samclemens

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 22, 2006 -> 10:16 AM) You're right about the Beach Boys ommision. Pet Sounds should be there. man, you are so right you dont even know. pet sounds is, IMO, the best album of all time (screw gross sales or whatever statistics have you). feel flows is my favorite song on that album.

hey if anyone likes good horror flicks, see a british movie called "Creep". its f***ing great, i just watched it. it also scared the s*** out of my girlfriend and probably played a large part in me getting served earlier tonight.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jan 22, 2006 -> 12:37 PM) From TIME Magazine.... When George Met Jack White House aides deny the President knew lobbyist Abramoff, but unpublished photos shown to TIME suggest there's more to the story By ADAM ZAGORIN AND MIKE ALLEN Posted Sunday, Jan. 22, 2006 As details poured out about the illegal and unseemly activities of Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, White House officials sought to portray the scandal as a Capitol Hill affair with little relevance to them. Peppered for days with questions about Abramoff's visits to the White House, press secretary Scott McClellan said the now disgraced lobbyist had attended two huge holiday receptions and a few "staff-level meetings" that were not worth describing further. "The President does not know him, nor does the President recall ever meeting him," McClellan said. The President's memory may soon be unhappily refreshed. TIME has seen five photographs of Abramoff and the President that suggest a level of contact between them that Bush's aides have downplayed. While TIME's source refused to provide the pictures for publication, they are likely to see the light of day eventually because celebrity tabloids are on the prowl for them. And that has been a fear of the Bush team's for the past several months: that a picture of the President with the admitted felon could become the iconic image of direct presidential involvement in a burgeoning corruption scandal—like the shots of President Bill Clinton at White House coffees for campaign contributors in the mid-1990s. In one shot that TIME saw, Bush appears with Abramoff, several unidentified people and Raul Garza Sr., a Texan Abramoff represented who was then chairman of the Kickapoo Indians, which owned a casino in southern Texas. Garza, who is wearing jeans and a bolo tie in the picture, told TIME that Bush greeted him as "Jefe," or "chief" in Spanish. Another photo shows Bush shaking hands with Abramoff in front of a window and a blue drape. The shot bears Bush's signature, perhaps made by a machine. Three other photos are of Bush, Abramoff and, in each view, one of the lobbyist's sons (three of his five children are boys). A sixth picture shows several Abramoff children with Bush and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, who is now pushing to tighten lobbying laws after declining to do so last year when the scandal was in its early stages. Most of the pictures have the formal look of photos taken at presidential receptions. The images of Bush, Abramoff and one of his sons appear to be the rapid-fire shots—known in White House parlance as clicks—that the President snaps with top supporters before taking the podium at fund-raising receptions. Over five years, Bush has posed for tens of thousands of such shots—many with people he does not know. Last month 9,500 people attended holiday receptions at the White House, and most went two by two through a line for a photo with the President and the First Lady. The White House is generous about providing copies—in some cases, signed by the President—that become centerpieces for "walls of fame" throughout status-conscious Washington. Abramoff knew the game. In a 2001 e-mail to a lawyer for tribal leader Lovelin Poncho, he crows about an upcoming meeting at the White House that he had arranged for Poncho and says it should be a priceless asset in his client's upcoming re-election campaign as chief of Louisiana's Coushatta Indians. "By all means mention (in the tribal newsletter) that the Chief is being asked to confer with the President and is coming to Washington for this purpose in May," Abramoff writes. "We'll definitely have a photo from the opportunity, which he can use." The lawyer had asked about attire, and Abramoff advises, "As to dress, probably suit and tie would work best." The e-mail, now part of a wide-ranging federal investigation into lobbying practices and lobbyists' relationships with members of Congress, offers a window into Abramoff's willingness to trade on ties to the White House and to invoke Bush's name to impress clients who were spending tens of millions of dollars on Abramoff's advice. Abramoff was once in better graces at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, having raised at least $100,000 for the President's re-election campaign. During 2001 and 2002, his support for Republicans and connections to the White House won him invitations to Hanukkah receptions, each attended by 400 to 500 people. McClellan has said Abramoff may have been present at "other widely attended" events. He was also admitted to the White House complex for meetings with several staff members, including one with presidential senior adviser Karl Rove, one of the most coveted invitations in Washington. Michael Scanlon, who is Abramoff's former partner and has pleaded guilty to conspiring to bribe a Congressman, in 2001 told the New Times of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., that Abramoff had "a relationship" with the President. "He doesn't have a bat phone or anything, but if he wanted an appointment, he would have one," Scanlon said. Nonsense, say others. A former White House official familiar with some Abramoff requests to the White House said Abramoff had some meetings with Administration officials in 2001 and 2002, but he was later frozen out because aides became suspicious of his funding sources and annoyed that the issues he raised did not mesh with their agenda. A top Republican official said it was clear to him that Abramoff couldn't pick up the phone and reach Bush aides because Abramoff had asked the official to serve as an intermediary. The White House describes the number of Abramoff's meetings with staff members only as "a few," even though senior Bush aides have precise data about them. McClellan will not give details, saying he doesn't "get into discussing staff-level meetings." During a televised briefing, he added, "We're not going to engage in a fishing expedition." Pressed for particulars about Abramoff's White House contacts, McClellan said with brio, "People are insinuating things based on no evidence whatsoever." But he said he cannot "say with absolute certainty that (Abramoff) did not have any other visits" apart from those disclosed. Another White House official said, "The decision was made—don't put out any additional information." That reticence has been eagerly seized upon by some Democrats. Senate minority leader Harry Reid of Nevada wrote to Bush last week to demand details, saying Abramoff "may have had undue and improper influence within your Administration." Garza, the bolo-wearing former chairman of the Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas, has fond memories of his session with Bush, which he said was held in 2001 in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, next to the White House. According to e-mails in the hands of investigators, the meeting was arranged with the help of Abramoff and Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. In an April 18, 2001, e-mail to Abramoff, Norquist wrote that he would be "honored" if Abramoff "could come to the White House meeting." Garza—known in his native Kickapoo language as Makateonenodua, or black buffalo—is under federal indictment for allegedly embezzling more than $300,000 from his tribe. Through his spokesman, Garza said that during the session, Bush talked about policy matters and thanked those present for supporting his agenda, then took questions from the audience of about two dozen people. Garza told TIME, "We were very happy that Jack Abramoff helped us to be with the President. Bush was in a very good mood—very upbeat and positive." No evidence has emerged that the Bush Administration has done anything for the Kickapoo at Abramoff's behest. Three attendees who spoke to TIME recall that Abramoff was present, and three of them say that's where the picture of Bush, Abramoff and the former Kickapoo chairman was taken. The White House has a different description of the event Garza attended. "The President stopped by a meeting with 21 state legislators and two tribal leaders," spokeswoman Erin Healy said. "Available records show that Mr. Abramoff was not in attendance." i trust your source 100% because time magazine is a top notch magazine that i run to for politico news. screw The Economist, time is where it's at!

my uneduacted guess: no poisoning took place. this happens sometimes. this was not brought on by terrorists, just some s***ty water.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 12:27 AM) Something tells me your definition of "promoting" homosexuality is different than the people who accuse folks of "promoting" homosexuality. But I'm sick of people who seem to think that there's some form of PR war going on waged on behalf of the gay community. Yes, gay people have a community but they're also people first and foremost. And before anyone throws a gay pride parade up as a counterpoint - does that mean that the Irish are just as bad for a St. Patrick's Day parade, or the Poles on Casimir Pulaski Day? so what is your suggestion as to a solution? let anything go on tv regarless of what market a network is targeting, or censor the hell out of everything? or is your solution somewhere in between? im just wondering what you propose, cause it bothers me when people complain when they have no constructive advice

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 22, 2006 -> 06:45 PM) Note: Only responses from the participants should be posted here. The first round question is: Using our tax dollars, Local, State, and National governments support the arts through grants, public art projects, and other expenditures. With rising government debt, is this a good use of tax dollars, who should decide what projects get funding, and under what criteria? shoot, i guess i'll jump off. generally, i am against spending too many tax dollars on promotion of the arts. that said, that arts are not something to be taken lightly. they are indeed important for cultural reasons. with rising costs in other areas (for example, the creation of an entire new defense department, Homeland Security), i would imagine artistic funding has taken a hit. no facts to back that up, but its probably safe to assume, since the focus of the country is on anything but the arts. so the real question is whether or not cutting arts funding is warranted in light of issues and events related to, say, 9/11. [does anyone know where i could get info on the amount of arts funding year-by-year, just to check?] these are times that demand sacrifice. some areas of funding have to take cuts to support other areas that, quite frankly, are more important. do i advocate deeply slashing arts funding? no. would i feel bad if a few hundred government funded artists lost their funding and had to start teaching high school art or start selling their work to private collectors/galleries so that we can put more money into, say, border security (for example, to construct a large, barbed-wired, heavily military-guarded wall along the entire mexican border) or some other need that can be agreed on as essential by the majority of the country? hell no.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 22, 2006 -> 08:19 PM) So gay people winning a contest is promotion of homosexuality? Wow. that isnt what i meant, but hey man, your perception is your reality. what can i do? if you want to see homophobia, you'll see it.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 22, 2006 -> 05:40 AM) Most Dems don't like Hillary because she's the only smart one of the bunch and is trying to "center" herself. That's what scares me. As soon as that b**** takes office, she be so left she won't be able to find her right hand. that was perfectly worded

hell, i'll give it a try

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jan 7, 2006 -> 12:31 PM) Ok. Keep your blinders on. he made a good point. its one thing to oppose this administration, which is fine, but when you blame the president personally for everything corrupt in politics...give me a break man. what do you have to say about abramoff's dealings with the dem minority speaker, byron dorgan, who released an almost identical statement in regards to abramoff's large contributions to his campaign? politics are corrupt...and blaming the president for everything is an excuse to not analyze situations, its an easy way out. edit: doragn is a senator, not a house member. sorry.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 22, 2006 -> 10:35 AM) I'm not lamenting the loss of yet another crappy reality show, but this decision is more than rejecting a sit-com pilot episode. The whole season was in the can in this case as far as I understand, and it was the fact that in the end the gay couple won that may be at the heart of the controversy. Disney, despite being pretty gay friendly as far as extending employee benefits to domestic partners, has a history of caving to the religious right in situations like this. I'd not be surprised to learn that they did it again here. if by "religious right" you mean the average american family that has a husband, wife, and at least one child, then yes, Disney panders to the "religious right" a.k.a. average american families, most of who do not favor homosexuality being taught and/or promoted to their children (and you cannot deny that this is a majority). Just like ESPN targets 18-40 males. Just like the Oxygen channal targets women. Same thing.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Jan 21, 2006 -> 06:02 PM) Well when that guy gets out of jail he will have a new respect for victims of sexual assault as I am sure that many many inmates "turned that trick out". yeah, hes probably getting pounded as we speak. sexual offenders are usually the bottom of the totem poll in prison (except for cops- unless they can stand up for themselves). seriously, im not suprised. this stuff has been all over the web since before i was ever on the web. its part of that f***er matt hale's rise (he was somewhat popular for a while). there's everything on the web. its 2006. if anything, i would be most suprised if anything shocking or offensive that you can think of would NOT be on the web.

hooray for enrique. i live in MI.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 22, 2006 -> 02:11 AM) No, I'm sure the show sucked as well. But that is coming from a person who has never watched a single entire episode of ANY "reality show" ever, because they all suck by definition. At the same time, ABC has never been one to decide not to air something just because it sucked. If they did that there would be a lot of dead air on ABC. networks reject pilots all the time. just because there happened to be gays in it does not mean that it should have been on the air. this is typical, oversensitive liberal-style complaining. after that show will and grace, how many gay sitcoms do you think were pitched to every network? and they all got rejected, cause i never see them on. in conclusion, honestly, who cares?

that f***er lindh can eat s*** and die. my only hope is that they dont put him in solitary- throw him in the general population of a max security prison, that will show his skinny white ass what lifes all about. lindh will wish he was hung after about five minutes in general pop. maz security prison. This post has been edited by the Soxtalk staff to remove objectionable material. Soxtalk encourages a free discussion between its members, but does not allow personal attacks, threats, graphic sexual material, nudity, or any other materials judged offensive by the Administrators and Moderators. Thank you.

grey puopon and wine- thats all that damn country is good for. certainly not security or war issues. chirac is attempting to capitalize on the xenophobia that is still prevalent in france due to those muslim riots. too late, chirac, you are going to lose badly in the next election, and sarkozy is going to take over. sarko is claiming to be much more pro-america than chirac and will hopefully get france off of the track to pure communism (they cant get much closer, socialist bastards)

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 04:18 PM) Kind of like the other Democrat who was also vilified for, oh my gosh, agreeing WITH Bush on how to fight the war on terror. He retired, but I wish he would have run for re-election, just to see how hard the Dems would have fought to replace him. Democrats like him,Reagan Dems, are presently Repubs because their former party does not stand for what it used to stand for. are you referring to kerry? kerry didnt retire as far as i know. who are you talking about? if its kerry, he wasnt attacked for agreeing with the war on terror, kerry was a huge flip-flopper- thats what did him in.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 02:13 AM) Lieberman isn't a moderate. He's a sellout. It's one of the way parties encourage discipline. It's why people like Lincoln Chafee has a primary contender, why Arlen Specter had a primary contender. If you stray off the reservation too often and too far, you can't expect the rank and file to stay with you. lieberman isnt a sellout. he's an independent dem- nothing wrong with that. hes somewhate comparable to leahy, for example (another independent dem). his constituents elected him, and there he is. if he's defeated in the next election, only then can you say he has been "off the reservation" for too long.

QUOTE(sox-r-us @ Jan 19, 2006 -> 07:45 PM) TRADE FOR VINNY FOCKING CASTILLA wasnt there people screaming for that terrible trade ages ago?? thank god your suggestion is in green as well. :puke edit: it wasnt. i hope you arent serious.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Jan 19, 2006 -> 12:27 PM) well, Im glad that was in green. me too (seriously, thank god)

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Jan 19, 2006 -> 01:39 PM) In the eyes of the US government, you can't be a dual citizen. Venezuela, on the other hand, may not mind. yes, you can be a dual citizen in the eyes of the US government. i know several dual citizens. where did you hear this?

This will make the WBC much more interesting. I hope the US, at some point, squares off against Cuba (and that we win, of course). If the WBC had kept Cuba out, it would have sunk the entire tournament.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Jan 16, 2006 -> 12:30 PM) If the Sox stole Prior from the O's, i think Cubdom(dumb-dedum-dumb) would have a mass suicide. That would be the ultimate stick in the eye if the Cubs had to face Prior in the crosstown classic. i would prefer to keep cotts and whomever else would have been blocked off for prior. i think hes extremely overrated, and hes never pitched in he american league before.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Jan 16, 2006 -> 03:52 PM) Point taken, but what does that have to do with Bill Clinton? I'm not making fun of some guy from Indian for worshiping a cow, I'm finding it gross that a guy from Arkansas ate raccoon. That's freaking gross, no matter how "ignorant" I am for saying it. exactly. in relation to the rest of the US, it is pretty backward to eat a raccoon for political reasons. you suck, clinton!

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 15, 2006 -> 03:57 PM) That's right people. Show your ignorance. :headshake a shade oversensitive are we?