birdog1960

wishful thinking. wilson knew exactly what he was getting with nix... a company guy. what i can't understand is why so many fan's here share the company guy mentality for a company that has abused them for the better part of 50 years.

don't you think your blame is a little displaced? nix said poz was a priority. the blame lies with him and wilson for creating an environment no one wants to remain in and for being unwilling to match offers.

wow! how did boner get to where he is? the guy just screams sleazeball every time he opens his mouth or shows any body language. i wouldn't buy a craftsman screwdriver from him. and before you start, i have never been enamored with pelosi either. the recent "leadership" leaves much to be desired.

ah, but do they really? any compelling data to support this contention?

taking your argument to it's natural conclusion, we could balance the budget with no taxes at all. but then we could all do without sewers and roads and police and... brilliant! why hasn't anyone thought of this before?

5600 hits (so far) say otherwise.

for folks who pretend not to care about top free agent signings there is a lot of interest in this thread. Why is that? could it be that even the apologists really would love for there to be some top free agent signings? stop deluding yourselves. if the bills signed one or two of the top free agents this board would be ecstatic.

"free agency to me should be middle priced to below priced guys...." - nix, 2010. sounds like 60-100 to me.

but wouldn't it be nice one season for the press to be speculating that the bills were going after 2 or 3 top free agents with names attached rather than this. brown could well be wrong but would anyone here bet against him on an even odds bet?

right wing extremist aren't one thing but i'll bet a psychological caricature would include characteristics such as angry, unfulfilled, insecure, discontent, egocentric, uncompassionate, selfish, prone to unstable relationships and abusive. but maybe not. just a guess.

the show is pretty bad now. gregory is no russert. i still tivo it but usually delete after scanning 10 minutes of it.

nothing redux it appears the justice dept and murdoch's lawyers disagree with you. no, i don't accept corporate spying on individuals and bribing of law enforcement as "the world the way it is" and how it must be. if you do, then your expectations are far too low. and once again the gender identification of political affiliation? is that really the best you can do?

1st week with a newly titled concept? you've been throwing it around like "the". in this case you're wrong. i did refute her arguments while simultaneousy criticizing her writing. not ad hominem in my logic book. and your refuting my posts by insuting me would be as elegant as any of the other weak arguments you've tried in this thread.

moral relativism at it's worst. one wrong isn't as bad as another. everyone else does it so it's ok. he couldn't have known about it. isolated incident at one small part of his empire (we'll see). that's the essence of this weak argument, right. it shouldn't have taken a full page to communicate it. but it is ann coulter. i'd never accuse her of being concise or for that matter, thoughtful.

it doesn't? you need a new handbook. they may take your card away.

finally, a single voice of reason. i guess if you tell yourself something repetitively enough it becomes true. and rob, not all liberals share all beliefs. i'm sure lybob and i have philosophical disagreements. perhaps even on the question of moral relativism that you brought up. i think it's the ultimate slippery slope and of great danger and importance. um, what did you mean then? i thought you find little wrong with newscorp's actions. isn't that what we've been debating.

is not the origin for the term "liberty"? does a corp with or without govt assistance invading your privacy constitute an attack on your liberty? a major thesis of the belief is non interference is it not? is there somewhere in your handbook that says "only govt interference" is a threat?

so it's ok for a corp to invade your privacy with the help of a bribed govt official? how bout without the help of a bribed govt official? it's better to lose your privacy to a corp than the govt? just stop. you look more ridiculous with every post.

you know i'm really starting to sympathize with d/c using the "i" word so often. if you think it's ok to bribe cops (or for them to accept bribes) in any instance, we have nothing further to discuss. and i didn't change the subject. the phone hacking was included in my AP citation which you undoubtedly didn't bother to read carefully. finally, do you not think liberty and privacy are linked?

it's because it's illegal and unethical. there are also contentions of phone hacking in the us (it seems they are confirmed in the uk). aren't you a libertarian? is phone hacking from a news co ok with you? how bout from the govt?

specifically, what is inaccurate? now, you do some quoting. and reading al jazeera isn't the same as watching fox news and not expecting a possible saudi princes influence.

did you even read the article? that's why i didn't initially go to the trouble. fbi investigating newscorp bribing police for info on 9/11 victims. and i'm certainly not searching posts lookiong for anti islam sentiments. there have been plenty and anyonre reading this forum is well aware. if you haven't directly been critical you certainly haven't vehemently refuted those who have.

10 arrested, bribery of police including high rsnking police, allegations of undue influence on the pm and possible hacking of 9/11 victims phones...where there's smoke (especially this much billowing smoke) there's usually fire. ask yourselve's how forgiving you'd be if these allegations were made against george soros. if you are the least bit honest, you'd want his head on a pike. and then there's the 7% of the co owned by a saudi sheik. how does the thought of a muslim coloring your news strike those of you who have quite loudly condemned that religon, sit with you?

nothing