Mickey

Lets see, you have 10,000+ posts but you have no time to post an opinion in a thread you started and are clearly monitoring? I note that you have 4,000 or so more posts than me even though you have been a member 1 1/2 years less than me so you can see why I didn't realize your time was so much more limited than mine. Sorry I taxed your time by asking and being interested in your opinion. I had thougth that you endorsed the viewpoint in the linked article since you chose the title of the thread: "like father like son"and selected, off all the text in the article, to highlight the "schizo" comment. What was I thinking?

Before the last draft, I posted a piece listing all the offensive lineman we have drafted in the 1-2 rounds. With the exception of Williams, just about all of them ended up either pro bowlers or perennial starters. The game starts in the trenches and if you are weak there, the rest of it won't matter much. 1970 Jim Reilly G R3 1971 Bruce Jarvis C R3 1972 Reggie McKenzie G R2 1973 Paul Syemour TE R1, he played as a third tackle in the Electric Company, Joe Delamielleure G R1 1976 Ken Jones G R2, Joe Devlin OT R2 1979 Jophn Borchardt T R3 1980 Jim Ritcher C R1, John Schmeding G R3 1985 Mark Traynowicz G R2 1986 Will Wolford OT R1, Leonard Burton C R3 1990 Glen Parker OT R3 1992 John Fina OT R1 1994 Corey Louchiey OT R3 1995 Reuben Brown OT R1 1998 Robert Hicks OT R3 2001 Jonas Jennings OT R3 2002 Mike Williams OT R1 With the exception of Williams, just about every guy taken in the first and second rounds ended up being solid players and some ended up being great like Wolford, MacKenzie, Joey D and Richter. The third round was pretty mixed, mostly duds. If you want a solid line, you are better off going for people in the first two rounds rather than hoping to get lucky in the later rounds though it does happen.

I am not sure about that, I think we are going to play the Tampa Two or some other version of a two deep zone. That kind of D needs penetrators like Sapp, not cloggers.

I was actually, for a moment anyway, interested in your opion. Oh well, the moment has passed so nevermind.

My heart goes pitter-patter.

The administration seems to be getting what they want despite whatever marketing woes they might have. They have the WH, the Senate, the House and just installed two hand picked conservatives on to the SCOTUS. Other than a scolding from a moderate republican senator here and there who is gravely concrened about this or has serious doubts about that, they have pretty much sailed everything right on through. About the only thing they don't have complete control of, yet, is Patrick Fitzgerald, the Iraqi insurgency, Iran and maybe 30% of the press (just spitballing here). You think these guys have it rough? A lot of Presidents have had it a lot worse. I think bad results that can't always be explained away, blamed on the democrats or stuck on the backburner are more their problem than marketing.

Yeah, I saw a clip of it at Crooks and Liars. I'll definitely be hitting the HBO on Demand channel tonight to rerun the whole thing.

Do you think they mean schizo in the way that being pro-life and pro-death penalty is schizo or do you think they mean schizo in the way that being pro-life and pro-war is schizo? Could it be the kind of schizo involved in being against big government and yet pro-warrantless wiretapping, for legislating who can marry and for UUC (Universal Uterus Control)? Is it a one size fits all schizo or are there different shades of schizo? I just want to keep my schizo's straight. Gay schizo's are such a bother.

I'm not surprised at all. The catholic church has no objections to evolution. It is not a faith, thus evolution does not compete with other faiths nor place them in any kind of jeopardy. One can teach all the religion they want, just not in science class. Evolution isn't a religion or another kind of spirituality. Its kind of like saying that if we are going to teach that 2+2=4 then "isn't it fair" to explore other avenues such as religion or faith. I don't see why teaching a scientific fact, any fact, must then be balanced by teaching faith in the same class. What is the connection? It is simple really. You can teach about faith but you can't preach your own in a public school and neither belongs in a science class.

I'm sorry, I don't speak pissed. Translator?

Unfortunately, these reports seem to show a lack of progress in Iraq on some issues such as utilities and the insurgency. Iraq Utilities falling short of pre-war performance Insurgent attacks on the rise I know these don't tell the whole story but it is disappointing nonetheless. Who is this Joseph A. Chirstoff anyway?

I think the movie came out in 1958. Assuming a mean age of 35 years old for each person on the crew, they would all be 82 years old. I think only CBS would be willing to employ them at that age. Fitting, no?

I wish. If I have one more case go to trial between now and August I'm signing up at the NTTS, if they will have me.

Well, at least you are not pretending that I did and raking me over the coals for it even though I didn't. It is a step in the right direction. Actually, don't you think that lemmings fighting over resources and killing eachother in the process is an even better metaphor for modern politics than mass suicide? I am not saying it is so, I propose it as a hypothesis.

Since insulting references to lemmings are so popular hereabouts, I found it interesting that the notion upon which it is based, that lemmings will follow another blindly, even off the edge of a cliff, is flat out wrong. Not that the truth matters but for it is worth, The truth about Lemmings: Lemming suicide is fiction. Contrary to popular belief, lemmings do not periodically hurl themselves off of cliffs and into the sea. Cyclical explosions in population do occasionally induce lemmings to attempt to migrate to areas of lesser population density. When such a migration occurs, some lemmings die by falling over cliffs or drowning in lakes or rivers. These deaths are not deliberate "suicide" attempts, however, but accidental deaths resulting from the lemmings' venturing into unfamiliar territories and being crowded and pushed over dangerous ledges. In fact, when the competition for food, space, or mates becomes too intense, lemmings are much more likely to kill each other than to kill themselves. The Disney nature film "White Wilderness" played a role in perpetuating this myth. It was filmed in Alberta, Canada, which is not a native habitat for lemmings and has no outlet to the sea. Lemmings were imported for use in the film, purchased from Inuit children by the filmmakers. The Arctic rodents were placed on a snow-covered turntable and filmed from various angles to produce a "migration" sequence; afterwards, the helpless creatures were transported to a cliff overlooking a river and herded into the water. White Wilderness does not depict an actual lemming migration — at no time are more than a few dozen lemmings ever shown on the screen at once. The entire sequence was faked using a handful of lemmings deceptively photographed to create the illusion of a large herd of migrating creatures.

I don't think there is a specific contract under discussion. I posted a joke about a contract to rebuild Cheney and in response, there was a general post suggesting that no bid contracts to Hall. were necessary because of bids take too much time. I suggested otherwise and off we went. You can count the number of anti-Halliburton posts I have made easily enough by counting my posts in this thread. Never been a big issue with me. Mostly because I think that if all the contracts that have been awarded to them without a bid had been let out, they would have won them anyway for some of the reasons you suggest. Nevertheless, the fact is that the Cheney-Halliburton connection is not imaginary, its real. It is also a fact that they are the beneficiaries, big time, of lots of government work, some of which was awarded on a no-bid basis. Those facts lead to justifiable scrutiny, justifiable concerns. Not a corporate witch hunt mind you but legitimate scrutiny. However, any suggestion of that, especially around here, and the anti-lemming lemmings get all riled up. Raising those concerns doesn't make one a moronic left wing parrott anymore than your posts in this thread make you a Halliburton whore.

Doesn't that mean that when anyone is complaining about extremists, left or right, they pretty much mean you? Seriously, where would you put scientific issues such as global warming or teaching creationschit in schools? Not all issues are social or military or economic. Some are a blend. Take gay soldiers and the don't ask don't tell thing. Is that a military issue, a social issue or what?

It was a bit more than simply "out of context". For example, if you said: "The punch line to that joke is 'I have a dog with a very short penis'." And I quoted you as saying as: "I have a dog with a short penis". That would be out of context, leaving the reader to think you really have such an unfortunate dog rather than simply explaining a bad joke about such a dog. But, if I quoted you as saying: "I have a short penis". Though perhaps true, I think that would be a little bit more than simply qouting you out of context. Not that this isn't a whole heckuva lot of fun but getting back to the original point that initiated this geek-freak, cheek-to-cheek dance: I believe that AD's post was an example of his mastubatory habit of diddling his own straw man. Agree or disagree? I understand that you think I do the same by quoting people out of context, you've made that clear. What about AD's post though?

My experience is in federal, state and local projects over a period of 8 years where I worked on nothing, nothing but construction projects. Laying fiber optic cable from Crystal City, Va. to J'Ville Fla. and repairing failed roofing systems installed on over 5,000 public buildings just for starters. You know how hard it was to bid out jobs? They had to actually mail out spec.s and bid packages to more than one contractor. All that work stuffing 5 or 6 envelopes instead of just one, it was brutally time consuming. Much of the work that has to be done in bidding has to be done even without bids. You still need a contract, you still need specifications, you still need to see if the contractor can really get the job done, see if he is bonded, etc, etc, etc. Its not as if the construction industry has no history upon which to draw in determining whether bid or no bid contracts are preferable. Bidding is so much more preferable that the practice has been widely enacted as law. That is in the real world anyway. But here at the PPP, you are a full blown moron to suggest even the possibility that bids are a better, more efficient way of doing business. You see, this is where free market and competition are only a good idea when advanced by a conservative. If advanced by a liberal, as I just did, those ideas are suddenly moronic. Does that mean that there aren't special circumstances that would cause one to depart from the standard practice? Of course not. Extension of an in place contract can be an excellent way to deal with an emergent situation. Its like a unit price contract, you don't know the scope, so you just decide on per unit fees and count the units, keeping the contractor on call to get it done as the need arises. The original contract though, should have been the product of a competetive bid and unless you have a perpetual emergency, it makes no sense to perpetually extend the in place contract. Whether or not, on a case by case basis those special circumastances apply would be an interesting debate to have. I'm glad you raised them. But since my point of view that *gasp*, bids might be able to be done just as fast and, in the long run more efficiently and less expensively has been summarily dismissed as idiotic, it is pretty clear that there is no point in bothering with a discussion.

What is your experience in dealing with bidding of construction work for large scale public improvement projects? Care to hear mine? Hint: it is extensive.

You are assuming that bids would take longer. No reason for that.

Ooooh...looks like I hit a nerve. 607389[/snapback] Just the nerve that reacts to being falsely "quoted". Besides, I seem to have you rattled enough to botch up the quote thing-a-ma-bob. Maybe we should settle this like men and go quail hunting together?

607361[/snapback] Lets try the full quote shall we? In the same thread I also said: and this: Maybe we should measure you up for a Kangaroo suit?

Stupid? Well, first off, it wasn't before a grand jury. It was a deposition in a civil case. They don't have grand juries in civil cases. I'll refrain from calling you or your point "stupid" because I am a gentleman. What I did in response to that post was simply to point out mistakes of fact by the poster. I did not defend the lie, just stated the fact that he lied in answer to a question that was ultimately held to be irrelevant. That is in fact what happened.

Right, I said that after you mocked me as being "bitter" for raising questions over Cheney's choice of the friendly folks at Fox for his interview rather than a press conference or a more adversarial setting. That same post of your was also devoid of any criticism at all of the VP over any apsect of the incident. Gee, based on that I don't know how I could have concluded that you weren't being critical of Cheney (you weren't) and were mocking those that were (you were). I must have been hallucinating. I want to be fair though so let me give you the opportunity to express your criticism of the administration. Maybe you have been and I have just been skipping over your posts in that vein. Here you go, set the record straight: 1. Iraq war: mistake, poorly handled, rousing success, what? 2. Pre-war claims: exagerrated, honestly mistaken, BS, what? 3. Gay marriage/unions: for or against? 4. Alito 5. Myers 6. Roberts 7. NSA wiretaps: illegal, uneccesary, poorly handled, what? 8. Cheney shooting a guy in the face: for or against, etc? 9. Cheney shooting aftermath: well handled, good example of spin, what? 10. Abortion: legal in any circumstances or illegal in all or what combination? 11. Soc. Sec. reform/gutting, etc, Bush plan good, bad, stupid, brilliant, what? 12. Iraq exit strategy, do we have one? What precisely has to be achieved before we can leave and how will those achievements be measured? 13. Iran, support the administration strategy there? For a bonus, what is the strategy? 14. Gitmo: should the executive decision to detain those people be reviewed, ever, by anyon other than the executive? 15. Torture: okie dokie? 16. Budget deficit: should Bush be praised or criticized? 17. Creationism/Intelligent Design: Should this be taught in schools and what is your view of Bush having advocated that they be taught in schools? 18. Tom DeLay? 19. Scooter Libby and Plamegate, if he violated the law, should he go to jail? Should Bush be held to his promise to fire anyone who had anything to do with it as opposed to his later claim after finding our Rove was involved to firing only those convicted of an actual crime? 20. Stem cells: okay to keep tossing out frozen embryos left over from fertility procedures rather than using them for stem cell research? 21. global warming: is it a real problem that we should be addressing? That's a start.