jackie hayes

I don't think that's the truth of the matter at all, but back to the main issue -- what is one good reason for the WH to need to ignore FISA?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 10:32 PM) That's total BS. If the message resonated with the American people, come election time every two years, the Republicans would get shoved out faster then you can say "Bush sucks." No, elections just aren't that simple. The Dems haven't done a very good job picking candidates, that's for damn sure. A very interesting argument -- If the Dems had any positions, they would be elected. Since they weren't elected, they must not have any positions. Therefore as long as they aren't in power they should just shut up and accept that they don't believe anything, since any statements are merely criticisms of Bush. I wouldn't argue that the GOP is doing much resonating itself now, given the approval numbers.

I think a lot of people are overrating Crisp and underrating Michaels. CC's a good steady player, but he doesn't have the patience of JM (fewer walks, sees fewer pitches) -- which means a lower obp. Crisp does have a bit more pop, and is a better baserunner. They're both pretty good against both lhp and rhp. So I don't see why there's an enormous dropoff. I'm not saying they're better than the Sox. Right now I think we look like the best team in the majors. But as hot as the Indians were to close the season, they were awful cold at the start. There's some good evidence that they had a lot of bad luck last year. (I mean, just look at Millwood's w-l.) Anyone who's "not worried" about the Tribe is being more than a little overconfident.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 09:46 PM) Could it possibly be that the Democrats have presented a fair number of decent policy proposals (to go along with some obvious bad ones), but because of the fact that the media likes to filter things as "he said versus he said" and hates policy points, you just don't hear them? That, plus the fact that they don't have the slimmest chance in hell of being passed by a Republican Congress and Republican President. Why would the news report on that? But go to almost any Dem congressperson's page, and you'll find some number of bills sponsored, though usually defeated. And in so far as civility is concerned, the GOP should be LAST to b****. Look at how Murtha was treated when he suggested that the troops should come home. (For the record, I disagree with Murtha, and I thought he sounded terrible, but that's neither here nor there.) The WH loves to shut down all discussion by calling its opponents terrorists and cowards, and then claim that the lack of discussion is the fault of Democrats.

QUOTE(jphat007 @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 09:03 PM) But after that Marte could suck. Mota could continue to suck and Michaels is probably going to be very mediocre in Jacobs field, while CC will likely still put up a solid average, solid OBP, solid power (especially now in Boston). Marte could also become a superstar. You never know. BUt somehow I doubt the Braves and Indians are two teams that would easily give up a cheap can't miss for CC and Renteria. Really it shouldn't affect us all that much. Unless the Indians get more SP, more dominant bullpen pitching (especially another lefty), and a better bat, I'm not worried for the next few years, and in that time they'll hvae a lot of guys ready for big raises. I don't see why Michaels will "probably...be very mediocre in Jacobs field". I think Crisp will be better, but it's not a huge difference. I don't see how anyone can't be worried by the Indians after the pressure they put on us at the end of last season. They took a big hit to their rotation, the pen is a little worse, but this is still a very good team.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 08:15 PM) Question tax cuts. So, let's just tax the crap out of everything, have no free enterprise, and give everything we have to our government. I love socialism. Let me just take this. Here's a good example of the absurd rhetoric used when Democrats do forward new ideas. Democratic idea -- 'Allow the tax cuts on the rich to lapse.' The response, 'Communists!', is demagoguery. Look through my whole history of posting here. There aren't many posters that are more pro-free market. But there are many situations in which the free market should, in theory, be a BAD arrangement. First, just in terms of efficiency (pollution being the textbook example), and second, in terms of equity. Free markets could very well lead to some people being very rich, while others die of starvation. So I could equallly well go to the extreme, like you did, and say, 'So, let's just cut all taxes to zero, have everything laissez faire, and have a completely unfunded government. I love anarchy and starving children.' Or, I could reasonably point out that the tax cuts have led to massive deficits (nonpartisan estimates have shown that the tax cuts were an enormous contributor to the budget situation), causing the country to cut back on poverty programs and, critically, education. Education seems important -- partially because I think the government should ensure that poor children have a good chance of success. I'm pretty confident Americans agree with that sentiment -- which is why Republicans pay lip service to it with "No child left behind", and other worthless "initiatives". Democrats have ideas, but they don't appear unified (since they aren't directed by the WH, as Republicans are), and they don't get traction (since they are a minority in the Congress). It's just that they get shouted down. Meanwhile, this WH claims that it doesn't have to be evaluated on anything. 'Okay, we were wrong about WMD, but that's in the past...' Everything's 50 years ago to them. In the 6th year of this administration, we still have no improvement in schools, massive security holes at home, a booming deficit, increasing inequality, and uncertainty in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's an abysmal record for a party that has control of both the legislative and executive branches, and the only response is, 'Oh, well, the Dems aren't doing anything.' What?! The GOP controls the whole legislative process, accept the goddamned responsibility already.

Rhodes has been very inconsistent for the last several years (no wonder the Phils want him!), while Michaels is a good hitter (good obp, some power) in his first year of arbitration (? -- I think). Not young, but age-wise, should be around his prime, so the Indians are unlikely to see a big dropoff (unlike Rhodes). That's a good trade for the Indians.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 07:10 PM) The stance of the administration was that they were legally entitled to do exactly what they did. If, in their opinion, they were perfectly legal in bypassing the courts, why would they have to explain why they did so? The answer is obvious. There was no need explain anything. They claim that they were entitled to bypass the courts by the "necessary and appropriate force" language of the 2001 resolution. But they haven't made it clear why their actions were "necessary", since they had recourse to the secret FISA courts anyway. That's what demands explanation.

New GM, more of the same. I think we just need an old, expensive bullpen to get us over the hump.

f*** no. I've taken part in this discussion, and I've been critical of Bush, and I think Flaxx's argument was pretty damn straightforward. So I can only conclude I'm included in your blanket statement. Question the President -- 'Why do you hate George?' Question the war -- 'Why do you want to help the terrorists?' Question tax cuts -- 'Why do you want class warfare?' Oppose id -- 'Why do you hate God?' I'm tired of the bs strawmen set up by the right instead of addressing the ACTUAL f***ING ISSUES.

Obviously you believe there is some other "simplest and most obvious explanation" -- why don't you just offer that instead of trying to sidetrack the discussion?

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 04:56 PM) I wasn't commenting on whether I agree or disagree with the cuts. I wasn't quoting the article to back up whether I agree or disagree with the cuts. In fact, the only thing I personally wrote about was him anserwing the question. I was just saying he wasn't stumped. He knew what she was referring to and others that voted for the cuts explained it simlarliy. I know he didn't explain it like a good debater should or even how a good speaker would, but that's not what I'm arguing...I was just pointing out he wasn't stumped on the question like the article would have you believe. Well, he said that there weren't any cuts. When students pay more because the government is paying less than it did before, I'd say that's pretty unambiguously a cut. If you mean that he wasn't stumped, just spinning, okay, that may be. But a stumped pres is better than a lying one, so it seems to me that ThinkProgress was at least giving him the benefit of the doubt...

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 03:45 PM) I don't think he did that bad of a job anserwing the question. She wasn't that clear in her question. She didn't explain that the money she was talking about was from the student loan cuts. She just said you cut it from education. Once he clarified and got that she was talking about the student loan cuts, he explained it the same way most other Republicans have. I don't think he was stumped. He isn't the best speaker in the world, but he explained it adequately. Here's some excerpts from a USA Today article on how some others saw it. I know it doesn't flow with the article you posted from "Think Progress" cause they have their own agenda and want to make Bush look like a complete moron. It does however, show Bush's explaination was pretty well along the lines with the others that supported the cuts. Within higher education, the single biggest cut appears to be in the profits of lenders. Under current law, banks get to keep the excess money when the amounts that students pay in interest exceed the rate of return that the government has guaranteed. That would end. Lenders would have to refund the difference to the government, meaning billions of dollars. "We were able to reduce spending through changes in the way lenders operate," said Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., the chairman of the Senate education committee. "But at the same time, we shielded the direct impact to students, and actually increased student opportunities." Meanwhile, the interest on students loans would also move to a fixed rate of 6.8% in July, up from its current variable rate of 4.7%. But that change was already set to happen under law, and the deficit-reduction bill does not alter that plan. Student groups tend to support a fixed rate as a protection against unstable, rising interest rates. Loan limits would increase from $2,625 to $3,500 for first-year students, and from $3,500 to $4,500 for second-year students. The total borrowing limit allowed for undergraduates would remain at $23,000. Lawmakers aimed for a compromise of letting students borrow more at the start of college, reflecting current needs, without sanctioning a bigger overall debt. John Boehner, R-Ohio, the chairman of the House education committee, said the bill "offers significant new benefits to students pursuing a college education." He said money isn't being cut out of the program. It is. The article YOU cited to counter the ThinkProgress article states that "overall, the student loan program would endure the largest cut in its history, and most of the money would not be pumped back into education." That's bad. Most of the savings is due to that interest rate hike. So, students pay more, government pays less. That's not 'improving efficiency', that's just transferring money from students to the government (and from there, to tax cuts...). It's not that banks will merely profit less -- the profit will just be paid directly by students. Thanks to our education president!

Bulls***. You know, as critical as I am of Bush, when the Daily Show gets a laugh just out of his looking lost at a question, I get annoyed. It's not fair to expect an omniscient showman. Fine. But if he doesn't have a f***ing clue and still opens his mouth and talks about what was REALLY in the bill and how the questioner got it wrong, and in so doing shows he doesn't have a f***ing clue -- then yes, he better be prepared to take his medicine. Don't know? Fine, then SHUT UP.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 01:17 AM) Sorry, I can't blame Bush for not knowing everything about everything. I think he has been busy. If you don't know, don't say you do know.

Definition of a pointless argument?

Pitt, but it's basically even. I think the Steelers will generate pressure, but w/ Seattle's line that's questionable. Really, this could be a GREAT SB.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 02:14 AM) Oh, and how about Trufant not falling down when covering Smith on straight routes? It was amazing to watch. ^^^^^^^^^^ The Seahawks have had great coverage, but the Bears' was zilch. Night and day.

So, because Joe Buck notices the really, really obvious, he's somehow not a prick now? F B.

QUOTE(DonkeyKongerko @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 12:28 AM) Looks like doubling up on Steve Smith is a good idea after all. Who knew? Who knows if that would have stopped him -- but first I wish they would have tried singling up on him, at least.

Wtf is Denver doing? If you've given up, just run the clock out. If you want to play for a miracle, throw it into the end zone NOW. These pissy 10 yard passes across the middle are just f'n pointless.

Wtf? Mulder on the Dutch team in WBC??? South Holland, eh, good enough. I guess France could field a team with all its Paris, TX alums. I figure someone's already posted on this, as the story's a couple days old. If it's already been explained somewhere, could someone just point me to it? Thanks.

QUOTE(maggsmaggs @ Jan 22, 2006 -> 08:56 PM) I second that. I sixth that. Finished!

Kenny should totally veto this thing.

QUOTE(SEALgep @ Jan 21, 2006 -> 08:53 PM) What's wrong with owning a gun? :rolly Come on... Who's not tired of irrelevant celebrities spouting off their opinions on random s***? He didn't say anything about guns, he said, Who the f*** cares what Anna Benson thinks? Damn right.