Texsox

Are all entertainers considered part of the Hollywood set, or only Movie types? I thought the entertainment elite was Rush, Hannity, Savage, Ingram, etc. They totally dominate radio with the GOP Radio Network.

But you are taking it one step too far. Your vote is to decide which candidate Illinois wants for President. Your vote mattered, your vote did count, you just lost. You are voting in the Illinois election for President.

The original framers would want you to be thinking you are helping to determine which candidate your *state* would like to see as President. Later, it would be, did your state's candidate get elected?

The original framers of the constitution needed a way for the states to get together and elect someone to oversee the states. At the time, we were going to be a group of states united together, not individual Americans who happen to live in a given state. Look at our name: United *States* of America. States first, America second. Put another way, you were first a citizen of Boston, then a citizen of the US. Now, in reality we think of ourselves as Americans first, who happen to live in Boston, but could just as easily be living in New York. Taken into that context, smaller states prefered one state, one vote. This was, like many things, a compromise. But at all times, it was the states getting together and electing the President. It was not about citizens electing a President. We have ceded many state strengths to the Federal Government, and have created a bigger, bulkier, and more powerful Federal Government than the original framers could have envisioned. Would they have made changes if they could have seen 200 years into the future? I doubt it, too many conflicting interests from small and big states.

Call up foreign banks and line up another trillion in financing . . .

When the constitution was written, the desire was for strong state rights. Basically the states are getting together and electing a leader. It makes sense in that context. After all we are the United *States* of America. It is more than a name, it describes our government.

Even if you do not shop at Walmart, thank them when some store takes back anything at anytime for any reason. That was a Wally World cornerstone and everyone had to follow.

http://georgewbush.org/ Great updates to the site.

I think this is the one step forward, two steps back problem. It seems to a civilian to be a problem to let any munitions fall in the enemy hands. I wonder how many lives were lost to these weapons. Supporting our Troops would seem to me to involve protecting them from weapons we had in our command and control. One of the justifications we used to enter this war was If Sadaam did destroy his WMD, why didn't they document it? Now we find out we may have committed the same mistake.

It depends on if you believe elected officials should do what their constituents want done. If you believe the elected official should not take into consideration the beliefs of the people who elected them, then no, he shouldn't have polled. If you think they should find out what the American people want, then a poll may be helpful. What is interesting is the human rights violations were not front and center of Powell's appeal to the UN, and the adminstration's justification of going to war. It was about 45 seconds in an hour long appeal, and near the end. Speech here The issues in the Sudan have been going on for years. Researching the history will show that if Clinton wasn't busy defining what "sex" is and isn't, he should have done something then. Sudan was an issue then as well. Before someone starts the "support our troops" argument about criticizing our waging war, let me ask. If you care how we spend our tax money, shouldn't we also care, even more so, how we spend a more precious commodity, the lives of our troops? You want a tax cut? How about supporting a death cut? How about supporting a reduction in the number of young men and women who are being killed in Iraq?

The world disputed the WMD. Years of UN weapons inspections that turned up nothing supported it. The CIA, when they gave the information to the President, hedged and said the information wasn't verified. Then Bush ran with it, send Powell to the UN with it, and then started spinning after non were found. The human rights argument fails when one considers the abuses in the Sudan involve far more humans, and far more brutality. Bush sold the war onm making America safer. That Iraq posessed WMD and were an immediate threat. Many people believed the President, just as many believed the past President when he said he did not have *sex* with that woman.

I think it is a great idea. I have mentioned it through the various channels. I also wanted to start a guest moderator program to allow some people who are busy to jump in for a month or so and put their touch on a given forum. I have been involved in many real world projects and organizations that run on volunteer labor. The fairest way for the organization and volunteer is a time limit on their involvement. It makes it easy for both parties to exit without hurt feelings.

There are GOP and DEM election judges following closely the main voting on Tuesday. For the most part, our elections are basically honest, with occassional corruption and illegal activities. On the national scale, I do not see someone being able to steal an election.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1334724,00.html

IIRC the experts were saying Iraq had no WMD, it was the White House who used admittedly faulty and not fully verified information to sell the nation on this war.

He's the Commander in Chief and has stated in many election speeches that he is the best man to run the military. We keep hearing how the military was in chambles during the Clinton era, low moral, under funded, poor disciplin. I wonder how long that takes to change? If prison abuse, sham medals, unlimited budgets, and poor decisions are what makes our military happy, we have big problems there.

Another, I'm going to hell moment

Dammit now I have this song stuck in my head It's a nasty mix of Stevie Nix/Fleetwood Mac and Natalie from the Dixie Chicks singing and they morph into Bush in a dress

All this coughing, I thought I was in the emphysema ward cough whatboyswant cough

Let me put this into persepective as an out of towner. I went into the local Lids store and picked up a new Sox cap. They had one choice and 6 in stock. In the previous 8 months the manager told me they sold 3 Sox caps and "dozens and dozens" of Cub caps. Check MLB merchandizing sales and with the exception of the years when "black was hip, gangster style" the Sox are never near the top. We do not have the fan base of the Cubs, Giants, Red Sox, etc.

Spoken like a Sox fan. Losing in the LCS is "on top" Since he began pitching closer to home for me, I have found a new respect for the man. Houston is the "home team" on my cable package and I did scan the starters and tried to see the games he was involved in. Guys like Clemans and Randy Johnson are redefining the length of a pro athletes career.

When ever I see President George W. Bush on TV, I picture him in a dress and red hair.

Only if you die before 2007 is it a once in a lifetime The once in a lifetime event last night was the Red Sox A never in my lifetime will be the ScRubs

That is one of the reasons his site has received high marks for being balanced and fair. No editoralizing, just links and an occassional story. Even Dems like it.