LowerCaseRepublican

Woo! Tie game (again)

Goodwin comes in and goes to sit back down on his ass. He gawn!

Hollandsworth is done for the day. Here comes Goodwin. Unfortunate to see an injury but it looks like Todd is alright.

Hollandsworth fouls one right off the knee and he's down.

Sosa 2 run shot. 4-3 Flubs.

Erase Patterson! Woo!

Loaiza walked Corey Patterson. There's a drinking game to keep even the lightest of lightweights sober...Drink whenever Patterson walks.

ARow with the nice gapper 2B!

Miguel Olivo! I f***ing love you!

Crede K's. 1 down.

Woo. Timo catches the routine fly. 2-2 going to the bottom of the 2nd.

Tie game. 2 out. Runners on the corners.

Obama should just start forwarding his mail to Washington as we speak. Before the scandal he was already running a 20%+ lead in the polls. Jim Edgar is one of the people the GOP wants to ask but he doesn't want to do it supposedly. Anybody they pick is at a big disadvantage because they have to start a shortened campaign and Obama is already kicking their ass in the polls.

You mean Cheney got kid gloves on Fox News? Color me surprised. And Cavuto knows all about using name calling to advance an argument. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82504,00.html So am I slanted and biased? You damn well bet, professor. - Neil Cavuto

When a candidate (or party) runs on moral purity and creates the idea that the opposition is a group of cultural hedonists, then it is most appropriate for items like Neil Bush getting herpes in Hong Kong in his orgy romps with prostitutes while married etc. When the GOP demands that they want to "protect the sanctity of marriage", they should look no further than Rush Limbaugh or Newt Gingrich etc. etc. etc. ad nauseaum.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...o_ec_fi/economy

Wino has it right. Most countries like Spain actually wanna take the battle to where the terrorists actually are (i.e. Afghanistan) rather than create a whole new hornet's nest for the creation of more terrorists for no reason except oil control. (Read PNAC's 1997 statement of goals and how it declares we need to topple Iraq for control of their oil fields. Then read the membership of PNAC and you'll see that it falls conveniently with a lot of members of the current administration.) Most countries are not as stupid as the American public.

Doing against the President is not doing against the country, necessarily. One only owes allegiance to the President to the point where he leads the country beneficially. The vast majority of his actions as I've documented in this thread and others show that he is not leading the country in a good way for the majority of people. The FBI has not interviewed the bin Ladens. When there is a murder, the family usually gets put under the microscope. 3000+ were murdered and there was no investigation of the family. It was a slap in the face to protocol because of the close relationship. That's what his outrage is about. They have not been investigated in the slightest for possibly having ties to him. In fact, executive order signed by Bush # W199I stopped all FBI investigation into the bin Laden family before 9/11 when the FBI was interested in researching possible ties some of the family may still have with him and the AQ network. W199I effectively quashed any of that. http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html#w199i is a site with a lot of links discussing the frustration of FBI agents that W199I tied their hands from investigating. That's what Moore's outrage is about and given the result of W199I, he's more than justified. And hey, I didn't hear so much yelling about not having dissent against the President when media were written lambasting Clinton for his extra-curricular activities when we had troops in Yugoslavia. Bush is an idiot and is being played by Cheney/Rove for political ends because he has a recognizable last name for the GOP. If you read any books by those who have come out as members of the administration, you see that Cheney is the one who really does a lot of the work and George sits there. There's a lot of books that show numerous examples of this like "Against All Enemies" and "Worse than Watergate" (which has stories from O'Neill and Clarke among other Bush admin. members in it)

Wow, who would have thought that being unemployed would have its huge benefits? All 3 games of baseball for me with plenty of beer and snacks. Huzzah! Let's go White Sox!

MrEye, we do need the world's support if we are to "eradicate terrorism" (which is already an insane proposition -- "Alright, we got them. Everybody loves us again." It's like having a war on jealousy) When the rest of the world hates Bush, it stunts a broad coalition to deal with the problems we face and makes countries less than apt to help us out. Hence, world opinion of our leader and government is pretty damn important.

Nuke, SpinSanity nails everybody. It was the site I sent you when Dean was being a douche. But way to disregard the fact that Cheney lied like a douche to the nation and you just swallow it.

PA, 15% cut in Pentagon budget would fund all social programs adequately and keep our defenses more than funded. Also, things like reprimanding Boykin etc. don't cost money and are a good move to make.

To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. --Theodore Roosevelt, 1918 And using resources to push political views on people...Would that be having the Secret Service create free speech zones to remove protesters to far away areas during taxpayer subsidized campaign stops? (Bush has done on numerous occassions. He's said they are official Presidential stops and end up being campaign fundraisers. John and Jane Q. Public pay for his transportation there too when that should be taken out of his election campaign coffers.) Would that be "Americans need to watch what they say and watch what they do" according to Ari Fleischer's analysis of legal dissent against the Bush administration? Would that be ramming through the PATRIOT Act after 9/11 when even Justice Dept. officials said that they had been going for these extra-Constitutional abilities for years but were never given them because they were so "odious to democracy"? Would that be saying that anybody questioning the intent of the Bushies would be aiding the terrorists? "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, your tactics only aid terrorists." - John Ashcroft -or- "You're either with us or against us." - George W. Bush Would that be outing a CIA agent's identity in reponse to her husband exposing the lies to begin a war in Iraq? Would that be tons of phone calls during the 2000 election asking questions like "If John McCain had an illegitimate black child, would you be more or less likely to vote for him?" in states like N. Carolina? (Rove actually had that done to lower McCain's poll #s)

Juggs, in the past the majority of Americans did not favor voting rights for African Americans, women etc. etc. etc. That doesn't mean they were right. Bush may favor pro-life stances but that doesn't stop him from murdering the fetus after it grows up (i.e. capital punishment) As Bill Hicks says, "If you're for the sanctity of life then you're for it for people of all ages. If not, then shut the f*** up."

http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2004_0...780918427108137 SpinSanity is a site that tears apart anything stated by any party. Here's a part of the article: But the administration in fact did suggest that Iraq might be linked to 9/11. Vice President Cheney left open the possibility that Iraq was involved with September 11 on several occasions, most recently last week. During his June 17 CNBC appearance, host Gloria Borger asked, "Was Iraq involved [with Al Qaeda in the attack on 9/11]?" Cheney responded, "We don't know. You know, what the commission says is they can't find any evidence of that." It’s the same line Cheney has been taking since major combat operations ended. During a September 14, 2003 interview on NBC’s "Meet the Press," host Tim Russert asked Cheney, "Is there a connection [between Iraq and Al Qaeda]?" The Vice President responded, "We don’t know," and then listed heavily disputed evidence indicating that it was a possibility. In addition, the administration repeatedly made strategically ambiguous statements implying a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. During the CNBC interview, Cheney also dissembled in the following exchange about Mohammed Atta, an Al Qaeda member who was allegedly involved in the September 11 attacks (a witness claimed that Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in the spring of 2001, a heavily disputed assertion that the FBI and CIA have questioned): BORGER: Well, let's get to Mohamed Atta for a minute because you mentioned him as well. You have said in the past that it was, quote, "pretty well confirmed." CHENEY: No, I never said that. BORGER: OK. CHENEY: I never said that. BORGER: I think that is... CHENEY: Absolutely not. What I said was the Czech intelligence service reported after 9/11 that Atta had been in Prague on April 9 of 2001, where he allegedly met with an Iraqi intelligence official. We have never been able to confirm that nor have we been able to knock it down, we just don't know. But as a White House transcript demonstrates, Cheney said in a December 9, 2001 interview on "Meet the Press" that, "Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that [Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack." (our emphasis) Before it continues accusing others of misrepresenting the Commisson staff’s statements and revising the history of its case for war in Iraq, the Bush White House should engage in some self-examination. As John Stewart said on the Daily Show, "Mr. Vice President, I must inform you. Your pants are on fire."