OK, me bad, should have written jug's meaning at eachother's throat.

jug·u·lar Pronunciation (jgy-lr)
adj.
Of, relating to, or located in the region of the neck or throat.
n.
1. A jugular vein.
2. The most vital part: a strategic attack aimed at the enemy's jugular.
[Late Latin iugulris (vna), jugular (vein), from Latin iugulum, collarbone, diminutive of iugum, yoke; see yeug- in Indo-European roots.]

You do love splitting hairs, don't you ;)

If your first link didn't lead me to that lovely message " Access Hollywood has moved spaces online, and has relaunched with even more original up-to-the-minute entertainment news.

The link that you're looking at has changed. You will be redirected to the homepage in 10 seconds, or you can click here" maybe i'd consider to take you seriously :kiss:

IT WAS A NATIONALLY REPORTED STORY YOU IDIOT.

So the accesshollywood link stopped working after they moved articles, THE STORY WAS REPORTED EVERYWHERE.

My god, I didn't think it possible for someone to be such a dim bulb.

OMG, I was sure you couldn't reply without using fowl words, yet again :fru:

Nice try attempting to deflect attention away from your obvious stupidity.

Only being your reflexion :ghug:


wwwwwweeeeeeee, you really made my night, was bored as hell. Actually, you took me down old napster memory lane.

>>>>>>>>>>>>:)<<<<<<<<<<<<


Thank you very much for the flashback!

Please report that to your blog as being under a vicious lib attack :2tu:

It was fun proving that simple things like reading words or watching the news is too much for you. Go back to the kiddie pool.

:fru: >>>>>>>>>>>> :) <<<<<<<<<<<< :fru:

From the railroad-to-topic department
 

from deep down in the battle-of ego's-thread
here at Napsterites Political Asylum
it's TIME to play:

THREAT or BLUFF !!

with your host:

SCOTT MCCLELLAN !!



News Analysis: Iran and the U.S. in a new cold war- by evil NYT reporters
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/...b.0430iran.php

A threat is a threat, even when it's a bluff. The question is moot. However those are good links, multi, very informative.

So what kind of confrontation is really taking place? Is it a war of egos as Repo says, is it a cold war as David E. Sanger and Elaine Sciolino say, is it going to be a conventional or nuclear war as Seymour Hersh suggests, or will international diplomacy work? It's hard to tell based on the war of the trolls taking place in this thread. I mean, there's better things to split hairs over than which newspaper has a better Persian to English dictionary.

Fun how troll seems to be an all emcompassing word around here. You can't voice your opinion without being labeled one.

It's just another excuse to whine.


Like name calling.


People too dumb to keep up their side of an argument just turn to whining about things like that.


ex:

I'd like to point out that I've read intelligent opinions from every participant here, including yourself and albed. I just wish there were more intelligent opinions to read. You don't troll all the time, but what are you trying to prove when you do troll the other memebers? If your personal opinions of them are so low then why do you even engage them in conversation?

Trolling isn't much of a spectator sport, it's boring. People who lurk the Political Assylum never speak up because it's not safe to have an opinion here. It is because of ad hominem attacks that your beloved Politics forum lacks participants, and in turn this forum no longer hosts spirited yet heated debates. I risk being called a whiner for writing this, but these are your own complaints I'm quoting.

Ironic maybe but you exemplified what you said by saying what you said.

Now neither of us are saying anything worthwhile.

once you properly define the issue with Iran, it's not hard to predict where it goes from here. the issue, as far as the administration is concerned, is regime change - once again, wmd's are the excuse and once again, the administration telegraphs it's intentions by refusing direct talks. unfortunately, as with Iraq, our reach once again exceeds our grasp.

Regime change in Iraq has been official US policy since before Bush, and we're not negotiating with Iran directly because the EU, Russia and China would be more immediately affected by a nuclear Iran than the US. Plus, we don't negotiate with terrorists.

the desire for regime change is not a legal reason to go to war - period. and we're not negotiating with Iran because the administration has no desire to achieve a diplomatic solution. EU, Russia, and China are not threatening Iran militarily - we are.

Haven't you liberal lawyer wannabees given up on that "ILLEGAL WAR" squawk after the last Iraq war?



So what are the legal reasons to go to war knife and who applies that law and judges offenders?

Well... that's because you can't have a decent conversation with someone else that disagree with your political affiliation without you trashing em because you feel some different way. Really hard to have a decent political battle when one keeps insulting the opponent because they are not supporting your views ;) :kiss:

:fru: :fru:

The cure for that, sweettits, is to not present yourself as a total moron with little to no grasp on current geopolitical situations, or even current news stories.