Mickey

Exactly. As long as abortion is made illegal, queers can't marry, 4 year olds can buy grenades and taxes are cut, who cares about the rest? Constitution-Schmonstitution.

I just filled out your summer reading list didn't I?

...and Presidents.

Your tactics are just like hers. You ignore the substance of an argument and instead attack the credibility of the source, usually personally. The "you are a partisan" knee jerk drool you slop around ad nauseum is exactly that. For example, in this thread you didn't bother to challenge a single factual assertion in my post but instead jerked the knee once again. Gee, a slam against lawyers, now that is not at all Coulterish now is it?

The actual quote was: "...democrats have a serious leadership problem. Most of the problem is that their leaders are pretty bad in their own right." And in response Ken accused me of excusing all democrats from any blame. When I pointed out how he missed what I wrote, he then misquoted me. You know, kind of how you just did.

I'm sorry, I thought this thread was about Ann Coulter, was there a reference to something some liberal said that I was supposed to condemn? Please find it for me. I noticed how you jumped right in to point out the "democrats do it too" posts. Not. Some more of that famous non-partisanship of yours. Besides, the difference between your views and nuts like Coulter is, is..., ummm, I forget, what is the difference again? Care to address the substance of the posts, all those books? How many have you read? Better yet, how many of their hysterical arguements have you echoed? Still waiting for you to explain how a post of mine directly critical of democrats was, as you accused, "excusing all democrats". I've lost count on how many times I've asked. It was one of the better demonstrations of your self proclaimed non-partisan reasonableness.

Yeah, next thing you know a has been like Ronald Reagan could be President and Ahhhhnold the next governor of California, whoooops, too late. Fact is, Garofalo and Franken were pretty well known long before they became activists. Not so with Coulter, Ingram, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. I never heard of any of them until hate radio became so popular. Limbaugh especially has been around a long time, long before Michael Moore and Air America. Sitting on the left, we saw these nutjobs selling out their books and dominating the radio dial for years. We used to laugh them off but fact is, they had an effect. There came a time where we then started to hear liberals complain that they should have their own Limbaugh and fight fiery BS with fiery BS. Enter Air America and Michael Moore. In fact, I think Franken's first book on politics was a direct attack on Limbaugh: "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot", isn't that what it was called? I don't know that any of that really matters at this point but for what it is worth, there are differences. In fact, in this thread there is at least one poster who thinks that Coulter and Limbaugh and the rest accurately reflect the views of the majority of Americans: Whenever I am critical of these hate mongers, I get jumped on for tattoing all of conservatism with the views of these extremists. Yet their books do sell out, all of them and they are quoted often enough here or their views echoed. Occasionally, a conservative or two comes right out like Wacka and endorses their view as the majority view. Here is a brief survey of some of the books helping to get republicans elected: Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism Slander: Liberal Lies about the American Right How To Talk To A Liberal (If you must): The World According to Ann Coulter High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton Deliver us From Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism and Liberalism Persecution: How Liberals are Waging War against Christianity Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild Do As I Say (Not as I do): Profiles on Liberal Hypocrisy A Deficit of Decency A National Party No More: The Conscience of a Conservative Democrat Absoute Power: The Legacy of Corruption in the Clinton-Reno Justice Department Useful Idiots: How Liberals Got it Wrong in the Cold War and Still Blame America... The Enemy Within: Saving America From the Liberal Assault on our Schools, Faith.. The Savage Nation: Saving America from the Liberal Assualt on our Borders... Reckless Disregard: How Liberal Democrats Undercut our Military, Endanger our... Shut Up and Sing: How Elites from Hollywood, Politics and UN are Subverting... The Way Things Ought To Be See, I Told You So Do-Gooders: How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help (and the rest of us) Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror Dereliction of Duty: The Eye Witness Account of How Bill Cinton Endangered.... The Official Handbook of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Weapons of Mass Distortion: The Coming Meltdown of the Liberal Media Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man The Age of Reagan 1964-1980: The Fall of the Old Liberal Order Liberalism as a Mental Disorder: Savage Solutions Men In Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America The ACLU vs. America: Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values The Hillary Trap: Looking for Power in All the Wrong Places Slouching Towards Gommorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left's Assault on our Culture and... If It's Not Close, they Can't Cheat: Crushing the Democrats in Every Election... The New Thought Police: Inside the Left's Assualt on Free Speach and Free Minds Arrogance: Rescuing America from the Media Elite Brainwashed: How Universities Indonctrinate America's Youth I'm leaving out O'Reilly's books for now and the legions of reach around bios of George Bush. Any one who has read more than three or four of the books on that list needs help. The left is catching up but the right had a huge head start. Do you notice the pattern in the titles? They start with something really bad, ominiously stated followed by a colon and then a brief statement blaming liberals for the ominously stated bad thing before the colon. They also like linking the word Liberal with words like "assualt", "endanger", "destroy", etc. If you observe those helpful guidelines, you can come up with a title that will guarantee a best seller in no time. Here are some examples: Death: The Liberal Assualt on Life Famine: The Truth Behind The Liberal War on Food Child Moletsters: How Bill Clinton and Janet Reno Invented Perderasty Rain: How The Liberal Agenda to Endanger Sunshine is Destroying Motherhood Athlete's Foot: Inside the Left's Assault on Hygiene Kill Them All: What to do with Liberals? What do you think it is like to try and have a political discussion with someone who has read all or most of those books? Loads of fun. If I am a liberal, that apprently means that I loathe right and wrong; am out to destroy, assault or endanger America, its culture, its values and borders; I am an arrogant brainwasher bent on unleashing terrorism and despotism in a bid to overthrow America, its schools and christianity; I am a traitor who despises decency and suffers from a mental disorder; I am a Hollywood elite, a hypocrite who hates liberty and wants to wage a war against christians. Shucks, and I thought I was just someone who disagreed with some conservative positions on this or that issue. Turns out I'm more dangerous than I ever imagined. BOO! Scared ya, didn't I?

Careful, you might be accused of responding to every bit of news about republican lunacy with a post about how democrats are worse from KRC. Since he is a non-partisan, I'm sure he will be consistent with that kind of criticism. The problem isn't that Ann Coulter and the rest say these things. The problem is that their books and speaking engagements sell out. People are listening. If she wrote a book and no one bought it, she'd change her tune in a hurry. She has to pay for the furs, the limos and her Manhattan palace somehow. Funny, as much as she admires the heartland and hates liberal meccas like NYC, LA and the like, she wouldn't be caught dead living there. At least Al Franken was making a nice living long before Air America. If you take this schtick away from Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity, Coulter and the like, what do they have to fall back on? Garofalo and Franken could at least go back to doing stand up and an occasional movie. They do what they do because, for better or worse, they believe in it, not because they needed the cash.

I'm not a big Clements fan at all. However, if I know Marv Levy, he values good corners over just about any other position so I doubt he will let Nate get away. I think Nate gets beat waaaay too often for a supposed top flight corner. The Patriots, who have a pretty good coach who seems to judge defensive backs accurately, love to throw to his side. The especially like throwing naked WR screens where if Nate misses the tackle, its a big gainer. Often enough, he does.

The term has no official or even technical meaning or significance that I am aware of. You can refer to me as "unindicted" because I have never been indicted, yet. In this particular case it means they went in front of a GJ, presented the evidence, asked for an indictment and the GJ failed to return one. That is my understanding as to what happened with Murtha. Most prosecutors can tell when their case is so weak that they wouldn't even be able to get an indictment and so don't bother taking it before the GJ. Its considered to be pretty embarassing to lose in front of a GJ. Even in cases where they didn't try to get an indictment, that is just as telling as a jury refusing to issue one. It usually means the prosecutor decided to save himself the embarassment of having a GJ balk on him. "Co-conspirator" is kind of redundant. Conspiracy charges are best when used against organized criminal enterprises. It helps you get around the type of proof problems you often get with gangs and the mob. They are subject to abuse though.

A grand jury is not in a "camp". The prosecutor presents evidence to grand jurors who receive a jury summons in the mail just like any juror. Duh. I am not absolving, sliming or accusing anyone. You, on the other hand, have tried, convicted and slimed Murtha on a charge objective persons who actually heard the evidence cleared him of decades ago. You accused him of putting money in his coat on tape. Not true. Is there ever a point where facts matter? How often were you complaining about Murtha before he came out against the war? Yeah, I thought so. Lawyers joke about being able to indict a ham sandwich. In front of a grand jury, the only evidence presented is by the prosecutor. The only laywer there is the prosecutor. The defendant whose indictment is being considered is not allowed to defend himself at all. Under those conditions, you can pretty much indict anyone for anything. If you can't get an indictment of a defendant from a grand jury, it is usually because the guy is so innocent it isn't even funny. Anyone, anyone who disagrees about this war has to be destroyed. They can't simply be wrong or reasonably differ, they must be obliterated. Nice.

....hmm, I wonder how many conservative feel that way? ....hmmmm, I wonder how many conservatives feel this way?

The reason he was unindicted is because the grand jury cleared him. The tape of Murtha, rather than showing him putting money in his coat, actually shows him saying "Not interested" when they offered him the money. Of course, don't let the facts get into the way of a good smear because, after all, he deserves to have his character assassinated for having the temerity to disagree with a conservative. How dare he?

The distinction being made is between getting money from Abramoff and getting money from Indian tribes that were his clients. So what Dean said might be technically true but it could be a distinction without a difference. Those tribes that were his clients actually gave more money to democrats before they were his clients. Once he signed them up, he began moving as much of their money to Republicans and away from democrats as he could convince them to move. The real distinction is between legal and illegal. I would be surprised if no democrats went down by the time this is all over. At present though, I beleive every person who has been convicted, pled guilty, indicted, named as a target by a prosecutor or a named as a person of interest in an investigation in connection with Abramoff is a republican. Of course, he only just started singing so who knows what the final republican crook vs. democratic crook score card will look like.

Are we allowed to differentiate between legal and illegal contibutions or would that be too technical or partisan of a distinction?

Yes, the same fallacy every premise reaches if taken to absurd lengths. Like honesty being good, ergo it is better to tell your wife the truth, that those jeans really do make her look fat.

Okay, now that was funny.

It is a push me-pull me problem as old as the hills. Government needs power to be effective and with power comes corruption.

You are just jealous that I nabbed it first. Tell you what, you can have the penile implant extension booth. JSPylvania will be attracting lots of conservatives so the penile implant biz will be just as good as the traffic in liver transplants.

I thought we got Dallas' first and they got an extra second and our first the following year. I don't think we "swapped firsts", we had taken Evans with our first already that year. If you look at the picks we had over that two year period and the picks Dallas had, all they really gained was a second round pick. In that 2 year period, if not for the trade, we would have had 2 first round and 2 second round picks, same with Dallas. After the trade, we got 2 first round picks (Evans and JP) but only one second (Roscoe). Dallas had two first round picks and 3 second round picks. That is why I don't think any team would make a trade that steep, we certainly didn't. All we did was advance one year's first pick by a year and it cost us a second rounder. We did not lose a first round pick to get JP, we used a first round pick to select him.

So long as you agree to supply the citizens with unlimited low-cost beer, we have a deal. 581856[/snapback] Dibs on the liver transplant concession.

It may depend on who else they have to pay, a championship has a way of increasing your payroll. I don't see them letting him get away either but you never know. Everything has a price.

I am not really interested in trusting the center position to Preston. I want proven talent, no more gambles, no more maybes.

If I read one more scouting report on a top guard in the draft that says "struggles with speed rushers", I'm going to scream. That is why I was hoping for Hutchinson but I had no idea that Seattle was so far under the cap. I wonder if NO has the money for Bentley. Isn't the league going to give them some extra cap money or something due to Katrina? I thought I read that somewhere.

Jeez. I would have preferred Sherman but I think that it is a little early to pronounce the Jauron era to be a bust. Look at it this way, everyone has to learn and Jauron learned on someone else's dime. Lets see what he does in the offseason. If he and Marv get serious about the OL, I will be a lot more excited about next season than I was about last season.