kapkomet

You people have to understand what the issue really was. The COURTS drew the maps in 2000. That's why the LEGISLATURE, who are the ones that are supposed to redistrict, did it in 2004.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060628/ap_on_...s_redistricting

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 02:41 AM) I love how he went the other way with one of his hits. Thats something that was missing during his mini-funk. Which means he's getting ready to bust a hot string, IMO.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 01:56 AM) What makes you two think that Iran wasn't pursuing nukes when at war with Iraq? In fact, I'm willing to be that war made them all the more likely to try for them. I don't have "proof" but I think the same. I think they have been trying since the middle 70's, at least. Also, as a side note, that's why I think we're in Iraq now, but that's besides the point.

Good win, nice bounceback from Sunday.

QUOTE(Jimbo @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 01:32 AM) Cardinals are good.........going for 8 in a row. That whole division is just awful right now.

QUOTE(quickman @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 01:30 AM) I agree thats my point, he does the wrong thing and it works out. he obviously knows a hell of lot more than I do. i sit here like the aflack duck, wondering why the hell he does stuff. You have all those Yogi'isms going for you as Ozzie always pull crap out of his ass?

QUOTE(quickman @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 01:27 AM) The right call would have been konerko, both for bat and defense. i have been questioning Ozzie for years, he always does this crap and looks good doing it. Isn't it amazing how it works out way more then not?

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 12:55 AM) No they didn't. The NY Times article ran after the LA Times article did. Both papers were asked to hold the story. Both papers refused. But for some reason bashing the LA Times doesn't hold the same cache as bashing the New York Times. Nothing on the LA Times website credits the New York Times. I'm not dividing blame. I think there's no blame to be had, to be honest. There's nothing remotely surprising or shocking in the NYT article in question. Treason, my ass. Rex... please... it's getting annoying. So - WHO GOT THE STORY FIRST? Oh wait, they both got it at exactly the same time. It's not worth talking about anymore. We are talking about semantics and it really doesn't matter as it relates to the story. I digress. WHITE FLAG.

Honestly, this is much ado about nothing, but it's at least VERY hypocritical in nature of the NYT, et. al.

Come on Rex. 27 years, 40 years... it's not that much of a difference. Ever since 1979, perhaps even a little before, they've wanted this technology. Let's not argue semantics.

So? This doesn't say a thing. The NYT had the scoop originally.

I'm going to say this again. THE NEW YORK SLIMES ARE THE ONE WHO HAD THE STORY FIRST. Quit trying to divide where the blame resides. Thank you.

I made that point, oh, about the third post of this thread. It conveniently gets ignored.

They have no reason to. Hello, WWIII, sometime in our generation.

I do not think it was common, but I know it happened. Personally spoke to a person who it happened to. He's my parent's next door neighbor.

LCR, the words "declare war" doesn't have to be used. But, it was declared by Congress giving the President the authority to use "any means necessary"... What am I missing, besides semantics? And yea, the press can print whatever they want. Wooo hooo. But they have blood on their hands. That's it.

Side note, IT DID HAPPEN. I know vets that were in the situation, and that's all I'm going to say about it.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 03:43 AM) Why I do I keep hearing this "We're at war!" "There's a war on!" CONGRESS NEVER DECLARED WAR. So, we're not at war. And yes, we've already gone through this in the SCOTUS case New York Times vs US where the justices ruled that prior restraint of classified documents (in this case, the Pentagon Papers) was un-Constitutional and the press had a right to print stories regarding the information. You should really check out some of the majority opinion in that case. And oh yes, for further discussion, I advise a checkout of the Heller quote in my profile. So the words "DECLARE WAR" is what meets the standard, and nothing else, such as (paraphrasing) any means necessary to enforce UN Resolution 1444? Nevermind. Why am I even bothering? It's obvious that no one will ever change their minds around here. Screw it.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 03:41 AM) Where is the accountability Rex?? Where is any regard for national security?! /waits for the standard 'we're trampling on "rights" ' response or the famous Ben Franklin quote...

The NYSlimes were the 'exclusive', supposedly, and the other papers copied it.

That's hysterical. I love it when the kid is crawling across the ice.

There is a lot more to this then just "merging", and it can happen. I'll leave it at that because I don't feel like debating it. My source is someone who works at XM, and it's all I need to know.

Soxtalkers, The PM feature will probably be intermittant for the next few days. Most of the time it should work, but you may encounter an error occasionally. I have to completely rebuild the tables that are involved and that will take a block of time that I probably will not have for a few days. Please be patient, and we'll (permanently) have it fixed in short order. Thanks, Kap

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 09:58 PM) It might very well be a different scenario. If the market can't sustain two satellite services, a merger may be necessary for one to survive. Those that say it can't happen... it CAN happen, if not partly due to what Rex says. There's other reasons, and Sirius actually may hold the upper hand here. You don't know what venture capital is involved or the back-boardroom deals that may be happening.