Comments Posted By Slublog
Displaying 31 To 40 Of 45 Comments
The Iraq Death Toll Study
Interesting timing.NEW YORK (AP) -- A controversial new study contends nearly 655,000 Iraqis have died because of the war, suggesting a far higher death toll than other estimates. The timing of the survey's release, just a few weeks before the...
Comment Posted By Slublog On 11.10.2006 @ 09:12
OY WHAT A MESS! FOLEY COVERUP AND THE GAMBIT THAT EXPOSED IT
Most IM programs, such as AIM, have some sort of feature to save a chat in a word or text document. The other way is to copy and paste the contents of the chat.
And peter's comment shows that it doesn't matter how much you stipulate. Give the left an inch, and they won't even acknowledge the gift.
Comment Posted By Slublog On 2.10.2006 @ 10:47
OUR WHOLE ROTTEN, SMELLY, SEWER OF A GOVERNMENT
Where to Begin?
A depressing must-read from Rick Moran....
Comment Posted By Slublog On 31.08.2006 @ 00:11
CARTER PROVES EXISTENCE OF A MERCIFUL GOD
My favorite quote: "However, I wouldn’t have excluded going into Afghanistan, because I think we had to strike at al-Qaeda and its leadership."
What nonsense. In response to the terrorist attacks, Carter would likely have started a 'national conversation' and held summits to figure out 'why they hate us.'
Comment Posted By Slublog On 28.08.2006 @ 11:56
By the way...that picture?
That's the stuff nightmares are made of. Clowns are evil.
Comment Posted By Slublog On 15.08.2006 @ 14:50
Congratulations.
Comment Posted By Slublog On 15.08.2006 @ 13:23
So, Paddy, that would be a "no," then?
Comment Posted By Slublog On 27.07.2006 @ 11:49
THE NEW YORK TIMES - ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE
That wasn’t Grouchy, slublog, that was me. ‘Smatter, never swore before when you were angry? I know Rick does.
Sorry about that. The hazards of a group blog, I suppose.
My point is that the chickenhawk argument is a fine rhetorical device, but does little to advance the argument, as it depends entirely on the assumption that your opponent is a coward. It's not really an argument at all, really - it's more an ad hominem with pretensions.
Comment Posted By Slublog On 17.07.2006 @ 12:03
Just read your post, grouchy.
Profanity and the chickenhawk argument?
You folks have got to get some new material.
Comment Posted By Slublog On 16.07.2006 @ 20:57
A New New New Low for the Times
Flooding the zone - for America's enemies. This is sad, because the Times was actually once a good newspaper. I hate that the reputation of this American institution has been thoroughly trashed by agenda-driven morons....
Comment Posted By Slublog On 16.07.2006 @ 20:53
