Rex Kickass

Remember Fretblanket?

But you seem to believe the exact opposite about Dems.

WOW! Nice reference! I hardly remember that "hit."

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 01:14 PM) Blanco is probably out but I think Nagin has done jsut enough pandering to the black community there to save his job ( think chocolate city ). Except few of them are actually moving back.

The last thing they did as a band was the Drew Carey theme song.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 01:24 PM) Jim Cramer, a couple of weeks ago, had a good point on stocks like this. Avoid the momentum plays that are getting beat up and avoid the controversial stocks ( google, apple etc...etc...) and stick with whats working. ( Oils, aerospace, transports ( ex-airlines) etc...) Common sense maybe but then theres nothing common about it. Why is Apple controversial? Skyrocketing sales, zero debt, huge cash reserves? When it was down at like 13 dollars a share and everyone was writing them off as dead, it didn't make sense because they had a billion cash and no debt....

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.

If I had some money to invest right now, it'd be firmly on shorting Google. Remember when Yahoo was 300 dollars a share?

You're right. It's the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. I read the article wrong - it said that Abramoff had previously claimed an invitation to Crawford. However the article did say there was no more than two dozen people there when that picture was taken.

I'm not defending Carter. I think what he did was wrong, even if it was found to be legal in court. But if it was wrong for Carter to do it for two people who were spies, its wrong for Bush to do it for several hundred suspected people of interest and determined by an NSA shift supervisor and to do it in flagrant disrepect for FISA law. Really wrong.

Except that picture is taken from George Bush's ranch, not the White House. And there were approximately 20 people at the event.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 12, 2006 -> 11:17 PM) 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@!#%#!!!! 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.

Another worthless poll: http://www.abanews.org/releases/news021006.html

JFK, in my opinion, is a bottom five president. Horrible foreign policy, wiretapped MLK, no good economic policy. Just a failure all around. But he talked a good game.

Text of editorial to follow, with lots of partisan fighting beyond that and at least one reference to the newspaper as the New York Slimes and somehow Bill Clinton will get blamed for it or there will be a moral equivalency on the part of someone to some other President Democrat or Republican. Oh yeah and allegations of a liberal media as well. However, I think this is a good synopsis of the serious issues that a lot of people have regarding this President regardless of how anyone feels about any particular situation. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/12/opinion/...serland&emc=rss

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 12, 2006 -> 10:53 AM) If there is a program that a person qualifies for and someone encourages them to sign up of it, is it the requirements that are wrong, or the person who encourages them? Colleges and Universities have entire depapartments to help students find money for college which then is paid to the University. Are they wrong? There are programs for the working poor, why shouldn't employers publize those programs? Using your example, and I'm not certain this is accurate, but couldn't WalMart call 28 hours part time and offer no benefits? Would that be better? I think giving people the choice is better, don't you? I'd love a 28 hour work week.

18" in Jersey today. Drove to work in my Scion xB on an unplowed highway for 35 miles.

I'm not sure what I think about this. Anchorman meets Cannonball Run meets Dodgeball? I'm a little scared.

JFK, could arguably be in both polls.

Here I was thinking it was a play on the word Giant. But who knows?

QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 12, 2006 -> 08:09 AM) He brought it up to make a point. It's nothing that hasn't been done by the liberal faction of this board. Nobody said it was right Yas. But, it was legal at the time. FISA changed that. So tell me, since you seem to be all about moral equivalency here, which is worse - doing something wrong that's legal? or doing something wrong and breaking a law to do it?

I also agree. I think 30 years from now, we'll look back on some of the more recent administrations and realize that they haven't been as good or as bad as we thought.

Correct.