Good news indeed.

But you can keep your Kim Richards.

Don't listen to her.

Less Kim Richards, more Stacey Nelkin.

If Bush wins, I don't care if you post nude pics of Madeline Albright.

Don't listen to them!

I'm totally into the Kim Richards thing - can we see her even if we lose?

"If Bush wins, I don't care if you post nude pics of Madeline Albright"

Yikes!! Thats the thought picture I wanted to carry around for the rest of the day...not!

Lets make something clear. There are no nude photos. I have become addicted to The Horserace Blog. Great analysis. He has talked me off the ledge a few times (by his posts) regarding this election.

Kim, it's not too late.

If that's really you, then thanks for stopping by. But the fact that you might actually be attractive, successful in Hollywood AND a Bush supporter leaves me skeptical. If true, what a fitting icon for Ace's election watch!

Why haven't either of these bastards (Bush or Kerry) said what they are going to do about the Cephalopod Invasion????

Help defend America and the world; order the Calamari!!!!!

Screw Albright.
Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham!

Paging doctor Zoidberg!

Um... that Slate link has Bush and Kerry both with 269, with Bush winning. How exactly does that work? Seriously, I don't get it.

If no candidates get a majority, the election would then go to the House. Each state gets 1 vote. Since Republicans control the most House delegations, he would most likely win that vote.

Oh, he being President Bush, if you didn't figure that out.

Slightly off-topic, full text of OBL's speech now out:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm

Some interesting things that didn't make the cut before. (that he says states that vote against Bush will not be attacked -is a likely lie, given "Jew York City" as Binnie put it earlier, and DC will vote Kerry - but that was put out today)

1. The centrality of Israel's actions, and the US backing of Zionism.
2. The image of Muslims as a crying infant armed only with it's voice against an approaching crocodile. It's voice is no protection, it's cries unheeded, only a weapon will ward off the crocodile.
3. His observation that the Mujahadeen won not because they defeated the Red Army, but because they helped bleed the Soviet Union into bankruptcy. He sees the conflict with the US as one where Al Qaeda doesn't seek killing so much as bleeding us as well into bankruptcy, and forcing us to retreat as the Russians had to. He notes Bush is unwittingly working with him on this and mentions the Bush deficits as signs that Al Qaeda is accomplishing it's goals, "it is over 1 trillion, thanks be to Allah!" And notes that this money was spent without rewarding anyone but the wealthy and private companies.

Now, like his pledge NOT to attack states that vote for Kerry, the rest of the stuff may be insincere, given his 1998 Fatwa - but the enemy is intelligent and articulate so people should seek to understand - not dismiss this guy as a "stupid evildoer who hates our freedom".

1. The centrality of Israel's actions, and the US backing of Zionism.

Israel was there first. It's theirs.

3. His observation that the Mujahadeen won not because they defeated the Red Army, but because they helped bleed the Soviet Union into bankruptcy. He sees the conflict with the US as one where Al Qaeda doesn't seek killing so much as bleeding us as well into bankruptcy, and forcing us to retreat as the Russians had to. He notes Bush is unwittingly working with him on this and mentions the Bush deficits as signs that Al Qaeda is accomplishing it's goals, "it is over 1 trillion, thanks be to Allah!" And notes that this money was spent without rewarding anyone but the wealthy and private companies.

No. Thanks be to the Socialists in Congress who daily violate the oath of office by voting for Constitutionally illegal social spending.

Now, like his pledge NOT to attack states that vote for Kerry, the rest of the stuff may be insincere, given his 1998 Fatwa - but the enemy is intelligent and articulate so people should seek to understand - not dismiss this guy as a "stupid evildoer who hates our freedom".

I have sought to understand him. And my search leads me to this conclusion: he IS evil and he DOES despise freedom.

We want Kim! Kim, your country needs you to be featured on the Ace of Spades in the morning.

Imagine what the prep-video for Osama looks like. I bet he spend more time on his beard than the Breck-Boy spends on his hair.
And if nobody makes a spoof like that, shame on them!

Yes, we must understand this piece of garbage who is responsible for the deaths of over 3000 Americans. He's really not such a bad guy; after all, he does hate those pesky Joooooooos.

Less Kim Richards, more Stacey Nelkin.

Oh my dear Lord, it's like me and you guys have some sort of scary Vulcan mind meld.

Stacey Nelkin is awesome. Loved her in Halloween III: Season of the Witch.

Not that there's any point, but just for shits and giggles, what's your take on Lisa Eilbacher?

"KimR,"

Now stop that. I have one rule, and that's no dudes posting as chicks I dig.

I'll stick up for Cedarford because I think his point about the guy being intelligent and articulate is misunderstood.

OBL is an individual who ought to be put to a slow, painful, and humiliating death, granted. He is a smart guy, a college educated architect or engineer or something. Doesn't mean that he isn't a bipedal cockroach, just that he shouldn't be underestimated or dismissed. While we are committed to his destruction we should listen to OBL so that his aims are understood. Not because we are going to accommodate the bastard, but because it gives us some idea of his current situation and strategy, so we know where to turn the screws to hurt him the most.

Remember the scene from "Patton", where George C. Scott shouts out, "Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I read your book!"? It is something like that.

Good news: Fox news just reported that The Ohio ruling banning pole observers has just been overturned.

Smack writes, not evidently reading the OBL transcript: Israel was there first. It's theirs.

1. So none of the other 24 civilizations that once lived there counts?

2. The Canaanites were there before the Hebrew tribe. Since they are "firster", doesn't it belong to them? That is what the Germans thought in WWI and WWII - the Ostlands of Poland and much of Russia were "ancient, sacred Duesche Volk homelands" they had a right to militarily reclaim.
Any problem with that?

3. If you think that even after 2,000 years of being chucked off a chunk of land by military action, past ownership entitles a people to come back and reclaim it - then how do you feel about English loyalists descendent's moral claim to much of the East Coast and the prospects of you voluntarily relinquishing your land and homes? Surely your claim is inferior, with only 230 years gone by - to the 100 generations the people of Palestine that had their own homes and land, before the European-raised Zionists took it...

So none of the other 24 civilizations that once lived there counts?

Nope. Check out this guy. Rumor has it he's pretty important or something.

Seriously, Cedarford, does that "Zionist" drum you like to beat work anywhere? I go into a mental flatline when I hear that word and tend to disregard the messenger entirely. Just some advice.

I'm with Elric. Zionist is such a corrupted word, I just mentally say "Yah, whatever" when I see it, then move on. It's a pity, cause you're really putting up a nice pretense of rationality otherwise, Cedarford old boy.

Cedarford,

Are you bin Laden's P.R. person? Come on, admit it. You really dig him don't you?

Smack:

Thanks for clearing up that whole Israel Matter! Should have thought of consulting the Bible myself. Doh! Your example sent me back to check out some other matters that have been troubling me, although I'm sorry to say - I've still got some questions. You seem to be pretty confident in your relationship with the Lord. Maybe you could provide some counsel:

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? (I'm pretty sure she's a virgin).

3. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? 

4. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?  How can I help you here?

5. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Aren't there 'degrees' of abomination? 

6. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here? 

7. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die? 

8. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? 

9. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) 

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.  It must be really great to be on such close terms with God and his son.

You seem to be pretty confident in your relationship with the Lord.

Nope, just providing our misguided anti-Semitic friend Cedarford with the evidence.

But, But, But... what about my questions, Smack? Cmon, give it up, homeboy.

Tell you what. If you rewrite your questions in a clear manner without all the sarcasm and smarmy attitude, I'll answer every one of them tonight.

The problem with people who quote Bible lines like pulling rabbits out their pockets, is that they never seem to get to the actual point and start abusing people. Anti-Semitic? Watch your mouth, pal.

Watch your mouth, pal.

Why? Is it going to perform circus tricks?

Evidently Smack believes that "The Good Book" "thump, thump!" gives the Holy Land to just one of the many peoples in the region present-day or historically, and anyone that disagrees with him is a "Anti-Semite!!!".

As Batman pointed out, though is went right over Smack's head, literal interpretation is fraught with peril. And Smack, if you believe that only Jews have a right to the Holy Land - doesn't that make you a self-loathing Christian?

Elric & Mr. Bowen -

You have been habituated by the media to think that Zionism "is a bad word". In fact, Zionism is a political movement that states Jews have a right to redeem most of the Levant as their own. Most Jews are not Zionists. If you think that Israel should stop its brutal program of colonizing the West Bank, seizing it's water resources, and end talk of "Transfer" - the Zionist plan to ethnically cleanse all Palestinians - then you are "anti-Zionist" - though you may not like the word.

And it is in America's vital interest to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the security of it's 280 million citizens, not to serve the 500,000 Israeli Colonists on the West Bank or succor Smack's literal readings of Biblical prophecies, instead.

Alex -

thanks for getting to the point. The imperative is to study and know the enemy - particularly one as dangerous and popular internatioinally as Osama bin Laden.

Like you, I want his movement dead, and him deader.

You don't get there by being a close-minded version of a Christian Talibani, like our friend "Smack". (All you need to know is the Bible/Qu'ran says it's so!) You need to know the enemies & our own - strengths and weaknesses.

Binnie listed a few - that he has a strategy not of killing so much as economically bleeding the USA and sapping it's morale, as he and the Mujaheed did with the Soviets. (I spent a few million, and cost the USA over a trillion!) That our tilt towards Israel can be used to isolate the US. That Al Qaeda can also use divide and conquer tactics. That another liability is the corruption the US countenences in ME rulers and it's own political system.

He acknowledges our power, ability to reach anywhere. He fears us showing that Western-style freedom is a viable alternative to a 7th Century Caliphate - one reason why he bemnoans the Afghan elections.

Oh, I know the meaning of Zionism quite well. But I also well understood your context of it when you said it and you reaffirmed it with...

Israel should stop its brutal program of colonizing the West Bank, seizing it's water resources, and end talk of "Transfer" - the Zionist plan to ethnically cleanse all Palestinians

And in other news, Ariel Sharon just recently had his plan to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza accepted by those "Zionists".

Cedarford, I'm not sure if it's an anti-Jew thing or an anti-strong democracy defending itself thing. Hell, maybe it's a pro-make myself feel superior and mimic what my friends say thing. In any case, I still zone out with these kind of diatribes. I can't imagine anyone else going "Ooooh...when you say it that way, maybe the Israelis really do use the blood of the innocent in their Matza balls after all!"

Evidently Smack believes that "The Good Book" "thump, thump!"

I think this is supposed to be a joke or something but I don't get it.

As Batman pointed out, though is went right over Smack's head

Not really. I just refuse to answer people with a bad attitude.

literal interpretation is fraught with peril.

Like what? Tripping and breaking your neck?

And Smack, if you believe that only Jews have a right to the Holy Land - doesn't that make you a self-loathing Christian?

I'm not sure. What is a self-loathing Christian?

You don't get there by being a close-minded version of a Christian Talibani, like our friend "Smack". (All you need to know is the Bible/Qu'ran says it's so!)

No, just the Bible. Not the Quran.

Elric -

With Sharon now under 24/7 augmented security because of death threats from those "Zionists" - simply because he wanted to end 13,000 troops being committed to guard 7,000 Colonists against 1/2 a million Gazans in a land that was never part of ancient Israel.

It is an anti-Imperial, anti-colonial thing. Oh, and it's about making Israel comply with UN Resolutions even the US voted for, abiding by the Geneva Conventions, little quibbles about stealing land, killing kids....that sort of stuff. If you wish to frame all the anti-colonial movements Britain and Frace faced as simply "strong 19th and early 20th Century Democracies" defending themselves from the Wogs - then your position on Israel is more understandable. ONly Israel amongst nations managed to cow Americans for decades by implying any criticism of it's actions was "Bigotry". Like the race card, the "anti-Semite card" has been way overplayed.

It is sad that China is getting away with doing the same things in Tibet that the Zionists have done on the West Bank and gotten nailed on....but one evil Colonization effort escaping global condemnation does not mean that criticism of the other Colonization effort ought to cease on grounds of fair play.

And were the Germans on solid moral ground in WWI and WWII when they tried reclaiming and settling the ancient tribal homelands to the East - the Ostlands - that they were chucked out of 2,000 years ago?

Smack, Smack, Smaaaaaaack,

No attitude, bro - just trying to get some help from you. You seem really smart

I knew that response was coming :). I don't question that there aren't Zionists, in the strict sense of the word, still around and IIRC, Sharon himself gravitated towards that in his early days. That said, that he gets death threats from a few nuts is anecdotal at best.

By the way, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but there's a large segment of the Israeli population who hasn't agreed with all of Israel's policies and I think has a larger liberal segment, especially domestically, than we do.

"It is an anti-Imperial, anti-colonial thing."

I suspected as much and sometimes think the anti-Semite charge isn't really appropriate. It does make me curious what you feel about the United States on that realm. However, you conveniently ignore that Sharon's plan was voted on by a majority of the Israelis. Liqud voted no but they're very conservative.

They have a democracy. It works on occassion. Of course, if you don't like their democracy, you can always find a suicide belt and join the rest of the crazies.

You know, if it weren't for people like you, I might be a little more critical of some of Israel's past policies myself. As it is, with people who use rhetoric like you do against them, I always kneejerk into full defense of them. If the UN hates their guts, they must be doing something right.

No attitude, bro - just trying to get some help from you.

Then kindly rewrite your questions in a direct and clear manner and I'll answer them.

Smack, I think they are very direct and clear. If you don't want to answer them, so be it.

No, they're not. I will only waste my time answering if you show a willingness to spend a little time putting them into this format:

What does passage x mean?

Otherwise, you demonstrate lack of desire for serious debate. You know, all that "No attitude" stuff. Not to mention all the "just trying to get some help" stuff. Personally, I don't think you will. But I hope you do because I think you'll be shocked and dismayed at the answers.

I'm waiting.

Come on, Batman. Show me how serious you are about those questions by de-smarmifying them. Still waiting...