It's the same sort of reasoning which says we should go after John Gotti, and let the man who killed at least 19 people walk scot-free for his testimony against Gotti, for a prosecution of one murder.

I remember listening to this from a few years ago. I don't know what surprised me more, her lackadaisical, giggling confession or the fact that she was stupid enough to think she could call a radio station, say it, and get away scot-free.

You can almost hear her heart falling to her feet when she realizes what she's done.

I guess that, as of this time, she still hasn't been charged:

http://www.techbanyan.com/740/megan-suzanne-vice-ahwatukee-sue/

fuckin a. i'm glad i'm only like 1/16th scot.

I dunno if it's that he's being down on the Scots, or using it as a way to get at the English, I think the latter

great scot. i'd know that brogue anywhere.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Doubt-101

Tags for this video have been changed from 'really, dig, this, tune, alternative, indie, music, final, straw' to 'really, dig, this, tune, alternative, indie, music, final, straw, scot ish' - edited by calvados

Scotch whiskey isn't bad, but I prefer Irish whiskey instead. It's always triple-distilled for extra smoothness, and it doesn't have that smoky taste that scotch has. Now some people really like a smoky taste in their whiskey, and that usually makes them scotch and/or bourbon drinkers. But I prefer the original whiskey flavor that came from the Emerald Isle.

The Scots are fond of saying that the Irish may have invented whiskey, but the Scots perfected it. No offense Scotland, but you are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG!

EDIT: But I know Scotch connoisseur Ron Burgundy would beg to differ. In fact he might fight me. That's no lie.

The SCOTS Rule!!!

thx

Switzerland got off scot freekin' free for WW2 if ya ask me.....guess those Jewish ghosts are taking their revenge via suicidal Swiss males nowadays.....Serves em the fuck right.
This guy sounds like a Michael Savage cross the pond.....

Wow. Where to begin?

Your comparison to a policeman shooting an unarmed suspect is flawed, because cocaine and other illegal narcotics happen to kill an enormous amount of people, directly and indirectly. More so, in fact, than armed fleeing criminals, by a significant factor.

This leads into your argument about shooting down a defenseless plane. No, they could NOT have followed them until it landed. By the time it landed, it would have been outside of their jurisdiction, meaning the criminals on the plane would have gotten away scot free. But hey, how could you know, you're just tossing out comments on the interbutts, nobody's actually going to call you on your incorrect assumptions of international interdiction procedures, right?

And as for "absolutely no threat"....see:
US Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Office of Applied Studies. Results from the 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: national findings. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2006.

Over 15,000 people will die this year in the United States alone from narcotics overdoses. Just because those people on the plane weren't putting a gun to Americans' heads and pulling the trigger doesn't mean they weren't contributing in a very real way to the deaths of thousands.

And don't tell me what I assume about people on that plane. Those people on the plane were very likely middle-level runners, with slightly-above average income for their country because, as you suggested, it was the best job they could get. That does not, however, mean that they could not have gotten other, lower-paying-but-non-criminal jobs, especially the pilot. That also does not mean that they did not have a very good idea of the effects their successful run would have on other faceless people. That also does not mean they did not have fair warning, or have full knowledge of the possible retribution for their actions. The terms of engagement have been well-declared, documented, and acknowledged for a long time. They knew what they were getting into when they agreed to run drugs for a cartel. Hell, they were warned repeatedly by the military jets, yet they chose to ignore those warnings and continue anyway. Or did you miss that?

As for your bit about Bush, way to make a baseless accusation - I guess anybody who disagrees with you has to be evil incarnate, just like Dubya? I was for Gore the first time around, and campaigned for Dean and later Kerry during the 2004s. So the hell with your throwaway lines, if you're so quick to judge that I'm the kind of person who votes for Bush, you're the kind of divisive, whiny airhead that lost us the elections.

In reply to your comment:
“

In reply to your comment:
“ Sl666's comment was just pure idiocy, and I'm not in the habit of suffering idiots.”

Thing is rembar, i think you are the idiot - sorry for the delayed reply,

I would prefer none of them had to die, but i cannot sanction actions to shoot down a defenceless plane.. they could have just followed it until it landed and arrested them? they were absoloutely no threat.

Would you say the same if a policeman shot someone who was running away from them? no weapon?

You assume that everyone on that plane was some evil Columbian drug lord, that probably isn't the case, it was probably flown and crewed by people that work for a drug lord because it was the best job they could get.

Defend my country, no worries, defend my family, no worries, shoot down a civilian plane? f**k no, thats an act of terrorism.

Its people like you that voted for bush.”

funnily enough the use ov 'ax' for ask goes all the way back to Old English:
[quote]the Old English verb áscian also appeared as acsian, and both forms continued into Middle English. The two forms co-existed and evolved separately in various regions of England, and later America. The variant ascian gives us the modern standard English ask, but the form "axe", probably derived from Old English acsian, appears in Chaucer: "I axe, why the fyfte man Was nought housband to the Samaritan?" (Wife of Bath's Prologue, 1386.) It was considered acceptable in literary English until about 1600 [13] and can still be found in some dialects of English including, of course, African American Vernacular English. It is, however, one of the most stigmatized features of AAVE, often commented on by teachers. It also persists in Ulster Scots as /aks/ and Jamaican English as /aːks/, from where it has entered the London dialect of British English as /ɑːks/.[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonological_history_of_English_consonant_clusters

not really a fan of connolly. but he did a great pissed-off-rationalizing-scot there

Interesting. Could someone familiar with American politics please put this into perspective? Drop in the ocean or anything more? I would absolutely love to see Blair and Bush up on war crime charges and faced with a real trial. If they get off scot free then fine, as long as it's a proper trial. As it is, these guys can do what they want and so can the people that follow them.

Shame about some of the points - soldiers shipping out on their kids' birthdays, fathers worrying about their sons being sent to Iraq, the Nazis. None of this is relevant - there's only 365 days you can ship out soldiers, if your son joins the armed forces, this is going to happen and the Nazis have nothing to do with it. Yes, these are all bad things but they've little to do with the legality of the war.

may I suggest change the description from "Scotch Castle" to Scot's Castle or Scottish Castle. Scotch is ONLY a drink.

"maintaining the strong federal subsidies"

The English always winge that Scotland is a huge drain on the welfare state. The Scots retort that for over thirty years the English economy has been supported by North Sea Oil which should belong to Scotland. Whatever side you take in this argument the fact is that an independent Scotland will have to introduce significant economic reforms if it is to flourish. A major part of this will be reducing the size of the welfare state and the culture of benefit dependency in certain areas of Scotland. Unfortunately there is a strong corrollation between benefit dependency and voting for Labour. The SNP will have a hard job convincing these voters that they may have to give up their benefits in the short term in order to ensure long term economic success. Any economic change will have major social and political repercussions - and Labour will exploit this while they are in opposition. The ironic thing is that the the same politicians who complain that Scotland is a drain on the welfare state will attempt to win votes and undermine the independence movement by promising to maintain benefits and subsidies.

Alex Salmond just said: "Scotland has changed for good and forever. There may be Labour governments and first ministers in decades still to come, but never again will the Labour Party think it has a divine right to government."