NUKE_CLEVELAND

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 28, 2005 -> 09:01 AM) I wonder if they knew they could be paid for shilling for the right if they would change? I wonder how much Rush, Hannity, Fox, and the rest of the GOP Media Network are getting paid? If Rush isn't, shouldn't he be pissed? No one is a bigger champion of GOP strategy than Rush. All those hundreds of thousands of dollars and he isn't getting any taste? LOL! Actually, Rush is well compensated for his efforts. However, all the sources you mentioned ( save for Fox News ) are COMMENTATORS, not newsmen. Commentators give their opinion of issues and that's it. Newsmen are supposed to be unbiased. There'a a huge difference.

QUOTE(winodj @ Jan 27, 2005 -> 07:16 PM) The Democratic Response: "The Stop Government Propaganda Act" http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/articl...t_id=1000778976 If that's the case then the NY Times, Washington Post and Boston Herald and LA Times would all have to close down. They have been shilling for the left for decades. This stuff works 2 ways.

QUOTE(winodj @ Jan 27, 2005 -> 03:28 PM) We also make injured soldiers receiving on campus treatment in military hospitals pay for their own food. They are given an allowance of about 215 dollars a week for this, officers about 30 or 40 less. The cost to a soldier to eat 3 a day at Walter Reed? About 400-450. I highly doubt the authenticity of that number. Military dining facility rates are pretty much uniform throughout the world. I think it's 1.60 for breakfast and 3.50 for lunch and dinner. Total cost per day..... 8.60 Month (assume 30 days )......258. Soldiers in that situation are paid like 260something a month to cover food costs. Yeah they are paying but they are also getting extra cash from the government to cover it. If they want to have something delivered though, that's on them.

I got a story for ya. This involved the brigade I was in which was the Engineer Brigade of the 3d ID. In June of 2003 we were set up at a base camp east of Fallujah. During that time our Brigade's HQ had a sattelite phone that anyone was allowed to use for nothing, except for the time spent in line. That lasted till the end of the month when the bill came........800 GRAND! I s*** you not. I never had to spend a dime on phone calls because there were literally boxes of phone cards that were sitting around mostly unused. Soldiers can call home for nothing in a variety of different ways. They can call back to their home base in the US or wherever through the Army's tactical network and have their call transferred to their home, as I said earlier there are stacks and stacks of phone cards donated by organizations like the USO and private groups. I don't think anyones bank is being broken calling home to check on wifey.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/27/train.derailment/index.html This asshole now faces 11 counts of murder and could get the death penalty. He couldn't die soon enough for me. This man, judging by his past record, has been a completely worthless s***bag his whole life and this is the icing on the cake.

Just another example of how f***ed up the judicial system is. I long for a day when justice will be served on all criminals equally regardless of race, ethnicity, national origin ...........or wallet size. Pathetic!

According to an area police official there are multiple counts of murder and attempted murder pending. Saw it on WGN news.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 26, 2005 -> 04:18 PM) If you are going to kill yourself, don't involve other people, do not make a mess. If you are the cutter/slasher type, do it in the bathtub. Gas, garage with the engine running and plenty of fuel (Some people underestimate how long it takes and do not start with a full gas tank). No swallowing a gun, it's always messy, ditto on jumping. An overdose would also work nicely. Park your car on train tracks so other people are also killed?? :fyou This guy needs to have his death wish granted. What a selfish, stupid asshole! Might I suggest feeding him through a wood chipper feet first?

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 26, 2005 -> 08:35 AM) I find the Pats a whole lot more likable for some reason. That's probably because they are unpretentious. Nothing I like more than a team that just shuts the heck up and wins games.

37% (Yankee)

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 25, 2005 -> 09:10 PM) They both get it. The kids of rich, powerful, celebrities, and the ilk are always tabloid and front page fodder. I hope the intent of the thread was just to embarrass the DEMs on the board, perhaps piss them off a bit and not to indict the entire Democratic Party and everyone who votes Democratic. Look at those kids! I'm voting Republican in the next election or my kids could wind up like that That's exactly what it is. I'm of the belief that Democrats are inherently good people, albeit misgiuded, who want the best for America.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jan 25, 2005 -> 02:11 PM) They can be charged all they want but there is still that little presumption of innocence until found guilty. Yeah, but you're plenty quick to bring the hammer down when some Republican gets accused of doing something like this. Give it a rest already.

BEARSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS Seventy-Two to tree lol

This one's for all the marbles. Pats by 7.

*bump*

*bump*

I heard over the news that NYC is expecting around 20 inches of snow this weekend. Ugh!

QUOTE(CrimsonWeltall @ Jan 22, 2005 -> 04:26 PM) I think I'm going to become a politician and propose a law called the Child Protection from Pornography Act. It will have 2 points. 1) People making child porn get life in prison. 2) People who have used the name NUKE_CLEVELAND on message boards will be executed. Anyone who does not support this legislation clearly is in favor of promoting child pornography. Real cute.

QUOTE(CrimsonWeltall @ Jan 22, 2005 -> 04:23 PM) lol, are you serious? The interview some anti-ACLU guy and he says HAW HAW HAW I BET THE ACLU WULD WANT THEM NOT SENTENCED AT ALL and you take that as a fact that teh ACLU defends child porn? Perhaps he should have gone farther and said "If the ACLU had had things its way, they would eat babies while they have sex on their Satanic altars", because this guy's opinion is clearly fact. The whole thing then On April 16, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down major portions of the Child Pornography Protection Act, which prohibited Internet porn hawkers from making "virtual" child pornography. The ACLU immediately declared victory, calling the decision a triumph for "free speech." One spokesman declared the Child Pornography Protection Act "punishes the expression of ideas." "I seriously doubt our Founding Fathers had child pornography in mind when they wrote the First Amendment," said Dr. D. James Kennedy, founder and president of the CENTER FOR RECLAIMING AMERICA. "Regardless of what the ACLU might think, child pornography—virtual or otherwise—is not speech. Child pornography is child pornography. "Granted, the ACLU has opposed laws against pornography for years." ACLU's Policy 4 states, "The ACLU opposes any restraint on the right to create, publish, or distribute materials to adults, or the right of adults to choose the materials they read or view on the basis of obscenity, pornography or indecency." When it comes to child pornography, the ACLU is opposed only if "such use is likely to cause: a) substantial physical harm; or B) substantial and continuing emotional or psychological harm." As author/professor F. LaGard Smith points out in ACLU: The Devil's Advocate, this wording creates a huge legal loophole. In 1991, Douglas Gates, of Glendale, Arizona, invited a ten-year-old girl to use the swimming pool located in his apartment complex. He invited her to get changed in his bedroom, where he secretly placed a video camera. Smith explains, "By the ACLU's policy there would have been no violation of the childrens' rights, because they were merely unsuspecting victims. Not raped, not physically harmed, not psychologically scarred for life." According to William Donohue, president of the Catholic League, the ACLU has called pornographic material featuring children "wholly protected by the First Amendment." Donohue has monitored the ACLU for years. He recalled an incident where an undercover policeman successfully solicited child pornography that featured children as young as five years old engaged in sexual activity. While the child porn hawkers were convicted, they received sentences of just two to seven years. Donohue makes clear, "If the ACLU had had things its way, they never would have been sentenced at all." So why does the ACLU take such an extremist stance on child pornography? Smith says it stems from their absolutist stance on free speech: "For the ACLU, the primary purpose of defending pornography, and especially kiddy porn, is to give all indecent free speech elbow-room. Thankfully, not many folks will demand the right to create, distribute, or possess kiddy porn. But by stretching the boundaries of free speech to accommodate the worst kind of expression imaginable, one can thereby assure that any indecency or obscenity short of that is likewise protectable."

This was cut from my first link in the GAME, SET MATCH POST Guess you're the one not reading are you? Donohue has monitored the ACLU for years. He recalled an incident where an undercover policeman successfully solicited child pornography that featured children as young as five years old engaged in sexual activity. While the child porn hawkers were convicted, they received sentences of just two to seven years. Donohue makes clear, "If the ACLU had had things its way, they never would have been sentenced at all." Read the damned article before you question its credibility and come up with smartass comments of your own.

More....... In this one they challenge a Child Porn law signed by Howard Dean of all people! http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/docu...ocumentID=13048 http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/29...3pdf/03-218.pdf http://www.azcentral.com/abgnews/articles/...internet17.html You're done.

I'm gonna pull a TEXSOX here. Forecast for Sierra Vista, Az http://www.weather.com/weather/local/USAZ0...rom=search_city Shorts and a TEE for me WOOT!

QUOTE(CrimsonWeltall @ Jan 22, 2005 -> 03:39 PM) Care to try again? Perhaps this time with a news site or at least a site with some credibility? Does it really matter where the info comes from if actual court cases are being talked about? I thought not. But here ya go any damn way http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?d...eyword=&teaser= http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/politics/7653525.htm http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0%2C1283%2C5383%2C00.html

QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Jan 22, 2005 -> 01:53 PM) People make a big deal out of nothing. At least he was at church. And I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing he's given some money to the church also. Dude, even I thought that was funny.

QUOTE(ChiSoxyGirl @ Jan 22, 2005 -> 10:07 AM) Kerry is a Mary-worshipping Catholic! Yes.......and?