kapkomet

Wow... now there's press reports - and I think they are fabricated becaue the press is pissed off they didn't get tipped - that the reason they were not notified was because Cheney was drunk. :rolly

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 14, 2006 -> 09:39 PM) Umm, I know you're wrong. I like Hackett. Like him a lot. But I think that this is misplaced anger. I really do. PM me and I'll tell you why. I'm not angry - I'm more about what southsider just posted. Both parties suck.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 14, 2006 -> 08:45 PM) Not money. About winning or losing. He wasn't going to win in the primary. You can still be outspent and win, he didn't have the groundswell of support he needed, or the statewide organization. The Dems saw a rising star falling fast and tried to save him. Period. I don't buy it. He didn't have money, and they told him that he couldn't win, so 'back off'.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Feb 14, 2006 -> 06:24 PM) Since we're talking tacky.. We are registered at babies R us...under Ferenzi. Thanks in advance for all the wonderful gifts!!! You guys are the bomb!!!! Hey... now that's an idea! We're listed under ... ... ... hey, wait, what was that under?

I didn't say DEMOCRATS, I said the media and then some of the people on here jumped in, however, that was before the health of the guy changed.

I second that.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 14, 2006 -> 07:13 PM) Well it seemed minor to most of the talk show hosts, I didn't notice any politicians making jokes. But right from the start the Republicans around here started hoping for boorish behavior from liberals, that is sad. Not hoping, expecting. And guess what? Look at all the crap out there and the press corps yesterday and today. They didn't disappoint. Take your soapbox somewhere else on this one, because they have attacked at will on this.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 14, 2006 -> 06:56 PM) Not gonna happen. This wasn't democrat sabotage. This was party leaders trying to save his career because he was gonna get trounced by Sherrod Brown, he never polled out of the 30s and was underfunded, understaffed and his campaign was kind of a mess. Hackett probably could have won the general against DeWine (they could probably run Jim Traficant against a Republican and win this year) but he stood little chance of getting past May 2. Had he decided to run for that Congressional seat again, he would have won in a walk. So it's all about money. The point still is the same.

damn, you all are quick for the uptake today.

QUOTE(Steff @ Feb 14, 2006 -> 05:01 PM) Embarrased for her... hehe.. she's the one that suggested having the damn thing!!! This one.. is quite the piece of work. This is the one that brought her kid ONE DAY removed from puking his guts out with the stomach flu to our house on X-mas eve, got everyone sick and we couldn't visit Joey for a week!! But but but it was Christmas, and she might have missed the presents!!

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 14, 2006 -> 04:44 PM) I don't think the problem is with having multiple showers for the same kid, its with having them for multiple kids... BTW, if I don't catch you guys, good luck on Friday! She needs to eat a lot of sugar or something before-hand. That way the baby will move around a lot instead of just sleeping like the last one. We had our cat incident last night. She was sitting there watching tv, and Cassie walked up to her to lay down on her lap, and got all pissed off when the baby moved around, because the cat couldn't settle down. It was funny.

My wife will end up having several small showers, and I don't think that's wrong - one at her parents - that way her parents friends who can't travel as far will be able to 'participate', the girls at her work want to have one for her, and then we're having one in Dallas where most people will attend. But we wouldn't dream of having one for the next baby. That's crazy.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11337055/ Boy, those Dems are all nice and cozy, just like the Republicans. Seriously, this is why politics just absolutely blow. Here's a guy, by all accounts, was just trying to get his voice out there. And when he did so, he got chopblocked at the knees. It's disgusting.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 08:27 PM) So YAS, Nuke, and Kap all agree with me? About Jimmy Carter???? HELL NO!

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 03:16 PM) Honestly. That's just ridiculous. I think its impossible to rate presidencies less than forty years old. I think we're just now finally seeing a full and honest picture of LBJ's years and JFK's years. And even though Nixon would have been impeached and probably convicted of it, it's too early to call him a bottom five president. Same with Carter - despite his screwups as well. And we may find that some of his policies may have ended up being solutions to current problems. As much credit as people gave Reagan, some of the policies he followed led to some serious problems in the 1990's and today. The same for Clinton on either side. While I won't argue that there's potential for our current President to fall on either side of the spectrum according to the side you're on, he sure as hell isn't there yet. And we won't fully know for decades. Actually Carter didn't do that much - which is why in my book he's fairly neutral.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 03:13 PM) I agree. It was wrong for Carter, wrong for Clinton and wrong for Bush. Was it more wrong for Bush because FISA had been installed to make it easier? I'd say so - I think he was more reckless with his powers than the others. But it was still wrong for any of them. And the argument of probably cause doesn't fly with me, because that label can only be acceptable legally when a court says so (or by a citizen of law enforcement while in situ act of commision of a felony, or immediate public safety in situ, neither of which apply here). No warrantless searches, period. The problem I have is that the whole premise is based on the courts having jurisdiction over any of this, or for that matter, the law Congress made to begin with. I go back to the Federalist papers when they were talking about the executive branch - and during "wartime" the president was (is) to be given pretty broad powers. I know that there is a witch hunt to make sure that the verbage "DOMESTIC SPYING PROGRAM" sticks in the media. But if we are intercepting communications in an effort to nail these scumbags, that can supercede any law written by Congress or any powers granted by a court (FISA Court). You can argue, and rather strongly, that neither of these two apply in this case. Now, I'll get the argument that this isn't "wartime" because Congress didn't "declare war". The resolutions passed by Congress are pretty clear that the president was given powers to "conduct a war" even though there was never any formal declaration. And besides, there is no traditional "sovereign nation" to declare war on this time. Let me come full circle and say that FISA and other laws passed by Congress are applicable most of the time, and it's my understanding that FISA procedures ARE followed most of the time, but you wouldn't think that by all the lashings that are out there on ALL sides of the media.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 03:16 PM) This is what I don't get. Does Borchard think that he deserves to be a starter or does he just want a shot at a bench spot? He has a good chance at being our last outfielder but he seems to think he's better than that according to this article. This article makes me think that either Jerry Owens or Ben Grieve will end up being our last outfielder. Borchard wants a shot with another team but he is also contemplating a return to football. Reminds me of Drew Henson. I was thinking Drew Henson when I heard this. Oh, by the way, that hasn't worked out so well.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 07:22 AM) Yeah, that's not what I meant. But I guess I'm just sick of seeing the same reply to every thread in here. I thought it was an interesting piece, and a good illustration of where one side lies. Now that's quite different. Having said that, though, of course that's where one side lies. It's no different then the other 10,000 posts even on this forum in the last two months.

QUOTE(kevin57 @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 03:43 AM) Hmm...an "op-ed" used to mean that readers would get differing viewpoints from the paper's editorials (opposite opinion on the page opposite the editorial page). How is this "op-ed" any different from the usual pap from the NY Times? Now stop that. Rex already took all those arguments away with his little blurb at the beginning. No one dare hath a legeth to standeth oneth. All Hail the NY TIMES. ALL IS FAIR, ALL IS GOOD, IMPEACH THAT MOTHER@!#%#!!!!

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 12:59 AM) Sure, it contradicts a lie he never attended events aside from holiday gatherings. Still doesn't prove they met. I'm sure they "met"... but who knows how much deeper it goes, unless you have a hard on to GET THAT MOTHER@#%^@$ Bush!!! If that's the case, not only did he meet, but he gave GWB every dime funneled through every illegal channel possible.

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Feb 12, 2006 -> 12:25 AM) Extreme liberals?!?! You have got to stop listening to Rush, Hannity and O'Reilly cause that's total bulls***! John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, Algore, Hillary Clinton (although she's trying to pass off as a "moderate"), etc. are pretty damn liberal.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 11, 2006 -> 02:11 PM) And yet more talking points. Politics is easy when you see either party as one giant band of clones, isn't it? :rolly And the quotes that started this thread aren't Democratic "talking points"? Politics are so screwed up.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 10, 2006 -> 11:49 PM) From what I gather is that in most planes, the cockpit doors have been replaced with something much more secure than was in the past. But I could be wrong. Part of the US fleet has been changed, most has not.

Two weeks is a good rule of thumb. Depending on your processing center, it can come back faster.

QUOTE(The Critic @ Feb 10, 2006 -> 11:25 PM) You have mine. I really hope it all turns out well. Be strong. Definitely... Hang in there!