Rex Kickass

If the Green Party wants to become a legitimate force in US politics, it needs to stop being a bunch of nutjobs. Their platform, and anyone that seriously thinks about moving further left of the Democrats would probably read it, calls for elimination of one of the houses of Congress. Although this is distasteful what is happening to Nader, it ain't illegal. It's not playing nice, but who in this race IS playing nice?

Here's the DJ telling you why its most likely nothing will change at ESPN 1000 over this little spat. You are talking about it and listening. Hell, this aint even new to Chicago - Lujack/Steve&Garry (and that one WAS real), Warren Freiberg/Steve&Garry just to name a couple. One of the places I used to work at, I would rip on the morning guy on my show and he would rip on me, the night guy. It's just the way this s*** works. If its real or not, but getting attention - Len Weiner is getting rewarded because its getting press and maybe some Score listeners might be drawn over to hear the noize. If this starts to go in a bad way, watch this calm down super fast.

Five dollars says the whole feud is faked. At least on the radio.

I think Bush would beat Lieberman in a walk.

Kap: a couple things here. Reaching out to the world community is what a lot of political thinkers who have studied how to fight non-governmental enemies say is the best defense against a war against terrorists. Bush and Kerry represent two different tacts of acheiving the same goal. Bush wants to "drain the swamp" so to speak. This has a lot of risks though, overextending your military, increasing anger towards the U.S. in a palpable, less latent and more active and violent form and diverting your own resources and ultimately running the risks of changing your way of life to preserve your way of life (e.g. reduction of civil liberties to protect freedom). Some of these have been fully realized and there is anecdotal evidence to support many of the risks this doctrine has. On the other hand, Kerry's approach is more moderate. Using force when necessary to protect the homeland and focusing on improving our image to the rest of the world. This has its risks too, namely that these actions could be seen as cultural imperialism, and that our intelligence may not be intelligent enough to protect our citizens - although that's a risk that the Bush administration's policy carries as well, however with our soldiers abroad and actively fighting, it makes them sadly a much more accessible target. The idea behind this approach is that if the United States is able to seem more even handed towards muslim relations (actual policy notwithstanding) the general Muslim street won't lean towards a jihadist point of view. Part of why the occupation in Germany post World War II was so peaceful was because the relationship between once the war was over, the Americans bombed them with butter. Doing the same here, and showing support for the people of states with humanitarian action and aid may stem the tide of terrorism as a viable force against western ideals. Secondly, although tax hikes are never fun, they are sometimes necessary. In fact, Reagan hiked taxes in his first and second term because it became apparent that the government could not cover the costs involved from his previous tax breaks. The Kerry administration has asked the wealthier members of our society to shoulder a burden equivalent to what they carried a couple years ago. He isn't advocating taxes for everyone - and to be honest, hes asking to tax himself more and not the middle class. In otherwords, he's asking rich Americans including himself to sacrifice in order to pay the bills for our security costs, both socially and politically. How is this irresponsible?

Thank goodness I read my local paper only :-P

Kap: Given that these flip-flops are actual policies, doesn't that trouble you some? Why would the President oppose an independent commission to investigate the terror attacks on our country? And when you ask the military to sacrifice in a way that nobody else has been asked to sacrifice since the 1970s, how can you justify cutting their benefits? How can you justify your support for Bush? You can also add Bush saying he won't play nuclear blackmail with the North Koreans and negotiate a nuke programs freeze a couple years ago and then coming to the table last month with a deal nearly identical to the one that the Clinton administration proposed in 1994 and the Bush administration scuttled in 2001-02?

Couple points to clear up. Edwards seat is not up for re-election. So the seat, like Kerry's this year - is safe for the Dems unless Kerry/Edwards is re-elected. Kerry is also a Junior Senator. Edwards won't get painted with the Quayle brush because Edwards is too smooth a public speaker. Its all about appearance, not about reality when it comes to media portrayal. For a lot of people the words Kerry and flip-flop are synonomous despite the fact that Bush flip flops just as much. Everybody quotes Gore as saying he invented the internet, although he never said that. I think there was a time when the media was biased, but I think that time is over. If anything, the media is starting to tilt more towards the right thanks to Fox News. Because they have been so successful in grabbing and keeping the red state 24/7 cable news watchers, many other news nets are doing all they can to out Fox Fox. Which is a shame, because it just makes for terrible news. To be honest, the best news coverage I ever had was when I had News World International and CNN International, which was more hard news focused - and less editorialization. Oh and for those of you who support "tort reform," why? Don't give me stupid hyperbole examples of the ridiculous occasional court case (the McDonalds coffee case, etc) because excess will happen with any reform. Do you think that people should have a legitimate shot at compensation for legitimate damages from companies? Or do you think that one side or the other should have an upper hand when going into a court situation?

Moore raises one key question: that of the fund raising and the redacted name on the released Bush national guard records in 2004. The connection seems eerie and worth investigating. If he's been relying on foreign government and Bin Laden family money all his life for his businesses, is this someone we'd want as president in the first place?

In fact I heard that the team slogan's changed to Losing is fun. Fun is losing! Its one series. You lose some. You win more.

Clutch hit to tie in the top of the 9th, and thats wanting to lose?

About exposing Obama's life. Ryan did hire a campaign aid to follow Obama with a video camera 24/7 for six weeks to capture anything that might be in the least incriminating. That is dirty pool. I don't support revealing divorce records. Private lives are private business as long as it just involves sex anyway... That being said, this scandal for Ryan seems like Karma biting him in the ass. Kerry has denied nothing in his divorce proceedings. He just said its none of your damn business. And he's right. And if Ryan had just said the same thing, he'd have been right too. Getting a hummer or shtupping the housekeeper is none of my damn business and none of yours either. It does not affect one bit how the elected office is run. In my opinion, the issues that matter more have to do with who funds and supports whom. To be quite honest, I think its more important to know who helped Dick Cheney in his energy task force draft policy affecting the industry rather than whether or not Candidate A schtupped someone other than his spouse. That's the kind of character that matters to me. Transparency is extremely important. On matters of policy and governance. Something our current administration hasn't been a big fan of being lately.

I'll give up a few stolen bases in exchange for a few more Wins from our rotation. Color me stupid, but wasn't the W column the most important in the standings?

Actually you cant f*** all the chickens you want. And if you do, I don't wanna know about it.

Being a gay guy who'd like to get married someday and have the same recognized legal rights as impotent heterosexual couples who can't bear children who decide to take the marriage rites, I think I'm voting for Kerry thanks.

History Lesson: France declared war on Germany first in 1939 as part of a mutual defense agreement with Poland. Germany followed suit. Actual battles in the war didn't really take place until early 1940. You have to have a threshhold of proof to take action against a specific person. To do otherwise goes against the basic fundamentals with which we build our society. If our way of life is so much better than theirs, why do we need to circumvent it to win? The answer is we don't need to. We are Americans and as such should hold ourselves up to a higher standard. A free society, is to a degree, a vulnerable one to unexpected attack. There are natural born risks to being free.

I think we might finally have the 5 starter albatross out from around our neck... two wins in a row from our number 5s.

How awesome is it that our next superstar is a closer?

But planes of that class, private non-commercial flights, were not. Clarke is a hero because he takes responsibility. Bush has not.

Dude. This was a vague, unspecified threat... and its authenticity has not been verified. That's like arresting the city of Chicago because you hear one dude might be thinking about making an attack.

what the f***, bash garland - when he's given up 3 hits? He made one mistake and left one hanging to a guy who hasnt hit a homer all year. Maybe if we could catch a fly ball, it'd still be tied.

France fought with us in Afghanistan. They're still there.

I just want to know where these people who b**** about a private citizen complaining loudly about the Bush administration were five and six years ago when the Republican leadership couldn't stop complaining about our missions in Kosovo and Bosnia. All the while trying to impeach the man for getting a hummer in the White House from someone other than his wife. That's the definition of irresponsibility. This is a private citizen concerned about the direction of our country. A concern worth sharing. He may be an extreme voice, but he has a point.

Some people say that Paul Simon's office is the one that's responsible for the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas controversy. Just sayin.

Go watch Fox News then. There was five minutes of whining this morning about how Al Gore dares to criticize the president on such an important issue as terrorism... from the anchors. Fair and Balanced my ass.