kapkomet

That was one of the best plays that will never hit a stat sheet (the poke check on the breakaway by Leggie for Nashville). What a pretty play by Duncan Keith.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jan 13, 2008 -> 09:30 PM) I actually love Philly fans, but I might be the only one outside of Philly who does. I just love Philadelphia, from the Liberty Bell to the ECW Arena to all the crazy people in between. But hey, some good ribbing. I don't have any big problems with Colt fans. But I don't care for that coach, QB, team stadium owner history OR their advocates in the media and my Friend Circle telling me that they're going to go into NE and beat the Patriots in the playoffs. I was tired of Manning's forehead on my television commercials. I didn't like seeing Colts fans boo a 14 YO girl but I don't blame all Colts fans for that at all. Truthfully, I'm breathing a little easier now that Indy's out, because they are dangerous but without Freeney I didn't think they'd beat NE, especially at Foxboro. NE was and is better, and better coached. But of course anything can happen. I'm happy to know that the Patriots will be facing San Diego, if only because I love watching the Chargers lose unless it's against Indianapolis. Are you kidding me? Tony Dungy is one of the most classy individuals ANYWHERE, let alone just in football. But I'm sure Billy Belichick is god reincarnated.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Jan 13, 2008 -> 07:20 PM) Iraq could have worked out btw, but it was done on the cheap... which led to four years plus of mess. Now that I totally agree with.

QUOTE(Brian @ Jan 13, 2008 -> 06:57 PM) Tony Romo's weekend getaway to Cabo San Lucas with Jessica Simpson continues to produce far more headlines and talk-show conversation than it deserves. In Dallas, they're referring to Simpson as "Yoko Romo." It probably needs to be noted that several other people made the trip besides Romo and Simpson, including Cowboys tight end Jason Witten. "Part of the reason I got away was just because I don't feel sometimes that I get to be on my own when I'm in certain places," the Cowboys quarterback told reporters this week. "It was nice to go there and just rent a house and just sit around and watch football over the weekend and not have to worry about answering the phone or worry about tickets, or radio shows or TV things, and just the normal, everyday things. I think I needed it and I think some of our guys needed it. I think it will hopefully help us prepare for this week." -- Philadelphia Daily News I'm in Dallas and it was the lead or near the lead story on almost every local news cast here all week. And it's completely stupid.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Jan 13, 2008 -> 03:50 PM) Here's the problem, we aren't interested in "any" democracy. We're interested in democracy that stands with us. We are more interested in tryrants who align with us (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan) then we are in democratically elected governments (Palestine). And by including Iraq in a broad brush with the rest of the extremist muslim world, you kinda point out how bad of a choice that Iraq really was for the bulkhead of a new revolution. For all its annoyances, Iraq was relatively secular, and not at all an issue when it came to transglobal terror. The truth is, if we really wanted this neocon revolution, the place to have started it would have been Iran. I think IROI support within its own nation is fairly shallow and could have resulted in a lot better outcome. It also would have been strategically better by continuing to isolate Iraq, create a physical connection to Afghanistan. However, it would have been harder to make happen... so not really an option. QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 13, 2008 -> 04:58 PM) I don't say this often, but ... I agree with you. And so do I, largely. But I think the overlying factor of making the decision was that they needed an anchorhead faster rather then later. In my mind, I would trade 3-5 years and be taking care of Iran right now, which would have most likely made Iraq fall in line anyway. The reason it didn't happen is because we already knew the corruption that was happening with Iraq and the UN and they wanted the slice of the pie that the European Union was getting. No, it wasn't directly about oil, but indirectly, it was to cut off the Europeans from the illegal funnels and get our interests back in there. I don't agree with it, but I think that was why the choice for Iraq, and so quickly. The other reality is war is good for the economy, and we all know there was a shallow recession in 2001. I think they wanted to push more money through the economy as well. Now what do they do now that everything's drying up? That's even scarier, IMO.

QUOTE(knightni @ Jan 12, 2008 -> 09:42 PM) Bartolo Colon. That fat bastard. But at least Colon had(s) talent. Navarro was fat and talentless and a prick to top it off.

QUOTE(Carlo Paz @ Jan 12, 2008 -> 09:33 PM) Jaime Navarro....anyone else is a distant second. ^^^. What an ass.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 11, 2008 -> 07:17 PM) You may have noted I said "right or wrong, that was their motivation", because I think some good arguments could be made in favor of what they did. But overall, I think the negatives far outweigh the positives. I don't think its entirely out of line to suggest something like it - in fact I think its much more reasonable than th B.S. we were fed. Its just not good enough, in my opinion, to justify the war. Part of the reason is that "they" is key in identification. None of the "they" involved in 9/11 have any connection to Iraq. Furthermore, Iraq was no real threat to us or the rest of the West. So think about what was done. Let's assume we accept, as a nation, that we need to try to do this sort of neo-revolution in the Middle East as a method of protecting ourselves and our interests. And let's further assume it might actually, partially, work. Those are HUGE assumptions I don't necessarily agree with, but let's go with them for now. Even if that is all acceptable... how can you justify, morally, destroying a country and ending tens of thousands of innocent lives in Iraq to achieve it? These are not terrorists (those are killed too of course, but I could care less), I am talking about the tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens who've died. Not only did they have nothing to do with 9/11, they were all-in-all innocent of anything against US interests at all. Can you say that killing 50,000 of them (and spending a trillion dollars, and losing thousands of US soldiers) is justified because of September 11th? I cannot. Can you justify the American Revolution? The Civil War? WWII? They were all about certain idealogical factors as well. Good conversation. I wish I had a bit more time!

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 11, 2008 -> 06:34 PM) And one other thing. Saddam was not the reason for the war - never was. He was an excuse, as were WMD and a myriad of other reasons given when WMD showed to be false. The Iraq war was an attempt at a neo-con revolution in the Middle East. They saw the ongoing clash with Islamic Fundamentalists, and decided the best approach to wipiing them out was to set up an anchorhead in the region. This base of operations could be used, not just militarily, but even more so politically, to spread democracy and capitalism, leading to an eventual demise of extremism by way of immersion into an American political schema. Right or wrong, that was clearly their motivation. And Iraq was the perfect target - oil, educated population, bordering many of the key countries in the region, sea port access, lots of open space if needed, a weakened leader (because the UN sanctions and no-fly zones were WORKING), a military in tatters, and some nearby countries willing to help. WMD, Saddam's dicatorship, AQ linkage... those were simply marketing efforts. Ok, now here is where I make a weird turn. You're exactly right with this post. And tell me something, why is this so wrong? They come over here, they kill 3,000 of our people on our own soil, and now everyone wants to just shrug it off and say, no big deal, we should have left them alone. I struggle with this because I understand the need to let people live their own lives without forcing our way of life on people. I get that. But I also see the need to unlock the seed of "democracy", even if we don't like the outcome, as long as it gives ordinary people a chance to succeed where they may not have before. I also realize that we need to root out the extremeism, yet, no one wants to do the dirty work necessary to do that. It's really a catch-22 in my mind.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 11, 2008 -> 06:22 PM) OK now hold on a second here. I personally believe that you can get rid of the income tax, and reduce the IRS down to a small fraction its size, and still have a "fair" tax for all income brackets. I like to think I also have a conscience. You're not rich, are you?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 11, 2008 -> 02:59 PM) Well, I see what you are saying - but with that same logic, NO ONE KNEW whether or not Saddam had WMD for absolute certainty. What I did know, and what I thought was quite clear, was.... 1. The war was never, ever really about WMD 2. The evidence of WMD was incredibly weak 3. The UN effort was not very good, but was also not given any sort of chance to adjust 4. The excuse they most primarly relied on for WMD and the war was the combination of two "inside" sources who practically screamed "you cannot trust me" Basically, the case for the war looked to me to be paper-thin and not even in the ballpark of enough to go to war. ETA: Its up to you if that means I "KNEW", or "THOUGHT". On this point, bulls***. They had 12 years to "adjust", but they were too busy getting money from the oil for food deal.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 11, 2008 -> 04:52 PM) Because it benefits the people with a lot of money. And the people with a lot of money are the ones with the biggest voices in this country. I got news for you. Most rich people understand that this is a bad idea.

This should be Tex's all time favorite thread.

QUOTE(BureauEmployee171 @ Jan 10, 2008 -> 09:19 PM) Or you could simply vote for Ron Paul and not have ANY federal income taxes whatsoever, along with getting rid of the run-away inflation that is brought on by the federal government - which is a 'hidden' tax in its own. Plus, gasoline would cost substantially less as there would be no federal taxes on it...but, I suppose have a balanced budget is just crazy. The really weird thing - no taxes, and a balanced budget are VERY easy to achieve & Ron Paul is the only guy who actually WANTS that done. You are offically crazy when it comes to political issues. I love your baseball knowledge, but not your political ones. Let's just get rid of 100% of our government altogether. Even Ron Paul isn't THAT stupid. I'll leave it at that.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 10, 2008 -> 08:21 PM) You shouldn't. If we are indeed being talking into a recession, the LAST thing you want right now is a balanced budget. The spending cuts or tax increases to make it happen will turn a garden variety recession into a full blow depression. I mean over the longer term, not the short term.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 10, 2008 -> 08:06 PM) We've had this thread before and SS convinced me a long time ago how bad an idea it is. The system we have, although with plenty of built in and bolted on problems, is about as good as it gets. I'd like to see some serious balanced budget proposals, but I know that will never happen. I agree.

It would probably be a disaster. Any regressive tax is not what we need to be doing.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 10, 2008 -> 04:42 PM) Seriously. I have some major problems with things going on and people in the system, but, the position that everything is awful in here sometimes rivals the negativity in PHT. Seriously, what has anyone done in the office of president since Reagan that makes that much of a POSITIVE difference? It's (our government) a cesspool of s***.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 10, 2008 -> 04:11 PM) Maybe it's because I don't trust any of the bastards that have a chance to win, but I think the field is for s***. Over fertilized, to put it another way. Both parties. Yeppers. What are these assholes really going to do for our country? I don't want the f***ing rhetoric anymore. What are they going to do? And none of them can DO anything.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jan 10, 2008 -> 03:26 PM) If he keeps going after a loss there we'll all what an ego-maniac he is. He'd have zero chance after a Michigan loss. Good. Maybe him and Edwards can start a flop company together.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 9, 2008 -> 08:26 PM) Don't worry, we will be subsidizing all of those people through higher taxes and interest rates. Yeah. Oh exactly, and some wouldn't have it any other way. I should have been so irrresponsible so I could have the government bail my ass out, too.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 9, 2008 -> 07:24 PM) That's not the sky. It's the blue painted ceiling in your neighbors' recently foreclosed upon house. And I'm supposed to feel sorry for people who got stuck with more then they could ever REALLY afford? You don't buy s*** that you can't really have with some sort of gimmick and not pay for it later. Anything that is too good to be true, usually is. I think for s***s and grins I should go back and find that thread where some folks were talking about ARMS being the greatest thing ever... ummm, hmmmm...

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 9, 2008 -> 07:42 PM) my wife and I probably will within the next week or 2. It's a tax writeoff, correct? It is NOT a tax writeoff. Signed, Kap, CPA. Disclaimer: Yes, I'm a CPA. No, my real name's not Kap nor am I soliciting or conducting business of any kind under this name. It was free advice not to be relied upon for tax planning.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Jan 9, 2008 -> 06:54 PM) Only 77 stocks are up YTD in the S&P 500. 173 stocks are down MORE THAN 10%. 50 DMA broke 200 DMA. Another confirmation we are in a bear mkt. QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Jan 9, 2008 -> 07:07 PM) We've had what? 6 or 7 days of trading? YTD is meaningless at this point. What? Aren't we all supposed to be running around screaming the sky is falling?

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Jan 9, 2008 -> 05:45 PM) It's sad, but such ridiculous things have always been the basis for a lot of ignorant voters. Some vote based on a canidates exposure. Some vote based on a canidates appearance. Some vote based on how they speak. Some vote based on religion. Some vote for a canidate just because someone told them to. Some will not vote for Obama just because he is Black. Some will vote for Obama just because he's Black. Some will vote for Hillary just because she is a woman. Some will not vote for Hillary just because she is a woman. It's all the same load of crap and has been going on forever. If I had to give my own guesstimate I'd say maybe 50-60% of voters vote with an informed mind. And I say that you're about 25-35% too high on that number. Which is VERY sad.