JimBob2232

Well, he feels wronged here.. He wants to leave. I understand that. In TEN there is a good chance he would start over brown. Brown is not that good, and fans there love TH after his days at UT. As for Jacksonville...Fred Taylor needs a portable MRI machine with him wherever he goes. Travis knows he will play when (not if) fred gets hurt. both are better options than buffalo for him. But even if willis goes down...we cant rely on travis. He doesnt want to be here, he has lost the respect of the fans...its a lose/lose situation.

If September 11th wasnt enough...I doubt this will be it. The problem is we are normalizing this stuff...then it gets a little wose and we normalize that. Its a vicious cycle...at some point we have to stand up for ourselves...but i fear it will be too late when we do.

First off, I dont see much outrage from ANY politician. from ANY party. If that doesnt scare you, you dont have a pulse. I understand the whole "interpret the law" thing. And I agree. That is what they SHOULD be doing. But more and more often courts start making law. In this case, I dont feel they are so much making the law, but interpreting it incorrectly. The constitution appears to be quite clear. I dont understand how "Public Use" can be interpereted to mean "private development" What I fear most now, is that the issue of what is "Just compensation" will arrise. Given this ruling, the SCOTUS will likely rule that the local government (the same entity who decided to take your property) will be the one who will determine whether given compensation is just. This is a major problem. As for the states, I am a big fan of states rights. The federal government currently has too much power, and I am the first one in line to want to take that away from them. However...this is a constitutional issue, and therefore one that needs to be dealt with on a federal level. For whatever reason, the SCOTUS got this wrong. We need to ammend the constitution on this one. A government of the people, by the people and for the people....yeah right.

As I said in another thread...It was the liberal wing of the court that decided this. Remember this when bush appoints someone deemed "Too Conservative" to the supreme court.

Remember this feeling you have when the democrats try to prevent bush from putting someone "Too conservative" on the supreme court. It is the conservative judges who voted against this.

This is ridiculous. Lets recap the 5th ammendment... Now, most of that does not apply to this case. The only part that does is the "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." This is what the constitution says. The supreme courts job is to decide if this ruling is constitutional or not. The big argument is whether or not taking land to be privatly redeveloped for economic gain is considered "public use". I argue that it is not. IMO Public use would be to build a school, road, park or other infastructure that is for public use or consumption. However, the determination of what is "public use" should best be left to the legislature and to to the judiciary. If "public use" was meant to include things such as this, the term would not be public use, but rather public interest or public welfare. I think the supreme court once again overstepped their bounds. No suprise thouhg.

I work with many miltiary personnel. They may be only 19, but they have a job to do and they do it, and they do it well. I am sure there are people in their chain of command present every second of the day as well. I dont worry one bit about our 19 year olds guarding saddam. We trust them with AK-47s, nuclear power plants, and explosives on a daily basis. They can guard saddam.

I own nevermind...only one here...

Here are my predictions...I suspect Pittsburgh and San Diego were flukes. AFC East : Buffalo (Gotta Dream) AFC North: Baltimore AFC South: Indianapolis AFC West: Kansas City WC1: New England WC2: Jacksonville NFC East: Philadelphia NFC North: Minnesota NFC South: Atlanta NFC West: Arizona WC1: Green Bay WC2: Detroit

Oh. Dont get me wrong. I am very displeased with the spending of this administration (and ones before it). We spend WAY more than we should. Government is too big and too powerful. As reagan said, government is not the solution, government is the problem. But at some point cutting taxes will lower revenue. The fact that we cut taxes and raised revenue means that we are still drastically over taxed, and need to lowere the tax rate further to find that inflection point. Once the inflection point is found we can continue lowering taxes (and thus revenue) until we reach a comfortable point of government spending.

Yes, I am happy that the economy is doing so well. It is doing so well in large part because of the tax cuts. The booming economy causes people to make more money and therefore pay more (nominally) in taxes, even at a reduced rate. There is no way to spin that into being a bad thing. I would rather make 1,000,000 per year and pay 300k in taxes than 30k a year and 9k in taxes, even though with the 1M$ salary I pay 291k more in taxes. I know that is an extreme case, but you get my point (i hope). So...despite the fact that the tax rate is greatly reduced. Despite the fact that the economy is improving, and people are making more money, you still insist that people are taxed more than ever. What would you recommend we do then? Cut taxes and increase revenue again? The bottom line is that somewhere there is a tax rate that maximizes revenues. We cut taxes and revenue went up. Lets cut taxes some more!

Thats why I posted this....to help drive home the point that lowering taxes can increase revenue if we are over taxed. This is what happeneed here. Bush did the right thing (in this case). This is tangible proof of that.

If "taxing the hell out of corporations" means giving them a tax cut, then i guess you are correct. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54128-2004Oct22.html) As far as corporations not paying taxes...think again. they pay taxes on profits. yes, any and all costs ultimatly come back to the consumer, but they do pay taxes. The reason i brought this up was because many many people on this board and elsewhere chastized president Bush for cutting taxes. Saying things like 'it will increase the defecit" and "it will decrease revenue" and "tax cuts for the rich" and the like...this article proves those things to be false. President Bush, like president Reagan before him, cut taxes and increased revenue at the same time. It can be done.

I particularly like how all democrats have avoided this thread...

And here I was thinking that lowering taxes has to reduce revenue and Increase the deficit. Silly Me. Bush is not as stupid as some of you think he is. (though admitedly he is not as smart as some of you think he is either) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050616/ap_on_...t_pe/tax_record

Yeah...But they are all first round draft picks...so I guess it works...

This is the problem with MLBs revenue sharing program. This money is going directly into the pockets of the owners and they are not using it on their teams. we need a salary cap. The problem is there is no fair way to implement it. I say make it 150-200 mil with no annual increase. This will immediatly stop the yankees spending, and allow other teams to slowly be able to compete.

Remember, a Trane may be a very good product, but you will pay alot more due to their (extensive) advertizing costs. Amana makes a pretty good product for the price. Also, Lennox will cost you a bit more, but its a pretty good product. You will find Trane is even more expensive than Lennox, and im not sure Lennox doesnt make the superior product. I would stay away from Carrier. I havent heard much good about them in recent years. I have a 7 YO carrier unit, and it already needs replacement. Many people I know are having similar problems with carrier units. Bottom Line...If you are planning on moving in the next 3-5 years, a Carrier or Amana will suffice. If you are planning on staying Long-Term, go with Lennox or Trane. If you need/want to save some cash, but plan on staying Long-Term go with amana. I think the warranty is shorter, but its not a bad product. There are many other brands out there. Your best bet is to find a good dealer who carries all brands. Ask around at work, someone has replaced a unit. A Good dealer/contractor makes all the difference.

How about the E-Gun...named after EM or Evans....

The J-Gun would be awsome! However, realistically, i think it will be a year before that is really an option. As much as he is progressing, it seems hard to believe he can run a hurry up offense this year. Still though, its great news!

Per Pastabelly. (Sorry if this is a repost) Jun. 10 - ESPN.com's Len Pasquarelli still expects Henry to be dealt before the start of the regular season. The Bills asking price is believed to be a third-round draft choice and multiple teams remain interested. A league source told Pasquarelli Tennessee and Jacksonville are still in the mix for the disgruntled running back, who lost his starting job in Buffalo to Willis McGahee last season. The Titans are looking for a tailback to play behind the talented, but often-injured Chris Brown, while the Jaguars remain concerned about Fred Taylor's knee. Houston has also talked to the Bills about Henry but the Texans don't appear as interested as the Jags and Titans. The Seahawks are also a dark-horse landing spot, should they ever find someone to take unhappy Shaun Alexander off their hands.

If you need no ductwork, and no asbestos removal, probably somewhere in the 5-6k range. If you need to install ductwork, push that number up to 9-10k. Asbestos removal...dont know about that...

It just MIGHT be that the guys at SNL did his song...but yeah...the show is a trainwreck, but its fun.

Yeah. I remember seeing her on letterman or something pitching to barry bonds or some other baseball star. Needless to say, she kicked their butts too...

Do you guys read this stuff? Or do you just rely on a soundbite you pick up somewhere. In case you cant find it...it is here http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...0&invol=03-1454 What they said is that marijuana is illegal on a federal level. States cannot override federal law. Therefore a state law legalizing medical marijuana is illegal. Now, congress can ammend federal law if they so choose, and then states can legalize medical marijuana as they see fit. The court is okay with that. This is NOT a states right issue. You could argue that illigalization (is that a word?) of marijuana at the federal level is a violation of states rights, but that is not what is at stake in this case. Facts are facts. Marijuana is illegal on the federal level. States can do nothing to legalize it if the federal government has already said it is illegal.