So... what is it? Another Cubbie failure has pushed you over the edge? Again?
Chavez' tyranny is "legal", so according to your newly discovered logic, I suppose you think that's "legitimate" as well. Screw that.
Sorry Rick, but your position on this is neither compelling nor practical. And it's even more pathetic than your pandering to the Surrendercrats on Iraq two years ago and your impotent, feigned perplexity regarding Al Gore's Nobel last year.
First off, your basic premise is in error - or at least oversimplified to the point of nonsense. The guy who gets the most votes does NOT always win. Or does your memory only go back 6 years?
And in this particular election, that's true in glowing spades as we watch Obama-funded ACORN operatives totally corrupting the election with no action being taken by the feds and no real questions being asked by the media. As such, this is not a valid election.
Next, an election where vital information about one candidate is suppressed via threats of DOJ action (a U.S. historical first for a sitting junior Senator, I believe) is not a valid election.
An election where unethical and libelous activities by the in-the-tank media, which actively campaigns for its candidate in direct violation of federal election law with NO action taken by the federal government to stop it or expose it, is not a valid election.
Recognizing all this and doing everything in our Constitutional power to reject an Obama "victory" - should it miraculously come to pass - and to correct it is not "acting like two year olds". Whining about election rules and trying to change them AFTER THE FACT is a two-year-old's tactic, and that's what Gore and his supporters did - the ones you're pre-emptively, but falsely, using for comparison. Your moral equivalence in suggesting this is disgusting beyond words.
Please stop blogging until you grow a pair or do those of us who still revere the Constitution a favor and kindly disassociate yourself from the Right Wing.Comment Posted By goy On 14.10.2008 @ 09:04
Fahagie - awesome observation on the spectators-turned-mob scene. It bothered the heck out of me when I saw it too. You put an explanation to the 'why'.
Also agreed on Hayes' comment to Palmer. Unfortunately, her character doesn't seem to be making sense on any level so far. It's like she's become the "platitude repository" holding all the lefty sentiment for which the writers can't find a convincing voice. They didn't watch enough West Wing, I guess.Comment Posted By goy On 31.01.2007 @ 20:00
Rick, I hope I'll be surprised, but I guess part of what's winding 24 down for me a little is that I think the answers to your questions are pretty obvious. Again, I could be wrong...
"Will Jack execute his own brother?"
Of course he will. Especially when he learns the details of the part he played in all the S5 events. Of course he might then off himself ("only Jack can kill Jack!") out of sheer grief and despair. But what we've seen of Jack so far indicates he *might* think twice about Graem... then put two center mass and one in his forehead.
"Will Dad program the nukes?"
No doubt, if the right screws are turned - say, threatening Graem or his family, per McCarthy's comment to Fayed regarding coercion (so far, I don't get the impression that threats against Jack would do the trick, but revelations from their past might change that) - especially if he thinks there's still a way to "contain" them afterward (like Cummings' and Nathanson's foul-up with the centox, which might lead to some nice irony). A more interesting question in my mind is: would Jack shoot Dad to *prevent* him from reprogramming the triggers?
BTW, I forgot to mention earlier that I think the lickspittle act in the house was a put-on. Graem had to know Jack would be trouble based on past history. He'd have to do something about that and if I heard correctly (no TiVo here) he outright stated they should've had him killed instead of letting him be sent to China. He also knew all along that in leading Jack back to Dad, he'd be leading him into a trap (i.e., his goons). So there really wasn't any reason to keep Dad's whereabouts secret. Just the opposite. But telling Jack what he wanted to know outright might have raised suspicions (at least in the 'sharper' Jack whom Graem knew at the end of S5). Personally, I think it was actually *Graem* pushing the buttons in that scene. He probably didn't get to wherever he is among these "untouchables" by being a lickspittle with no human intuition and no ability to manipulate people.Comment Posted By goy On 30.01.2007 @ 20:37
Sadly, I agree with O'Shea. Way too contrived, this turn of events is. The story would have worked just fine without the distraction (and silliness - unless someone can point to some portents of this that I missed in S5) of "Graem" being transformed into Graem Bauer.
I'll keep watching, but only to see if my intuition is right and that it's *Milo* who's been turned, and who's seen his chance for misdirection in Nadia's predicament. He can now pull any sort of mole mischief he likes and let the blame track back to the "obvious" traitor. And his confession regarding setting her up with his ID would make it sound all the more convincing.
*Channeling Aaron Pierce in a past life...* "I guess we'll see what we'll see."Comment Posted By goy On 30.01.2007 @ 18:42
The haunting vocal cut played during Curtis' fall, Jack's 'purge' and the nuke detonation really was the final touch that made the scene way too good for T.V., IMHO. I knew I'd heard it before. It's from the Crash score (Mark Isham). At least I'm pretty sure that's it. Ironically, the track is entitled "Safe Now".Comment Posted By goy On 16.01.2007 @ 21:00
Outstanding work, Rick, as usual.
A couple notes...
"SUMMARY: 6:00 PM - 8:00 PM"
I think it was AM (not PM).
"Jack gets the address from the phone book in his cell, simply looking under the listing for â€œTerrorists: Reformed.â€ "
IIRC, the information Jack entered into the oh-so-conveniently-abandoned cell phone was the Lat/Long numbers he memorized when Fayed read them off over the phone. The phone magically converted them to an address. Cool!
Not sure how hung up I'd get trying to draw parallels between specific characters and real life folks. It's a separate reality, after all. :-)
"...itâ€™s a surprise that we havenâ€™t been hit big by them yet."Comment Posted By goy On 15.01.2007 @ 14:21
One plausible explanation is that the islamists, with the expert help of their Fifth Column patsies in the exempt media, have learned how to very deftly manipulate public opinion in the U.S. (witness the midterm election results). They have discovered that - unlike Europeans - when you attack Americans directly, they fight back. In some cases mercilessly. I don't expect much direct confrontation until their backs are right up against the wall.
I don't know... while at the moment this scenario provides great entertainment value as a happy daydream, it may actually come in handy as a general where-are-they-now reference in November.Comment Posted By goy On 9.08.2006 @ 10:21
Bolton's a shrewd fellow and if anyone's got the U.N.'s number it's he. What little I saw of him discussing this today indicated this was the beginning of a long process. Just long enough, hopefully, to allow Israel to cut off Hisbollocks, fumigate Lebanon, and allow eyes to turn BACK to Iran (where they were before the shooting started, if I recall).Comment Posted By goy On 5.08.2006 @ 20:57
"Disagreeing with Bush about how to fight terrorism does not an unhinged progressive make."
Well, I suppose if this were the argument I was trying to put forth, you'd have a point. But I wasn't. And you don't. I'm all for a renewed balance in our government. In fact, I think it's absolutely essential, as you will no doubt see if you read anything I've written. But the current DNC "leadership", with its moles in the CIA, its endless political attacks on the President in a time of war, and its cadre of obedient lapdogs in the press do not offer any such a balance.
"Terrorists are a serious problem, but they do not pose an existential threat to us."
Really? Tell that to this guy:
He was a good friend of mine.
Oops! Sorry. You can't. He no longer *exists*.
You self-righteous philosophy geniuses with your delusions of unreal perfection just make me want to puke.Comment Posted By goy On 23.04.2006 @ 18:24
"...no sensible JD believes the SCOTUS would uphold the warrantless surveillance program."
Yet these "sensible" JDs feel no compunction about rendering an opinion despite the minor annoyance that the details of the individual cases in question are - *by definition* - not public knowledge. But then perhaps they've been leaked to *you*??
As for the WaPo story - what responsibility does the Admin have to confirm or deny details of a story that is clearly nothing more than a politically motivated attack? None. And McCain? Please. You're once again assuming facts not in evidence, and trying to use circumstance as a substitute. Bad form. And it blinds you to the obvious: these idiotic leaks are all about destroying confidence in our government and handing control back to the unhinged "progressives", nothing more.
It's going to take a while for new law to apply to the unprecedented nature of the threat we face. People like Bush and Gonzalez understand this. In some ways we're still blinded by past administrations' errors of treating international terrorism as a law enforcement problem. Those further blinded by their hatred of the President prefer to see him fail - preferably while trying to fight with one or both hands tied behind him. Maybe that includes you.
Let's assume for the moment that one of these two laws has actually been "broken". Would you demand Clinton's re-impeachment if his intelligence apparatus had actually been on the ball, and had managed to uncover and thwart the 9/11 attacks through the use of "rendition"? Would you demand Bush's impeachment if it turned out the nuclear destruction of downtown Manhattan was prevented by "warrantless" surveillance of some al Qaeda operative making cell phone calls outside the country? Or are there not *some* ends which justify *some* means? Because if there *aren't*, then you'll never defeat a creative and clever enemy as long as you're prevented from doing so by laws that don't cover the circumstances at hand. We elect people to deal with such circumstances. We *re*-elected George Bush after he demonstrated *how* he was going to deal with such circumstances - by drawing the line where it's appropriate, without flirting with abject totalitarianism.
Either way, the catching up of the law will no doubt be preceded by legal attacks from Bush's political enemies, who'll exploit a lack of applicable precedents in their pogrom against his administration and conservatives in general. It may actually take Bush down. If it does, that will be a great day for the left and for the islamist terrorists alike, as the former will have played *directly* to the only remaining strategy of the latter.Comment Posted By goy On 23.04.2006 @ 16:28
Pages (2) :  2