And just think, the good sheeple of West Virginia re-elected ' ol ' sheets Byrd so he can sleep for another 6 years !

Amazing !

Meet the would be ' King of the World '

The joke that keeps on giving !

Watch these idiots blow up a whale !

How many are actually paying attention to this?

There are African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Arab Americans, Native Americans, etc. and then there are just Americans, that would be ME!!

You pass me on the street and sneer in my direction.

You call me “White boy,” “Cracker,” “Honkey,” “Whitey,” “Caveman” and that’s OK.

But if I call you, Nigger, Kike, Towel head, Sand-nigger, camel Jockey, Beaner, Gook, or Chink, you call me a racist, why is that??

You say that whites commit a lot of violence against you, so why are the ghettos the most dangerous places to live?

You have the United Negro College Fund, you have Martin Luther King Day, you have Black History Month, you have Cesar Chavez Day, you have Yom Hashoah, you have Ma’uled Al-Nabi, you have the NAACP and you have BET.

If we had WET (White Entertainment Television) we’d be called racists, if we had a White Pride Day you would call us racists, if we had White History Month, we’d be called racists, if we had any organization for only whites to “advance” their lives, we’d be called racists.

You have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, a Black Chamber of Commerce, and then we just have the plain Chamber of Commerce.

If we had a college fund that only gave white students scholarships, you know we’d be called racists.

There are over 60 openly proclaimed Black Colleges in the US, yet if there were any “White colleges”, they would be labeled as racist colleges.

In the Million Man March, you believed that you were marching for your race and rights, if we marched for our race and rights, you would call us racists, or worse.

You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and orange, and you’re not afraid to announce it, but when we announce our white pride, you call us racists.

You rob us, carjack us, and shoot at us, but when a white police officer shoots a black gang member or beats up a black drug-dealer running from the law and posing a threat to society, you call him a racist.

I am proud of MY race, just as you are of yours, but you call me a racist.

Why is it that only whites can be racists?

Do you suppose hypocrisy could have ANYTHING to do with it??

I think that about says it all, Thanks Texas Fred

The soldier stood and faced God, Which must always come to pass. He hoped his shoes were shining, Just as brightly as his brass.

“Step forward now, you soldier, How shall I deal with you? Have you always turned the other cheek? To My Church have you been true?”

The Soldier squared his shoulders and said, “No, Lord, I guess I ain’t. Because those of us who carry guns, Can’t always be a saint.

I’ve had to work most Sundays, And at times my talk was tough. And sometimes I’ve been violent, Because the world is awfully rough.

But I never took a penny, That wasn’t mine to keep…. Though I worked a lot of overtime, When the bills got just too steep. And I never passed a cry for help, Though at times I shook with fear. And sometimes, God, Forgive me, I’ve wept unmanly tears.

I know I don’t deserve a place, Among the people here. They never wanted me around, Except to calm their fears.

If you’ve a place for me here Lord, It needn’t be so grand.

I never expected or had too much, But if you don’t, I’ll understand.”

There was a silence all around the throne, Where the saints had often trod. As the soldier waited quietly, For the judgement of his God.

“Step forward now, you soldier, You’ve borne your burdens well. Walk peacefully on Heaven’s streets: You’ve done your time in Hell.”

Author Unknown

Part 2

Part 3

You are mighty !

I'm sorry, did the
New York Times just put on the front page that IRAQ HAD A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM AND WAS PLOTTING TO BUILD AN ATOMIC BOMB?
What? Wait a minute. The entire mantra of the war critics has been "no WMDs, no WMDs, no threat, no threat", for the past three years solid. Now we're being told that the Bush administration erred by making public information that could help any nation build an atomic bomb.
Let's go back and clarify: IRAQ HAD NUCLEAR WEAPONS PLANS SO ADVANCED AND DETAILED THAT ANY COUNTRY COULD HAVE USED THEM.
I think the Times editors are counting on this being spun as a "Boy, did Bush screw up" meme; the problem is, to do it, they have to knock down the "there was no threat in Iraq" meme, once and for all. Because obviously, Saddam could have sold this information to anybody, any other state, or any well-funded terrorist group that had publicly pledged to kill millions of Americans and had expressed interest in nuclear arms. You know, like, oh... al-Qaeda.
The New York Times just tore the heart out of the antiwar argument, and they are apparently completely oblivous to it.
The antiwar crowd is going to have to argue that the information somehow wasn't dangerous in the hands of Saddam Hussein, but was dangerous posted on the Internet. It doesn't work. It can't be both no threat to America and yet also somehow a threat to America once it's in the hands of Iran. Game, set, and match.
Having now read it, I can see that every stop has been pulled out to ensure that a reader will believe that posting these documents was a strategic blunder of the first order.
But the story retains its own inherent contradiction: The information in these documents is so dangerous, that every step must be taken to ensure it doesn't end up in the wrong hands... except for topping the regime that actually has the documents.
(By the way, is it just me, or is the article entirely devoid of any indication that Iran actually accessed the documents? This threat that, "You idiot! Iran could access all the documents!" is entirely speculative. If the government servers hosting the web site have signs that Iranian web browsers accessed those pages, it's a different story; my guess is somebody already knows the answer to that question.)
I'm still kinda blown away by this paragraph:
Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990’s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.
Is this sentence referring to 1990, before the Persian Gulf War? Or 2002, months before the invasion of Iraq? Because "Iraq is a year away from building a nuclear bomb" was supposed to be a myth, a lie that Bush used to trick us into war.
And yet here is the New York Times, saying that Iraq had a "how to manual" on how to build a nuclear bomb, and could have had a nuke in a year.
In other news, it's good to see that the New York Times is firmly against publicizing sensitive and classified information. Unless, of course, they're the ones doing it.
ONE LAST THOUGHT: So Iraq had all the know-how, all the plans, all the designs, "charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building." Unless they were keeping these documents around as future material for paper airplanes, all this stuff constituted a plan of action for some point in the future; but to complete creating these weapons, they would have needed stuff. I don't know an exact list of what they would have needed, but articles like this one give a good idea. Sounds like you need a firing mechanism (the right kind of firearm would suffice), some fairly common industrial equipment like a lathe, material for the bomb casing, some fairly common conventional explosives, all of which would have been easy to get in Iraq. Oh, and, of course, the nuclear material itself.
They would have needed something like... um... you know... what's that stuff called? Oh, that's right.
Yellowcake.
But we know Iraq would never make an effort to get yellowcake. Joe Wilson had tea with officials in Niger who said so.

Oh by the way, we found 1.66 metric tons of yellowcake after the invasion!

You figure it out!

Source: National Review