jackie hayes

QUOTE(rangercal @ Feb 15, 2006 -> 11:57 PM) wade> anthony Yeah, but noone then was talking about Wade with the second pick. (In fact... ) Some people were even saying Melo should go #1. It was 'called.' By many, many people. Saying they should have taken Wade is like saying, Wow, how dumb of them (any of 'em, take yr pick) to not take Amare Stoudamire, Ben Wallace, etc! Well, sure, in hindsight.

Placido Polanco Pwns. I mean, he does.

No clue.

I just don't see how anyone can say that Washington stretched the powers of the executive branch, when there was no fixed idea about what those powers were. There was a Constitution, but there were many interpretations about how far those words went. Jefferson wanted a less powerful president, okay, but Hamilton wanted a more powerful president. Washington defined a practical, fairly restrained middle president that has proved to be a pretty successful model. That's greatness.

QUOTE(BHAMBARONS @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 03:23 AM) Believe me he is on my top 5 list, it was a error on my part one that I regret, here is my list 5. Grant 4. Harding 3. A Johnson 2. Pierce 1. Buchanan That's a pretty good list. I mean, a pretty bad list. I mean...

I've had both, and really they were both pretty good. I've had slightly better coverage with Verizon. But you should ask some people who live around you and use it in the same areas.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 12, 2006 -> 11:46 PM) Washington actually I believe stretched his powers hugely, simply because there was no way for the executive branch to function as it was written in the Constitution and Bill o' Rights. Running the DOD, Treasury, etc., there's simply no way one man could do all of that. Look through the initial writing of the constitution...you'll find no mention of the formation of a "Cabinet" of any sort. He came up with the cabinet so that he could manage things somehow, and created the offices. That was a huge stretch of presidential power right there. The Constitution states of the Prez, "he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices". Okay, it doesn't say "Cabinet", but that's pretty much the same thing. It recognizes that the duties of the exec branch will have to be divied up to "Officers" in charge of "Departments". Congress established the specific departments by law after the Constitution was passed. I imagine Washington asked for this, but it's not like he invented it by fiat.

QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Feb 12, 2006 -> 05:34 PM) Is the question about best president during his presidency, or what he did through out their life? I love George Washington, don't get me wrong, but I think almost all of his glory comes from the Revolutionary War. The person I would vote for is James Madison who isn't on the list not surprisingly. He's normally forgotten but that's how it goes. I will vote for Thomas Jefferson because Madison was his Secretary of State and Madison had a huge role in the Louisiana Purchase. I believe most of Washington's reputation does come out of his presidency. He did not do much, but that's part of his greatness. He did not attempt to stretch his powers, when the exact workings of checks and balances were still being perfected. Noone was really sure what a president would do, and Washington's immense esteem made his model of a limited presidency very influential. He also delivered a prescient warning on partisanship that was immediately and forever ignored.

How in holy hell do you not put Andrew Johnson, a consensus bottom 5, on that list?

I'm watching a replay on CSPAN, and the hype is all such bulls***. Lowery's speech is not nearly as accusatory as advertised, and the applause given to Carter's bits are not half, not a quarter as enthusiastic as advertised. The audience gave Bush 1 a standing ovation, not some mere polite applause, and he jokes around with Lowery in turn. Then Clinton jokes with Bush, etc. There are lots of laughs, there are pokes in every direction, but that's an intended part of the ceremony. Some congregations swing like that. After watching, I can't believe anyone would see any disrespect unless they desperately wanted disrespect. Politics, yes, but not disrespect. Clinton reminded Atlanta, with a Dem mayor, how high the murder rate is. Some just see what they want to see.

I've never been a huge fan, I just watched it when it happened to be on, but I enjoyed it. So take it fwiw, but those were some of the best AD shows I've ever seen. Some random thoughts: I'm leery of ABC taking over the show. Fox's 'edge' gives you trash like 'Who wants to marry a millionaire?', but it's the same thing that buffers Family Guy and AD from politeness monitors. I hope the show'd have the same freedoms at ABC/Disney/etc, but I have my doubts. It was a nice gesture by The Daily Show to get AD some publicity on Thursday night, even if it was last minute, and Stewart wasn't there.

Some desperate team should sign both Ryan Leaf and TO. I'd buy a ticket just to watch the sideline.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Feb 10, 2006 -> 07:39 PM) mine should be self-explanatory after that. That one was never too difficult.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Feb 10, 2006 -> 07:39 PM) What Would Crazy Man Do. Is that simple enough? When did we have to start explaining that one? Ah, okay. Maybe I would have understood if I took the thread at all seriously. And mine is the unspoken name, but the answer to 'WWCND?' is always that he'll roundhouse kick someone. Which just seemed called for in this thread, so I took a guess.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Feb 10, 2006 -> 07:34 PM) Well, that was my response to yr post, too, so I guess that makes us even.

WWCMD? or WWCND?

If Orton was really going to be the starting QB next year, Angelo would have said, "Orton is our starter going into the season", instead he said, well, nothing. He would not say he is the starter going into the system because he knows already he isnt going to be, as we all do, because Kyle sucked last year. Stop pulling everyone's chain, the joke's not funny.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 10, 2006 -> 03:13 PM) If this had been a well off city, or area, that got hit, you would have seen relief come much faster. And btw, I don't find that to be a Republican or Democrat thing, it just seems to be the way we've traditionally acted as a country sadly. I attribute this to our deep sprirtuality. As the Bible says, "ye have the poor always with you." In other words, don't worry about them, they aren't in danger. They'll come out okay. But Croecus needs you!

I'd like to be in 3 again, if it's not too late. Just need a new name...

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 9, 2006 -> 06:04 PM) Every month when the BLS puts out its labor numbers, it includes 1 item in the table for "Not in the labor force", including all sorts of things, like long-term unemployed, people who have stopped looking for work, people who have gone to school, people placed on disability, people who have gone in for other job training, etc. There's lots of ways to fall out. Here's their raw numbers. I don't care as much about the overall number...whether it's 70 million or 10 million isn't the important part...the important part is the fact that in the last 10 years, as the "Unemployment percentage" numbers have dropped...a very significant portion of that drop is due to the dramatic increase in that number. Not true. Long term unemployed are considered unemployed, as long as they are still looking for work. If you include discouraged workers and/or marginally attached workers, the rate of unemployment still dropped a little more than 1% from its highs. It doesn't seem to make that much of a difference.

QUOTE(G&T @ Feb 7, 2006 -> 11:13 PM) What I quoted was to show there was, in my opinion, political posturing. My point is I think that should have been saved for another time. It would appear that nobody there cared either You said: "The whole thing is clearly a chance for the Dems to take shots at the White House." But I don't think it's "posturing" to joke about something that has long been a national joke. Whose cave is deep enough that they haven't heard that Hillary might run? Who is so daft that they weren't thinking through the whole speech that these words would be analyzed if she runs? Yup, daft...

I watched almost every Ravens game in his 2000 yard season, so I do have some idea about his speed. Like I said, not slow, and damn fast for his size, but he was never as fast as some of the smaller backs. A lot of credit for the 2000 yards also has to go to the slowness of Cleveland's whole damn defense that year. It's hard to tell if injury/incarceration hurt his speed much, since he can't ever get in the open field to give us a demonstration...

QUOTE(G&T @ Feb 7, 2006 -> 10:57 PM) First, she's a Democrat which should be plain enough. But mostly it's totality of the circumstances. You have people taking shots at the war and the weapons of mass destruction, then you have Bill Clinton throwing in an endorsement for his wife's campaign at what should be a solemn service to remember a person's life. If they want to mention her anti-war ideas that's fine, but when you mention specifics about the war in Iraq and Chris Mattews says Jimmy Carter didn't acknowledge President Bush, what do you think the message is? This was an opportunity to gain and the Dems jumped on it. Whether you see something wrong with it is a matter of opinion but you have to see that there is something behind their actions. Obviously there were some shots at Bush and the WH. But what you quoted was not. But, no, I have no problem with that. Hers was a life heavily involved in politics, in recent years mostly spent in opposition to the policies of the current administration. To just ignore what's screamingly obvious b/c we gotta be nice to the Prez is a disservice to her life and memory. I do have a problem with the motioning, but that's about it.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Feb 7, 2006 -> 10:53 PM) It doesn't matter if they're not politicians. They are making a political statement out of a funeral. I didn't hear any Democrat-bashing at Reagan's Funeral. Umm... Did you read what I was replying to?

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Feb 7, 2006 -> 10:41 PM) Does it matter whether either are running for office or currently retired? Both embraced the opportunity to stick it to Bush. Don't ignore it entirely. Just not at her funeral service. Was there any other causes Rosa Parks embraced--or actions partaken by the government which she denounced since the 1950's? I wonder how Parks felt about Vietnam. Similar circumstances, right? I haven't read anything about her opposition to that war, yet. Yeah, it matters, unless "political posturing" = "saying anything remotely political". These guys have nothing to gain in the way of politics; they aren't running for anything, they aren't politicians. This was a service about her. Why should something important to her be taboo? (Something she felt strongly enough about to publicly comment on -- we're not relying on some hearsay about this.)