Balta1701

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Feb 25, 2006 -> 11:47 PM) Did you click on the link at the top of the 1st post? Ah, there it is.

So, I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what I'm supposed to be seeing here. The whole site looks exactly the same here on my PC. What am I missing?

QUOTE(crazyman26 @ Feb 25, 2006 -> 02:18 PM) I wonder what you will all be saying in September when Orton, or a free agent, or draft pick is the starting QB. "Ouch Rex, God I never thought a leg could bend like that and still stay attached."

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Feb 25, 2006 -> 07:59 PM) But the Murtha plan isn't very good either. We are there, we just can't 'redeploy'. Anything that looks like a loss, or a surrender, or that we are running away, will BE a loss because it will further embolden the enemy. Since we are there, lets win. I will be the first to say things haven't been run there as best they can be. Hindsight is always 20-20. How about some foresight? Ok, so let me just deal with this part here...You say since we're there, let's win, without telling me exactly how we're going to do so? We've done the stay the course thing for 3 years now. And it just keeps looking worse. More casualties on all sides, more shi'ite militias killing sunnis, more sunnis targeting shi'a religious sites, less oil flowing than before the invasion, less electricity than before the invasion, and the U.S. has basically stopped funding reconstruction & is starting to say they're on their own. The government is losing respect because the people feel it can't protect them, and they're turning to sectarian militias as the only thing which can hold together law & order. We're training troops left and right, yet the security situation isn't improving, and the U.S. has been unable to withdraw troops despite the additional Iraqi forces. And now there's this Mosque mess. We've imposed daytime curfews across the entire country and somehow people are still dying left and right. So, you say let's stay there and win. How exactly are we going to do that? We've run out of time to gain the Iraqi people's trust. We haven't provided security, electricity, or hope, in 3 years. The people of Iraq don't want us to stay any more. Hell, the Iraqi parliament endorsed attacks on U.S. soldiers last year as a method of getting us to leave. How exactly do we "Win"? What happens if by staying there and trying to "Win", we just wind up making ourselves the target for longer and longer until we don't have a friend left in the whole middle east? That's not the guaranteed outcome, but it's sure a possible one. And it would make us look even worse than something regarded as a "retreat". Edit: let me toss in a little bit more: if I could think of an easy way to "Win" this mess that we got ourselves in to, I'd have supported it in a second. I still would if I saw that. I think at most places since we got ourselves in, I've tried to hope for what I thought would do the best for the U.S. and the people of Iraq. It's for this reason that I tried to point out the mess of idiotic planning, fraud, waste, and corruption that Iraq turned into under the CPA. That's why some Democrats put forwards an alternative to Bush's blanket $87 billion request which would have required Mr. Bush to actually make sure he knew where the money was going, instead of having billions of dollars of cash just disappear. That's why we complain when, say, the U.S. ships over a few hundred million dollars worth of power generation equipment which is totally unusable because it's incompatible with the power plant where it was supposed to be set up, so the generators just sit there idle. Etc. Yes, there are some out there who genuinely want the U.S. to lose. Almost no one you'll ever meet will be a part of that group. Once we got into it, there were things we could do that would have actually helped, and if I'd seen us doing those I would have cheered. Things like actually planning the reconstruction, or actually having oversight over what was done with all the money. Or making sure we weren't re-opening torture chambers, or encouraging splitting of the country along ethnic lines, all of which we wound up doing. So for at least a year now, I've been sitting around hoping someone would present an actual plan that would lead to real victory. But the only thing I've seen is "Stay the course and win." This just doesn't make sense...we've tried staying the course for 3 years, and it hasn't brought us any closer to winning. It may have made winning even farther away, because the corruption has just continued and things have failed to improve. So, the thing I'd advocate right now is whatever would make things over there the least bad. I personally don't see any good option. Staying there will just keep the whole country focused on removing us, will serve as a rallying cry for every anti-American SOB out there, and may very well start a Civil War that the U.S. can't stop. On the other hand, pulling out could also start a Civil War that the U.S. can't stop. So I have to admit...I don't have a clue what we should be doing. I don't see a good way to fix it, now that we've been so damn negligent and let these people in the government screw around by trying out their fancy flat tax proposals when the power grid was falling apart. My goal right now in advocacy is, I think, to try to find some path that will allow the U.S. to get out without sparking a civil war. Without concrete steps to make things better up and down the list, and an actual plan about what we're going to do at every step, from reconstruction to military options, including actual steps that will significantly improve the lives of the Iraqi people instead of just wasting time and money, I don't think that's possible. Could the Murtha plan lead to civil war? Certainly. But so could just staying there and trying to "Win". So the question is...what else can we do?

QUOTE(WHarris1 @ Feb 25, 2006 -> 07:10 PM) Yeah, I said 51 before we started fouling intentionally. Tyson finished with 8 boards in 17 minutes of play. I bet if Tyson hadn't been in foul trouble we win that game. Damnit. I figured we'd lose to Detroit, but I really wanted that game. Well, at least the knicks lost. And somehow Charlotte's up on Phoenix at the half. Come on Bobcats!

So if Young did score that lowly...do you still draft him if you're Tennessee or someone else up there?

QUOTE(WHarris1 @ Feb 25, 2006 -> 06:58 PM) Bulls lose. Tyson's 10+ board streak comes to an end because he only played about 15 minutes. Ahahaha, the Sixers shot 51 FT's. :headshake It had to be more than 51 FT's, they had shot 50 before the Bulls started fouling with like 1:30 left. They had to get close to 60. Tyson got himself in Foul Trouble early, and that team really missed having him out there. Without him, they're incredibly small. Man they need another big guy.

Man, the Bulls are really screwing a game they needed. Chandler only has 5 rebounds with only a little time left, so his 10 rebound a game streak is probably coming to an end.

QUOTE(sayitaintso @ Feb 25, 2006 -> 05:31 PM) This offseason went by so fast. For some strange reason it was about a month shorter than usual. Hopefully it will be a while before we have another long one.

Ordered from PapaJohns.com quite often. Works just fine. They send you an email with an estimated delivery time, and things there seem to be just as fast as when you talk over the phone. Only problem I've had with PJ's is that they don't have an option to pay with a credit card online, so I usually wind up calling in order to charge the thing.

I think the Bills released Shane Matthews. He's probably got as good of a chance of being the #1 as Orton does until Grossman gets hurt.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 25, 2006 -> 03:30 PM) I think I must be misunderstanding something. How would a party have "the gavel" in all the committees by having just a 1 seat majority? I didn't think it worked that way. Some committees will have Dem chairs and/or Dem majorities in that scenario. Am I misunderstanding your meaning of "the gavel"? As far as I know, when you have a majority at all in either house, you get the committee chairs. Which is why in 2001, the switch by Jeffords from voting with the Republican Caucus to voting with the Democratic caucus, which only gave the Dems a 1 seat advantage, was enough to put Democratic chairs on the committees. The party in control of the house, whether by 1 seat or 20 seats, chairs the committees.

QUOTE(Steff @ Feb 25, 2006 -> 01:19 PM) Was that the question...? If it was I apologize because I was referring to the debate over when the egg becomes a "life". So was I. After an egg becomes an embryo, it is capable of growing, but not capable of survival on its own. In fact, some embryos wind up being created but not successfully implanting themselves in the proper spot, and thus wind up not surviving. Hard to call that murder, IMO. Just like it's hard to call the tens of thousands of frozen embryos which are created and destroyed at fertility clinics murder since they're simply not viable on their own.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 25, 2006 -> 04:01 PM) Knees gave out and retired a long time ago? Well, my knees sure seem to fit that description...

Ok, so to answer some of my own questions from last night...CNN So even if the number of level 1 units has dropped, there has been a decent increase in the number of level 2 ready units. The only part that worries me is This So the number of level 2 units is up almost 50% from October, yet there are still over 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, which means that none of those drawdowns we talked about in December have happened yet.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Feb 25, 2006 -> 02:29 PM) The question that remains to be asked is since we ARE there, why is the entire country not doing everything it can for us to win this conflict, so we can come home? Instead, politics rears its ugly head at every turn on both sides, and nothing gets done as well as it could or should, creating a stagnant situation. Why can't libs just say 'fine, we hate that we are there, but realize that just pulling up and leaving isn't a good option. Let's do whatever it needed to win this so we can bring our troops home.' Is it winnable? How will we ever know until all of us actually get behind the idea of winning it in the first place? And just think, if the Dems DID do that, sure they would piss off some of thie rbase, but would they really go and vote Republican out of spite? I don't think so. PLus, it would swing alot of middle-of-the-road voters who would finally think that the Dems are serious about the defense of our country, and really aren't Frenchmen in disguise. It would be a win-win for the Dems!Be on record as aginst the war, but also supporting the troops and our country. When we win, they get to share in the glory. So, let me give this counterpoint...the Dems have offered up quite a few alternative options, such as the Murtha plan, which the Republicans labeled as "Cutting and running"? You're asking why the entire country isn't doing everything it can to win? Well, let me put this to you. Paul Bremer is about to release a book saying he needed a hell of a lot more men/troops over there. The U.S. has basically run out of reconstruction funds over there due to fraud, waste, bribery, and the insurgency, and the Administration isn't planning on providing more. Would you be in favor of a significant tax increase to fully fund the war over there, including a large expansion of the army through whatever means are necessary? You ask why the entire country won't get behind it...fine...let's propose getting the country 100% behind it; put enough troops and funds in there to actually rapidly rebuild everything and put an American squad on every street. Even if it takes a million men. That would be doing everything possible to win. Do you think that's a good option? Would you support that? Even if you or your family wound up having to pay a thousand dollars a year for it and had to send either you or someone close to you over there to fight because we need the manpower?

QUOTE(minors @ Feb 25, 2006 -> 01:03 PM) I do and I agree with KAP that Bayh will also be a good canidate for Demo's Could anyone imagine that race Indiana which hasn't voted D since '64 and Mass which hasn't voted R since 84 To add on: Romney would grab VT,ME and NH with him and Bayh would grab Ohio and Kentucy for the D's See, on that I think you're totally wrong, it's still my opinion that even running Bayh wouldn't be enough to turn Indiana blue in the general, simply because it's so far in the red. SS2k5 disagrees, but that's my opinion. Bayh might be able to turn Ohio, which would be enough to win it on the other hand, if nothing else changed. But could Romney carry any of those states? Well, I find that pretty doubtful too. Romney seems like he's in a lot of trouble and may very well lose the governorship in 06. He doesn't seem like he'd be in a good place to turn those states, especially Vermont. Also, the Republican phone jamming case in NH probably hasn't made them look very good up there either.

QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Feb 25, 2006 -> 05:05 PM) I don't know about Warner or Richardson, but Vilsack from Iowa doesn't stand a chance. You're right on Vilsack. If Richardson runs, he'd have a very good shot at that nomination. Good experience, been a governor, hispanic heritage, pretty good record as governor, run a western state which could help the Dems appeal to other states in the West, Energy Secretary experience helps him deal with what will probably be one of the most important issues in 08 as gas prices keep going up, etc. Only difference is, thus far he's another one of those guys who has said every time that he's not going to run for the nomination also. I believe him less than Gore when he says that, because the people of his state don't want him to be saying that he's running for President when he should be running that state. Warner also has a very good shot. Depending on what Feingold, Obama, and Richardson do in terms of running, he's at least somewhere on the list of people I'd consider.

QUOTE(minors @ Feb 25, 2006 -> 11:11 AM) Right on I hope they go with either Hillary, Dean, Kerry or Gore they will lose badly now if they nomiate a Warner, Richardson or that guy from Iowa I think the Demo's might win. The Demo's like Republicans would be smart to nominate a Governor. Because they are away from the fray of Washington. Dean cannot run. He will be running the Democratic Party through the end of 2008, and one of the rules of that position is that he cannot run for other major offices. Gore has said repeatedly that he will not be running in 2008, although even I'm not dumb enough to say that means he absolutely 100% won't run (even though he kept his word in 2004 when he said he wasn't running), but I'd say right now it looks like 98% he's not running. Kerry and Hillary...I would say I pretty much expect to see both of them in the nomination race, and I can say with almost absolute certainty that I won't be voting for either of them in the primaries. One of the things that the Repubs used effectively against Kerry was the fact that he had a long voting record in the Senate, and as a Senator, he'd been forced over and over to make votes that were compromises, or on bills which could be painted the wrong way by a good political operative, like his vote on the $87 billion - both Bush and Kerry in a sense flip-flopped on it, given that Bush threatened to veto one version of it - the version that payed for it with a few tax increases and had requirements on how the money could have been used, but Bush's people were able to make easy use of Kerry's vote on that in their campaign ads. So in that sense, you're probably right that the Dems should be hesitant before nominating a Senator again. If it was someone from the Senate, it'd be best if it was someone who was a short-term senator, who hadn't built up a massive 20 year voting record (Obama would fit this requirement, and he'd have my vote right now if he ran). A governor might not be a bad thing either, and Warner does seem really talented.

QUOTE(samclemens @ Feb 25, 2006 -> 11:44 AM) i agree. mccain is a shoe-in. however, theres a long time to go until the election so who knows. I'd like to be able to say that he's wrong and the Dems could mount a challenge to McCain, but given the fact that the media have already 100% decided that he can do no wrong, it'd be almost impossible for any Dem to overcome him in the general if the election were being held this year.

QUOTE(Steff @ Feb 25, 2006 -> 09:00 AM) What circumstances are you referring to? And wrong about what? It's been scientifically proven as to when the fertilized egg becomes a fetus. The argument after that is a personal one. Yes, but it's also scientifically proven that if you put a fetus on a chair in your dining room and make it dinner...it won't live through dinner.

QUOTE(minors @ Feb 25, 2006 -> 11:06 AM) Yes IT WILL BE WON... If we just gave up everytime it looked bleak this country first of all wouldn't have exisited. Or if in Early 1864 when everyone wanted to surrender to the south we would have been split in 2 pieces. The point is sometimes we have to fight the good fight no matter the costs. Just to put into persepective we lost more troops in 3 days in the C-War than in all of Vietnam combined. So wait, within 6 months of the bang-bang major victories at Vicksburg and Gettysburg right before the 4th of July in 63, the country wanted to surrender? That sure doesn't sound like the history that I know.

QUOTE(SnB @ Feb 25, 2006 -> 09:30 AM) As much as I adore the credemeister, I think I'd kina like to see how he does this year before offering him a huge contract. If you think about it, even for most of last year, he was regarded as a dissapointment. He had a good few months, but I'd really like to see some real consistency out of him. That could depend on your definition of a "Huge" contract. If Crede convinces people he's healthy...he's still a pretty darn good player if he can hit .250 with 20 home runs and play gold-glove defense at 3rd, and that could be worth a couple years worth of a contract. Also, a lot of us still think the Crede of September has the potential to show up and stay around for a while at some points during his career...and if we were to sign him and then have the Rally Crede hang around, suddenly he could make any deal look like a bargain.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 06:53 AM) I think that is a possibility. But I think both houses will get very, very close to even, which in itself could make things better. If there is only a 2 or 4 seat gap in either house, there are always enough swing votes to call any partisan vote into question. But see, the one thing I still point to is that if the Republicans keep both houses, but even have only a 1 seat majority in both houses...they still will manage to hold onto the gavels in every single committee. That means that the Republicans will still be able to prevent the Democrats from having any sort of investigation, swearing in witnesses, or issuing subpoenas, just as they have done the last 4 years. I don't mind a 1-2 seat Democratic Majority in 1 house with the Republicans holding the majority in the other house. Wouldn't mind that outcome at all. If I had to give up the White House in 2008 to get 1 house of Congress in 2006 so that the Democrats could get subpoena power, I'd do it. Just so that there is finally some sort of check on Mr. Bush's power, and tens of billions more dollars can't simply disappear like they have in Iraq.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 25, 2006 -> 01:07 AM) If the elections were held today, the GOP would lose five seats in the Senate. Not necessarily. Recent History shows the GOP has a strong trend of being able to pick up votes beyond where they're polling due entirely to turnout, driven by things like gay marriage amendments and so forth. Bush wound up quite a bit higher in the general than he was showing in many of the polls right before the election (albiet within the margin of error of most of them), the Dems have been showing leads in generic Congressional ballots since at least early 2004, etc.