Davidgetting settled pretty well. i get dsl on monday, and should be just about back to normal. it’s been almost 2 months of being transient. it’s nice to sleep in my own bed, in my own house.
i have some nice posts started but can’t really blog while at work. i can do little things like this on lunch, but nothing worthwhile.
household goods last wednesday, phone yesterday, fridge/washer/dryer tomorrow, dsl monday, satelite next saturday.
it’s all coming together.
i didn’t know if bush or kerry had won til late wednesday.
mac daddy bush sent that two faced liberal yankee squeeling back to his mansion with his goat.
4 more years of sanity!
jeb in ’08!
Jeb said he wasn’t planning on following his bro and pa. Cheney is gonna bail halfway into this term, so whoever gets the nod for VP then will presumably be the frontrunner in ’08. Some say Condi or Guiliani. I wonder if the Dems will ever dare run another Yankee for prez…
ummm, a rational posting without rancor from f-in? did the world end and no one tell me?
So why say you that Cheney bails? Last time we swapped Veeps in the midst of a term was under Nixon. Besides, Cheney got W that crucial Wyoming vote!
It was just a rumor or theory about the Dick that I heard, but it makes a lot of sense to me. I should have made that clear. He’s not gonna be running for Prez because of his health, right? Who doesn’t expect him to drop dead within 8 years? So why not give somebody else the boost that a Vice-Prez usually would have?
Asscroft’s probably gonna quit, as well as Tom Ridge, Tommy Thompson, Powell, Mineta. Somebody PLEASE kick Rumsfeld’s stinky old ass out the door!
Wow, I was reading this post thinking it was about moving into a house….
Hmm…
Mlah, congrats on the house…glad to know you’re getting all setup and getting comfy. 🙂
Enjoy.
Don’t get too comfortable! You have to come back up here for my birthday in about two weeks!
mlah, I’ve been in my current house for 4 years and still don’t feel totally settled in. There is always something that needs work.
You forgot to mention that in addition to 4 more years of sanity, we are going to have 4 more years of tax cuts and dead terroists.
Sounds like a win/win to me.
Dude, we want more pics of the crib.
Oh, and more pics of hot chicks. Those rock!
Congrats on the house. Welcome to not having a life on weekends!
RojoXia, I think we’ve run out of room for more tax cuts. The REAL conservatives in Congress aren’t gonna let us go into even deeper debt.
Here, here!! More pictures. Make me more envious.
F-in, there are no REAL conserves in DC. Both parties like to spend. By cutting taxes further, the government may have to make real decisions about spending. There are places to cut: agriculture subsidies, arts funding, education, welfare, international aid, means-tested social security, etc…
In reality, there should be no funding for programs that are not identified in the Constitution. That is REAL conservatism.
that sounds aweome! if it’s not explicitly defined in the constitution, it should not be funded by the fed govt.
uh… that’s the platform of the Constitutional party… and I met their candidate. He’s crazy. Don’t go for that whole “only what’s in the Constitution” thing. It’s not as great as it sounds, trust me.
Hey!
Still waiting to hear from you?
So, I thought I’d peak into your life online..
i just got my dsl set up. spam email is about to launch from casa mlah
First off, I agree with F-in’s assessment that Cheney won’t stand for president in 2008 (despite his being key to that crucial Wyoming vote). I don’t know about the quitting mid term bit, though. Might not be a big a boost to the Republican candidate of 2008, since not many Veeps have gone on to be President in their own right in the past 50 years (Nixon took two elections to get there; Ford — who had been appointed Veep — got there without an election; Bush the Elder did it, but he was the exception).
F-in, you also pointed to a Lancet study indicating 100k war dead in Iraq. The study was statistically flawed. (remember those pesky statistics?) Fewer than 1,000 Iraqi families who have suffered war dead were asked to provide the numbers of dead they know about. No documentation needed. The statistical extrapolation of those not-so-reliable data indicated a spread of from 8,000 to 196,000 civilian casualties. The principle author of the Lancet “study” — who by the way, along with the Lancet’s editor are staunchly and publically against the war, and who both crowed that this story would fuel their anti-war cause — simply decided to “split the difference” and choose the 100k number.
Gotta run, baby needs some daddy attention.
what? f-in cheney’s stats are debunked?
no! say it isn’t so!
About the spread– they said that the further away from 100k (from 8k to 196k), the less likely. It wasn’t a matter of “spliting the difference”. That Economist link– hello, those Socialists at the Economist?!– said that the sampling method was valid and common. Read it again, dickwad.
First, collateral damage is horrid. Civilian deaths are what the civilized nations try to avoid when they find themselves at war. The terrorists and Ba’athists, however, wrap themselves up in the civilian populace, in an effort to force the collateral death toll higher. Poor civilians — having the terrorists force themselves into their midst.
Second, most rational people — even people with an anti-war agenda — call the civilian death toll at under 16k. Hello, even Osama bin Laden only claimed 15k deaths! Only stupid, arrogant liberals in the mold of Mikey Moore hold to those hyperinflated figures.
Just watch, next time Osama speaks on the death toll, he will adopt the Lancet’s 100k figures. Anything to make his cause look just and vilify the US…..and Gus is a willing accomplice. Sad git.
“Second, most rational people — even people with an anti-war agenda — call the civilian death toll at under 16k.”
Exactly to whom are you referring, especially on the anti-war side? I know http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ has a much different methodology, namely using only reports from the Western press, which can’t be worth much since reporters got landlocked in the Green Zone.
I don’t necessarily “hold” to the 100k figure either, to tell you the truth. But I do admit it as a distinct possibility. Y’all can say whatever you like about the study, but The Lancet is still an extremely respected, peer-reviewed medical journal, fully cognizant of the importance of the scientific method, so until better studies come along, I’ll stick with it.