Aren't you familiar with the left's (read:UN) notion of 'disproportionate response'?

Use the money we would have used for military or other intervention in Libya and instead use it to stimulate energy exploration domestically.

"Legal" has no meaning across sovereign borders that are not bound by treaty. Our state has no treaty with Libya; therefore whatever our government does to that nation cannot be illegal by our laws. Correct me if I'm wrong here.

As for "moral", I'm comfortable just being more moral than is Qaddafi, which is a pretty fucking low bar.

Here's an alternate list: (1) can we do anything (your #3); (2) would doing something be in our national interest; (3) do we trust Obama to run this policy well?

Yes.

Blood for Oil.

You know why.

NO!

Besides, it's a moot point. The "western powers" no loonger have the stregnth or will to wipe it's own ass. What are we gonna do? Set them up a democracy? Shit.

Next question?

Incidentally, if you're not already following the three guys I linked above, you probably should be

Why? they're bloggers, right?

As much as I hate the facist lunatic Qaddafi (or however the fuck it's spelled this week) and his slaughter of the protesters, I'm inclinded to think that overt action wouldn't be the best idea.  I'd rather not get into another "you break it, you buy it" situation where we become semi-obligated to undertake another "nation-building" excersize.

If we limit ourselves to air power, that puts us in a position of watching the ground troops kill civilians while we do nothing.

You're wrong here. We have plenty of treaties that restrain or purport to restrain the use of military force, including the UN Charter to which we are a signatory. It doesn't matter whether or not we have a specific treaty with Libya that says we can't attack them specifically; we already agreed to other military restraints.

But I was also thinking about legality under United States law. At what point do we need Congressional authorization?

I have an idea, let's cool our jets on more wars right now. Let the euroweenies or anyone else so inclined risk their lives for a change on this mideast mess.

I really don't care if the Libyians spend the rest of the week shooting each other. If you remember the fuckers love dancing in the street when their favorite bomber comes home or someone attacks us. fuck em.

Ugh.  Me learn to link now.

But I was also thinking about legality under United States law. At what point do we need Congressional authorization?

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at February 21, 2011 04:43 PM (XVaFd)

I don't know, but congress is on vakay this week anyways. Let's wait until they get back.

I say we grab the mast of the Philadelphia in the confusion, and bring it home. 

Other than that, F 'em.

Waddaya mean, is it legal? We can go to war for any reason we want.

A better question would be, is it prudent?

Posted by: MlR at February 21, 2011 04:36 PM (uxyPr)

The Air Force and Navy are at peace, for all intents an purposes.  A no-fly zone would be no problem.  The question isn't whether or not we can.  It's whether or not we should.

1. No. Not because of the "we're in enough wars" bit. The media and current President don't support the ones and the troops deployed now.

2. Someone already covered the limitations of any no-fly zone. It was an apt point.

3. Let the frickin' UN/EU do it. Why the fuck would we even contemplate this when we're being called monsters for Iraq and Afghanistansand being called monsters for not jumping into Darfur, when the EU can't be bothered?

4. We are learning more daily how insidious the cover up mentality was regarding Dear Maj. Hasan. We're now adding to that the repeal od DADT AND combat veterans being reviled at Columbia. And we're going to commit what forces we have to Libya!?! Do we fire on Daffy's loyalists? Do we fire on looting mobs? Should we be seen saving oil wells? Do we ignore Daffy's loyalists (especially women/children) being torn apart by mobs? Shopuld we be seen helping them?

We can choose the *loser* pretty easily, but picking the winner is harder.

i.e. we can make someone lose, but of the remaining factions battling for leadership...

The only question I need to hear the answer to is:  "No matter what we do in Libya, whether military intervention, or nothing at all, will the US still remain vilified by Muslims around the world and will our flag still be burned/pissed on by ungrateful followers of Mohammed?" 

The answer to this question is undoubtedly "yes."  So, fuck Libya.  Let them sort their own fucking problems out.

The last four wars we've fought (Iraq I, Kosovo/Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq II) were all to free Muslims from their vicious tyrants (and yes, for other reasons, like all that cheap gas I'm pumping into my car!), yet the Muzzies still hate us. 

Let them push the boot off their own face, just like we did.

Posted by: Dr. Bombay at February 21, 2011 05:04 PM (AZGON)

Full of epic win!

Gotta say that unless we can be assured that the new occupant of the tyranny is not an islamist then tough shit.

Posted by: Dr. Bombay at February 21, 2011 05:04 PM (AZGON)

 Full of epic win!

Posted by: runningrn

I wonder if the Tilted Kilt has any more vacancies.

If SNL was still funny, we'd see a great skit out of that.

Bomb the shit out of them then shoot their godamn planes out of the air. Try it, it's fun.

Don't let those damned frogs make you fly around Spain though, it's a bitch on the pilots.

And why?

That is the main question.  What is our interest in Libya?  Why get involved there and not Bahrain, where we actually have interests? 

 I'm particularly interested to know why there is a distinction between intervening to prevent the loyalist air forces from massacring protesters, but not to prevent the ground-based military from doing the same. Is that a moral distinction, a legal distinction, or a practical distinction being made?

It's a distinction made by politicians like Bill Clinton.  Functionally, from a military perspective, a no-fly zone is the equivalent of phoning it in or telecommuting.  It stems from the same fallacious view that says that shooting enemy soldiers with small arms is okay, but running over them with tanks is bad. 

Since the Libyan under-secretary (??) at the UN has asked, sort of, and since a precedent (sort of) was set in the Iraq no-fly zones ...and since we could always come up with something on Lockerbie (whatever) ...I think a case could be made for telling the Libyan AF to stand down.

Why? - Dunno how it's gonna all shake-out, but I'm going with an OLD post by Michael Yon that basically said the Libyan people don't hate our guts. Yet. And this, at least, might give us that tiniest little bit of leverage (that the Brit's squandered with their fiasco a couple of years back).

Now, having said all that: I have no - zip, zero, nada - faith the current administration has the ability to finesse this at all. (So though I voted 2. on principal, my belief is 3 on practicality.)

...my two bits.

With BHO at the "controls", we wont be intervening anytime soon, land or air. However , it would be good training for the USAF and give those guys some real-world stick-time in their F22's. Oh well ....maybe next time.

I GOT IT,  send Hillary!!!

Posted by: momma at February 21, 2011 05:10 PM (penCf)

Speak truth to power.

ugliest woman on tv since Helen Thomas left.

She's a Man, baby!

We shouldn't be involved.

Besides the most important issue, the military and logistic issues involved taking this on right now, Libya isn't a coherent nation-state where we would be rescuing a group of people from an oppressive government. We would be asking for Iraq 5x over. Which tribal segments do we protect or support? When another poor government takes over do we bomb them if they use government force to show their will? If we eventually stop the bombing roulette, are we endorsing whatever government follows?

There is a lot of mess going on over there, and we can't be assured that this is the best use of force right now. We may need it for the next problem lingering right over the horizon.

My gut says the chances of US intervention eventually resulting in a democratic outcome are about:

Iraq: 70%

Afghanistan: 50%

Libya: 0%

Many countries are inhabited by people who have been brainwashed into zenophobia, especially against the US, for so long that the population is essentially batshit crazy, beyond redemption.  Any who aren't left long ago.  See Pakistan.

If the Libyan guy wants the UN to do it, then get the fricking UN to do it. When convenient, we're reminded how small a percentage the eeevvviiillll Americans are. It's time for the other 98% of the world to get mobilized.

Indian peacekeepers in Libya. It'd be like the 4th Indian division from the 8th army all over again!

We have interests in Libya...Oil. If Libya goes off line for any amount of time, what's the top of the market?

I have another idea. Why do we spend our time and money drilling for our own oil and changing some of the transportation fleet to natural gas.

the thing I would worried about is that is the Egyptian army moving in to keep order and claiming a portion or just annexing all of Libya.  The Egyptian army consists of 1 million people and Libya's entire population is only 6.5 million.  Plus, Benghazi and a significant amount of Libyan oil fields are close to the Egyptian border.

Oh goodie. As a bonus, we can watch M-1 tanks battle M-1 tanks. And watch F-16s battle F-16s. That should suck.

And they'll be doing that over oil. For real this time. Fuck that.

Posted by: Ron Paul at February 21, 2011 05:14 PM (xs5wK)

Hi, and welcome to another episode of "Non-seqs and the Paultards Who Love Them."

Posted by: toby928

With our luck? Probably yes.

Posted by: Circa

Oh my God! They're gonna shoot down the trains!!!

Posted by: Ron Paul at February 21, 2011 05:14 PM (xs5wK)

I just checked with the Honey Badger. He don't care.

So, because of the UN treaty, we'd need a pretext to invade Libya or else it would be "illegal". I accept that. Despite that the UN has no enforcement mechanism against the US, making the effect of the US being "illegal" being a big nothing.

I voted "no" anyway for what I think are more serious reasons, so I'll leave it at that.

Posted by: maddogg at February 21, 2011 05:21 PM (OlN4e)

If everyone wants us to do their killen for them let's just nuke the whole country and say we couldn't pick a side.

Posted by: Rocks

Tribal warfare isn't so bad. It can be dealt with easily.

(don't pull on that arrow; it's in kinda deep).

I voted "No" mostly because anything we do over there, we'll catch hell for anyway. This is in Europe's back yard, let them take care of it for once.

Of, course, if they as much as look sideways at our forces in the region, then I'm all for the Honey Badger Response©®™.

@165

+1

Stay out of it. It's a tar-baby.

1. With the present Administration, no intervention can be expected, so the question is academic.

2. In the extremely unlikely event that an intervention were made, with this government you just know it would be screwed up, in part by bizarre rules of engagement that would even things up for the Libyan air defenses. (Remember the Somali Pirate standoff? Rule of engagement: "Don't shoot the pirates unless the hostages are in imminent danger." In other words, don't shoot the pirates when you should, i.e. when their guns are not covering the hostages. Shoot the pirates when you shouldn't, i.e. when their guns are covering the hostages.)

I also think the usual Blame-the-USA machinery would transform any action taken into a crime of some sort.

Posted by: toby928™ at February 21, 2011 05:18 PM (GTbGH)

Honey Badger has spoken. PBUH

No war in Lybia.

^{Posted by: Ron Paul at February 21, 2011 05:14 PM (xs5wK)}

So late to the Sock-Hop...

^{Posted by: Ron Paul at February 21, 2011 05:14 PM (xs5wK)}

Sure you are.

Oh, my

Union Protestors Carry Signs Threatening Tea Party Rape

No intervention.  Don't bite off more than we can chew.  How many other potential Libyas are out there?  If we intervene in Libya(an enemy country since forever) then we have to intervene in the next one and the next one and we're already comitted in Iraq and Afghanistan with a potential need to act in Korea and Taiwan. 

Look at the shit that's going down in Mexico.  If there's any place to intervene, Mexico is the place.  Mexico is like the crack house next door, stinking up the neighborhood and having it's filth and corruption overflowing into our yard.

One last thing...who would like to concentrate on the idea that America is going broke and where is the money for all these far flung interventions coming from?

Posted by: Y-not hopes cali grump is ok at February 21, 2011 05:34 PM (pW2o

I hope so too.  I hope it was just he was over discussing the BS in the news and needed a break from it.

No.  Hell, Nobama won't even use the word victory for the 2 wars we're already fighting.  Plus, he won't let our guys actually fight to win.   Besides, he's already an embarrassment as CiC.   What would the ROE be in this?   Put down your weapons, and see if they'll play patty-cake?

Posted by: yadaup at February 21, 2011 05:31 PM (HmCnI)

Happy Times! **Ding!**

@26: "But I was also thinking about legality under United States law."

Ninja, please. The good thing about being God is that, as Teddy KGB said in Rounders: "In [M]y club, I kin splesh the pot venever the fack I plez."

No, we don't have the money to do it.

Time to pull all the troops out of Afghanistan and stop getting involved in the Middle East.

The only further action should be to offer a general statement of concern as those Iranian warships crossing the Suez are "accidentally" sunk . . .

Sulu: plot a course around Planet Qaddafi 4. Spock: what was that name of the directive that I never bother following it? Make a note in the ship's log that we're going to follow it this time. Sulu: engage warp 6 around this dump. No- make that warp 7.

Posted by: RarestRX at February 21, 2011 05:45 PM (/eIgc)

What's the sound of one girl fapping?  Those are words I've been longing to hear.

Look at the shit that's going down in Mexico.  If there's any place to intervene, Mexico is the place.

+100.

Invade, take out the drug cartels, and then force the POWs to build a real fence along the border. Then, send the illegals and any company that employs them over to the Thunderdome we just created.

NO

Monroe doctrine? anyone

mind your own buisness comes to mind

I realize isolationism will not work in today's world but where should we be involved?

protecting people that hate and despise you? or who make minimal efforts to protect them selves and you pay for it in lives and money?

or protect actual friends and allies?

Posted by: Ed Anger at February 21, 2011 05:45 PM (7+pP9)

I don't trust Barry to prosecute a war, period. He hasn't got the stomach for it. His minions give him bad advice, and lots of it - just imagine how bad they could/would fuck up something they started themselves?

What's the sound of one girl fapping?  Those are words I've been longing to hear.

Somehow, the best sound in the thread got even better

^{I like it slippery.}

Keep it Greasy

241 But it would be nice if Barry could open his fucking mouth and say something.

No, no, a thousand times no!

The less that man speaks, the better off everyone will be

Invade, take out the drug cartels, and then force the POWs to build a real fence along the border. Then, send the illegals and any company that employs them over to the Thunderdome we just created.

Posted by: The Q at February 21, 2011 05:49 PM (MYuEC)

Just stick to the beaches and you'll be fine, gringos.

@46: " It's high time Malta stepped up to the plate."

We can haz air cuvver and sooply convoyz?  Last time we got mixed up with fighting in Libya, we got the shit bombed out of us.

Posted by: BeckoningChasm at February 21, 2011 05:52 PM (081kp)

Valerie Jarrett?  Cynthia McKinney?

Posted by: BeckoningChasm at February 21, 2011 05:52 PM (081kp)

Louis Farrakhan?

Posted by: Derak at February 21, 2011 05:56 PM (CjpKH)

Don't forget Columbia.  They do love them some ROTC. 

You know who would make a great dictator democratically elected leader of Libya?  MEEEEEEEEEEEE!

Valerie Jarrett?  Cynthia McKinney?

Posted by: Ms Choksondik at February 21, 2011 05:56 PM (F+Y9Z)

RAMMING SPEED!

No intervention.  I would support sending massive quantities of weapons, and even building training camps for leadership if this turns into a protracted civil war, but that's it.

@DrewM --  We have interests in Libya...Oil. If Libya goes off line for any amount of time, what's the top of the market? 

Yeah, they have oil - so did Iraq, and how much of that did we get?  We spent the effort so the Chinese could exploit the Iraqis in safety.  Our money and effort would be better spent doing domestic energy development.  (Once we get that high-speed rail, everything will be great!)

More importantly...we owe Col. Krazy a few rounds in the head still. Anything that helps make that happen is good by me 

Can't argue with that one.  I'd favor the "bomb the shit out of them" option. 

Michelle's out of town, Rahm's back in Chicago and that Indian kid went back to Hollywood.  Someone get me Larry Sinclair and a carton of Newports.  NOW! 

So ronery.

Well, if the dumbass does decide to intervene militarily, his little lefty freakazoids will go ape-shit crazy, so there's that.

_{I denounce myself}

Look, Ron Paul isn't just about a 'non-interventionist' foreign policy. He nearly always draws direct connections between every foreign policy problem in the world and prior US foreign policy choices. There is little room for problems in international governance that don't deal with the United States' 'bad decisions'.

This is short-sighted and permits no complexity in a history that is remarkably complex. His lack of intellectual flexibility and strong-headed insistence that he knows best when this is his only perspective on foreign policy is also annoying at best and dangerous at worst. 

do no intervene, nothing to gain and everything to lose. 

let them sort it out first.  if the result is another Iranian hellhole at least it clarifies things a whole lot.

Posted by: Drider at February 21, 2011 06:05 PM (wtDSn)

I see it differently.  He is still the President of the United States and as such the Queen of England should be shown no respect from the president of the United States other than what is generally accorded any other dignitary.  The fact that they did not invite the president should be an affront to every American.  for people on a tiny island they sure as hell have way too much influence on the world and way too much to say.

I see it differently.  He is still the President of the United States and as such the Queen of England should be shown no respect from the president of the United States other than what is generally accorded any other dignitary.  The fact that they did not invite the president should be an affront to every American.  for people on a tiny island they sure as hell have way too much influence on the world and way too much to say.

Posted by: curious at February 21, 2011 06:08 PM (p302b)

Well if he wasn't such a fucking wanker...

#301

Yes.

The fact that they did not invite the president should be an affront to every American.  for people on a tiny island they sure as hell have way too much influence on the world and way too much to say

That there's retarded. 

Posted by: curious at February 21, 2011 06:08 PM (p302b)

Sorry, curious, I'm glad they weren't invited.   This is not about a US president.  This is about Prince William, and his bride.  It is their day, and they can invite whoever they want.   Obama is not above being an ass to the UK, so they should invite him why?   Just because he's the president?

Hogwash.

I'd try to help dad out, but I'm an ophthalmologist, not a proctologist.

Can you give me a scrip for my, uh, Glaucoma?

Posted by: George Orwell at February 21, 2011 06:15 PM (AZGON)

If he mentioned them at all.   Plus they know he'd have to bring that fucking teleprompter just to say hello and he'd still fuck it up.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at February 21, 2011 06:19 PM (SJ6/3)

You're telling me!

Naw gonna do it.

Wouldn't be prudent.....at this juncture.

Maybe later, kill 'em all?  Qaddafy.....BAAAAAAAAD!

This is where Obama needs to pay attention to what I am saying. Not every fight is our fight. The only good thing that can come of all this is that we see brand new American style democracies in the Middle East. That is not going to happen, so if we help in any way, we are just putting the next bunch of thugs in office. Let them decide who they want for leaders and then we can see if we can work with them.

Let them live with Shariah law for awhile. We´ll get back to them in 30 years or so and see if they are as thrilled with it then. There are good historical reasons why there is no caliphate in existence now.

Sorry, curious, I'm glad they weren't invited.   This is not about a US president.  This is about Prince William, and his bride.  It is their day, and they can invite whoever they want.   Obama is not above being an ass to the UK, so they should invite him why?   Just because he's the president?

Hogwash.

What I posted is what all my horrified lib/dem friends are saying.  they are really taking the "no invite" thing very personally, they are pissed.
Posted by: curious at February 21, 2011 06:21 PM (p302b)

Well, if that's the case I FIFY

The Queen of England should show no more respect for the president of the United States other than what is generally accorded any other dignitary.  And certainly no more than he has shown her.

Posted by: curious at February 21, 2011 06:21 PM (p302b)

Your liberal friends are holding hands and singing Kumbaya as we speak,  in solidarity with Queen Elizabeth and Queen Elton.

Posted by: curious at February 21, 2011 06:21 PM (p302b)

You are in need of new "friends".  Lib friends are like jumbo shrimp.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 21, 2011 05:59 PM (7utQ2)

No "conspiratorial" here- just a statement. I don't know what the policy is on these continuing exercises given the current status in that part of the world.

@104: "Problem is, there is no 6th Fleet carrier at the moment.

Reagan wept.
-----------------------

Credit where credit is due, it was bestest-president-ever Dubya who decided to abandon our long-standing two ocean war capability.

So why don't all the loudmouth jagovs in the ever useful UN step up and do something?  But to ask that is to answer it.

Posted by: Downscaled Upscale at February 21, 2011 06:28 PM (IhHdM)

Nah.  All a conservative president would have to say is:  The United States as you've loved and feared her is on the way back!  We are strong and have sharp memories.

Heh.   The kids hate Moochelle's new healthy food crap in the schools.

the vast majority used the same word to describe the food: nasty

http://tiny.cc/9cpfn

Posted by: curious at February 21, 2011 06:21 PM (p302b)

I'm really finding that hilarious because it points out the emotional investment they have in the ignorant cocksucker and is probably the sole reason they voted for the imbecile.

So why don't all the loudmouth jagovs in the ever useful UN step up and do something?  But to ask that is to answer it.

Posted by: Leonard Pinth-Garnell at February 21, 2011 06:32 PM (PtuJp)

They have been awful quiet lately, haven't they?

No, I lie. I heard on Fox earlier that Ban Ki Moon called Qaddafi this morning  and expressed his concern about the military firing on citizens.

And that was it, I guess. Maybe Moon and Qaddafi decdided to do some sight seeing together in Venezuela or something.

Talking about WI on FNC.  The WI repub senaters need to use the nuke option soon.  I'll laugh when they do.

Posted by: sifty at February 21, 2011 06:45 PM (q6IlS)

Obama isn't going to bomb the hell out of anything.   It might scratch an ordinary citizen that would love us if we just hadn't done that.

Posted by: George Orwell at February 21, 2011 06:44 PM (AZGON)

Suck it, h8r! Bieber is hot!!11!

Posted by: sifty at February 21, 2011 06:49 PM (q6IlS)

Yeah, I'm sorry, too.   I'd actually like to make a giant glass swimming pool out of the entire ME.  It would make a great resort.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at February 21, 2011 06:49 PM (SJ6/3)

I'm not so sure I'll ever get to visit the Holy Land.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at February 21, 2011 06:54 PM (SJ6/3)

don't make me break out the aardvark.

Posted by: Fish the Impaler at February 21, 2011 06:55 PM (ZHsNw)

Tammy Bruce was firing many shots across the bow of the HMS Pantsuit today for her pathetic performance with Christiyawwwn Imawhore yesterday.  "That stupid cow" was one of the nicer epithets along with speculation on her puffy face being caused by following the Kitty Dukakis liver maintenance program.

Posted by: George Orwell at February 21, 2011 07:03 PM (AZGON)

Then there would be a moratorium on all flavors but jicama.

Posted by: sherlock at February 21, 2011 07:03 PM (TQbuA)

Kill all the hippies?

Posted by: curious at February 21, 2011 06:21 PM (p302b)

Well, if they would stop shitting all over our allies, maybe they would get invited to the nice parties.

I sure as Hell wouldn't invite them to anything, they're notoriously rude, dishonest, self-centered, and give lousy gifts that are about themselves.

I think the word "boor" was invented for people like that.

Actions have consequences.

Also, I thought we'd established that all your horrified lib/dem friends are pretty much wrong 100% of the time? Unless you've been holding back on any perceptive or thoughtful comments they may have tripped over.

Posted by: George Orwell at February 21, 2011 07:04 PM (AZGON)

Solid point.  But nonetheless, if confronted with glitter-covered boobies, he'd be incapacitated.

Posted by: dagny at February 21, 2011 07:01 PM (R+sqs)

You know, you almost want to assume it was just a casual joke, but the startlement makes you wonder, was he really thinking that it was a good idea, just not realistic, or was he just cracking wise?

I know people who do bizarro ass stuff like telling kids to depend on the judgement of a lib politician. It's more than a little creepy for an American to go all Juche and start telling everyone around them to defer to Dear Leader.

I probably would have said "Please, I'm having enough trouble as it is without someone telling me I have to pick the Arugula or global warming will get me."

@237: What Western Powers? Rohan and Gondor? Or the Islamic Republics of Britain, France, and Germany?"

Aber doch! Ve sent truppen to der Libyen vonce before, und you Schweinhunden got all pissy about it.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 21, 2011 07:12 PM (7utQ2)

Pictures or it didn't happen

Occidental Petroleum stock is tanking! Of course American men and women should die for my family's interests in Libya.

You know, you almost want to assume it was just a casual joke, but the startlement makes you wonder, was he really thinking that it was a good idea, just not realistic, or was he just cracking wise?

I think he thought it was a grand idea but unrealistic. No kidding.

Remember I live in lib-ville. It happens all the time. I was at a freshman mothers tea for the catholic high school. Woman next to me asks about the religion classes. She says, I'm worried because I'm very liberal. I smile and say, That's funny. I'm worried because I'm very conservative.

She gasped so loud all the tables turned and looked. Again, I laughed.

Happens all the time. I used to get mad, now I use it as an opportunity to amuse myself.

Let the EU weenies do it. They're always clamoring for a bigger presence on the world stage. They can use some of that wonderful high speed rail and their six working transport planes to transport the troops.

Of course they'll have to have a conference to decide the members of the conference that'll decide on the shape of the table at the conference to decide the route to take to get to Libya once the committee on the Libya Campaign decides on a date to start. ... or something like that...

I'm sure a Eurweenie campaign to free Libya would be as much of a success as their campaign in Bosnia.

Posted by: Eastern Europe at February 21, 2011 07:20 PM (c0A3e)

Psst! That was Yalta.

Sorry about that, Chief.

You are in need of new "friends".  Lib friends are like jumbo shrimp.

Posted by: ontherocks at February 21, 2011 06:29 PM (HBqDo)

I know, so I"ve started actively seeking out some republican/conservative friends.  I realized the other day that I'm surrounded by libs/dems and that even if there was another independent or conservative or republican they wouldn't admit it in the face of the very blue ness of my city.  I have been trying to filter what I say about what they say on here.   Sometimes I almost think I come home after an evening out and I've been brainwashed by the constant liberal banter.  Last night someone was talking about the mosque by the towers and finally a guy who grew up in a town that lost 50 people in the world trade center stood up to them.   He wasn't with our group but overheard my friend who had too much guiness talking about the mosque and interjected.  If it had been a fight you would say he laid my friend out with words.  My friend was speechless and we switched bars immediately as my friend felt that the "environment was not conducive to honest discourse".  I'm kicking myself for not going up to that guy and asking for his email but I'm not that type, I'm not that forward.

It's just a model

Happens all the time. I used to get mad, now I use it as an opportunity to amuse myself.

Posted by: dagny at February 21, 2011 07:19 PM (R+sqs)

That's funny, I used to work at lib central, and they almost never brought it up.

Not after that one time...

Malta was the scene of one of the great battles between the West and islam.  Ottoman expansion in the Mediterranean was stopped at Malta in 1565.

In importance to Western culture the battle ranks up there with the Siege of Vienna and the Battle of Poitiers.

Yup. Big time. We don't export as much corn as we used to but a lot of wheat. Which the Egyptians couldn't afford. I see the reciprocity, but the Arabs still don't f*king get it.

The sad part about it all is that commodity prices are going higher and higher.  Won't be long and these arab shitholes won't be able to afford even wheat.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at February 21, 2011 07:29 PM (SJ6/3)

I dunno! You better run, you better take cover!

_{yeah, I know}

@256: "Y'know, having a fleet of high-speed triemes would complement my high-speed rail plans perfectly (and win the future)!"

Screw you and your pansy triremes! Quinqueremes, bitchez.

Why your blog so rame?

HoneyBadgermom has son with big blog.

  He make lotta money.

Quit being so a rame!

Posted by: curious at February 21, 2011 07:25 PM (p302b)

We really all do wish you could find a better "place," socially speaking. I realize that if you argued all the time they'd turn on you like rabid skunks.

Posted by: Barak the Hussein at February 21, 2011 07:01 PM (KubWl)

I suspect the usual internecine squabbles would prevent the Sunni Arabs from being welcomed by the Shite Aryans, but stranger things than that have happened.

Posted by: curious at February 21, 2011 07:40 PM (p302b)

Give it a shot, it might be a change. Doesn't mean you have to get married to any of them, but hopefully it will be less antagonistic than a lot of your social occasions.

As long as they don't open with a discussion on "Liberation Theology."

488 That's weird. I was thinking of suggesting that but figured I'd get spat upon. Remember they run 50-50 but if they are identifying with that group it's probably more 75-25 on the good side.

Posted by: curious at February 21, 2011 07:40 PM (p302b)

Best place to meet quality folks?  Book stores!

Posted by: curious at February 21, 2011 07:25 PM (p302b)

I think that if someone reports you for kicking yourself in NYC, you'll end up in Bellevue or maybe Sing Sing,  but just coming here is a good start kiddo, you'll find the Right friends eventually.

Hang in there.

Posted by: curious at February 21, 2011 07:40 PM (p302b)

Will they be wearing those little, you know, catholic school-girl uniforms?

Will they be wearing those little, you know, catholic school-girl uniforms?

Posted by: Soona at February 21, 2011 07:46 PM (KubWl)

Especially those little patent leather shoes for peeking!

Why isn't there a "Hell, No" option?

Is it just me or does it seem the blog has been a little slow lately.  Not the comments but the stories.  Don't get me wrong but a lot of stuff has been going on lately. Gab's Libya post has been up so long we are talking football and the Knights of Malta.  Remember those halcyon days when Ace would put up 15 stories a day by himself and mor by the bloggers? Of course then Ace would blow a gasket and crash.  That's why I love this place.

Would a money bomb get the joint rocking again or is the advertising actually contributing to the upkeep?

@406 - All of the ME is ripe for a takeover by people "friendly" to the Iranian mullahs.

I think the MBM hasn't caught on that there are two sides to the Islamic world - the Persians (Shia) and the Arabs (Sunni).  Since the Iranian Revolution, the Persians have been pushing insurgent and terrorist groups throughout the Middle East.  The Arabs, led by the Saudis, have been pushing back. The region is certainly ripe for a takeover, but there are two sides in the fight.  Either one is bad, and either one leads to a Caliphate.  I favor the previously mentioned "bomb the shit out of them" option. 

The Maltese Falcon was a jewel encrusted statue that was to be delivered to the pope as tribute by the knights.  My friend has one of the two that were made for the Humphrey Bogart Movie.  That's how cool Bogie was. Short, skinny, First name Humphrey and he slill slammed Lauren Bacall whenever he wanted.  Was he part Honey Badger?

Posted by: texette at February 21, 2011 07:47 PM (NPSC3)

I don't really know.  As you can imagine people who have guns in NY have been investigated to the nth degree and are usually cops or hunters who are also cops.

@517: "Are we the "last great hope of a free nation" or just fucking pussies?"

Pussies.

@517: "Are we the "last great hope of a free nation" or just fucking pussies?"

Pussies

Lawrence O'Donnell started with "there is a crack in the armor in Wisconsin as a republican senator proposed a compromise".   Guess the death threats that they are all apparently getting has cause some of them to rethink their positions.

Walker nipped that rumor in the bud as soon as it was reported.  No compromises.

Posted by: Ohio Dan at February 21, 2011 07:56 PM (EH4cc)

C'mon dude. You know better than that.

@528: "I asked him this morning what he wanted for his birthday.

His answer:  A Lewinski

Sigh.  I wish I still had the enthusiasm I had 25 years ago.  *heads to liquor cabinet*"

Further proof that brides smile at their weddings because they know they've given their last blowjob.  Drink heavily, though.  If you can't make the earth move, at least you can make the room spin.

I'm Stealin' that.

Posted by: ontherocks at February 21, 2011 08:17 PM (HBqDo)

Have no fear.  He'll get another b.j. of his dreams.  And then he'll fall asleep and fart as I tuck into a Brad Thor novel.

This is the shaking Down Under...

Earthquake hits Christchurch NZ a couple of hours ago - looks bad

This city had an aerthquake in September last year - this is looking worse

Posted by: Eastern Europe at February 21, 2011 08:18 PM (c0A3e)

Isn't that the exam where your dentist holds your tongue with gauze and looks and feels around your mouth.  OMG, how embarrassing to have to be told that when you are very young and have the dentist know how you got it....oooooo

Posted by: Misstammy at February 21, 2011 08:21 PM (BebB7)

_{Not to worry, it's the disposable he'll fall for.}

Got any camouflage tips?

Yeah, avoid dorky shoes

Yeah, avoid dorky shoes

Posted by: dagny at February 21, 2011 08:45 PM (R+sqs)

_{My 16's all have back-up alarms, am I in trouble here?}

Sketchers. Dorky.

We ain't got a dog in that fight.

If the islamo's are killing each other without our help then more power to them.

No, let the country fall into the sea.