or remove his African name, Barack. So the son embraces his blackness." True enough, but I was jerked alert by the curious declaration that "Obama isn't exactly black." It made me wonder: How long do you have to be in America, by Saletan's standards, before you are "exactly black"? Without even trying, Obama seems to have touched off the biggest national debate over race labeling that I can recall since the Census Bureau announced that in 2000 everyone would be allowed to check more than one racial box for the first time. About 2.5 percent of those who checked "black" checked at least one other box, too, which was about twice as many as officials expected. That's fine for Tiger, if it works for him. I've always believed that people should be entitled to call themselves what they want to call themselves. You have nothing if you don't have the right to define yourself. In fact, a healthy debate over racial labels ultimately moves us toward the cosmic truth that racial labels are meaningless. But, most of us still live in the world where, as James Baldwin once wrote, "Color is not a human or personal reality; it is a political reality." Obama, in pursuing his political goals, is well aware of political realities in Africa and here, his native land. He knows that people see his complexion before they learn about his family tree, but, as he says, he refuses to be limited by the labels. Rather, he uses his intercontinental roots to better serve the mostly black district where he is a state senator, and, he hopes, the entire state of Illinois as its senator in Congress. As Maria de Los Angeles Torres, associate political science professor at DePaul University, put it: "He's not denying race; he is talking about race in a different way." Does race still matter in America? For evidence that it does, unfortunately, one need look no further than Obama's Republican opponent. After a bizarre sex scandal in which there wasn't any actual sex eliminated Jack Ryan, the GOP primary winner, party leaders were forced to find a hasty replacement. After screening more than a dozen hopefuls, state GOP leaders chose (drumroll, please) black talk show host Alan Keyes, former ambassador and Republican presidential candidate. Although their party tends to frown on race-based affirmative action as a matter of policy, they made no secret of the fact that Keyes' race was a plus. It even overwhelmed Keyes' biggest negative, that he was a Maryland resident seeking to represent a state in which, up until now, he has not lived. Details, details. That's OK. It is downright inspiring to see leaders of the Party of Lincoln in the Land of Lincoln stretching their big tent wide enough to include Maryland. Keyes, a riveting speaker, first came to national fame as a spokesman for the Reagan administration's ultimately failed policy of "constructive engagement" with South Africa's white-minority apartheid government. Now he's helping his party hide the disarray within its Illinois ranks. He's also helping to push black progress ahead, making it a virtual certainty that Illinois will send to Congress its third black senator since Reconstruction, a possibility that, with Keyes or without him, already was looking quite certain. Now, that's progress. CLARENCE PAGE is a Chicago Tribune columnist.
I already tried to rub that in Will's face a few months ago and he ignored me. He is still jealous of Chad Ford, though.
I am extremely jealous of Chad Ford. All I do is write erroneous crap about politics. He gets to write erroneous crap about sports. P.S. Can we start a tip jar to send Trader Jorge on a tour of swing states with that "job loss is no big deal" message?
Let's be accurate. T_J wrote: "1. Look at our economy's growth rate over the past few quarters. It's outstanding. The liberals try their best to frame economic discussions in terms of a single indicator -- jobs. No economist worth their salt would buy that amateurish explanation." I think he makes a legitimate point rather than a flippant remark.
What T_J doesn't understand is that what's most important to the people of America who vote is jobs. And frankly, the vast majority of them don't give a flying f*ck about "framing economic discussions in terms of a single indicator" nor do they care about economists who are "worth their salt" nor an "amateurish explanation". They care about how they are going to pay their rent/mortgage, how they are going to afford health care, and how they are going to pay for their children's college education. And that is precisely why Bush will lose in November. Voters vote their wallets, and it's more important to them than waving flags and repeating the "9/11 changed everything" mantra. The only people who are better off today than they were 4 years ago are the top 1%...Bush's main constituency.
