JimBob2232

True...but it is still an unnatural help. I am sure players go home and watch this on TV. Doing it in the middle of a tournament should not happen.

The problem with showing it live, is that players can go back to their hotels and get reads on players. it needs to be delayed until after the tournament ends...but not the 6 months or whatever ESPN does.

are you kidding me? He offers 18k to settle this? He was holding out for the extra 2k. Come on! Forget the money, at that point it is principle. I would take him to court anyway.

Huh? Help. Tell me he is not coming here. I am scouring BB.com now to try to comfort myself and not learn we are bRingin him in...

I dont understand why the dems are SO against individual social security accounts. There is no explaination other than "Bush proposed it so we are against it". Here is a quote from president clinton while he was in office Of course he did nothing about it...but he acknowleged it was a problem. He ran on it being a problem. It was a problem for 8 years while he was there. Now Bush is in office, and suddenly its NOT a problem? Exactly what happened that made the problem go away? Nothing. Except the democrats cant give bush credit for solving the problem because then he wins. And everything democrats (and republicans..) do is predicated upon winning and not on what is best for the country. Sad. Individual Social Security accounts are the PERFECT solution. The ONLY downside is the short term cost of implementing them, so those recieving benefits continue to recieve them. They should be arguing on how best to implement private accounts and not whether to have them at all. There are 3 options. Privatize and solve the problem permanently. Raise the retirement age. Raise Taxes. Perhaps a combination of all 3 would work to alleviate the problem. Raise the age to 67.5, raise taxes a percent or so, and create private accounts. I dont know. People smarter than me should be working on this. But the bottom line is that private accounts are the ONLY solution with a lasting impact.

Well, what else would you expect from the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC)

I cant believe there isnt a poker channel or a PPV event covering this...

Newsweek said it was flushed down the toilet...this is NOT what the government is saying.

And my point is that for the democrats to make progress in the senate they need to take 8 of 11 available seats. House races are too hard to predict at this juncture.

Aint going to happen. Democrats need to gain 16 seats in the house to take control. That is ALOT of seats. There will probably be only 25-30 seats that are even up for grabs. They would need to take nearly all of those to take over the house. In the senate, there are 33 seats up for election. 17 Democrat seats, 15 Republican seats and one democratic leaning independant. There will be 4 open seats (2 dem, 1 rep and 1 ind) due to retirement. (TN, VT, MD & MN) Of the 14 republican seats with incumbants running, 11 appear safe. Santorum(PA), Chafee(RI) and Conrad Burns (MT) are the only ones in play at the moment. Of the 15 democrat seats with incumbants running 11 appear safe (assume corzine is safe in NJ). Nelson (FL), Nelson (Neb), Stabenow (MI), Cantwell(WA) are in play. So, the bottom line is that there are 11 senate seats that are in play. The republicans currently control 4 of them. The democrats currently control 7 of them (including the one independent seat) The current senate makeup is 55-44-1. Removing these 11 seats in play, the makeup is 51-38-0. Even if democrats win ALL ELEVEN of those races, the senate makeup will be 51-49. Key assumptions made in this post: This is assuming that Corzine will not run for governor in NJ, Byrd and Kennedy will not retire. Hillary will win NY. On the republican side, Lott will not retire, Hutchinson will not run for Gov, Snowe will win the maine primary. Bottom line, the house and senate will remain in republican hands in 2006. Even scarier for the democrats is the strong possiblity the republicans pick up a seat or two in the senate.

Might be....but its new to me... Sorry if this is a repost...

Just thought this was interesting.... http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20050602/1053879.asp

Not true. This is a good case for reading the source documents and not relying on what the media or politicans or anyone else says. They agreed not to make a commitment to vote for or against cloture for Myers and Saad. This does not mean they cannot put them up for a cloture vote. The interesting thing will be to see what these 14 do. They are within the bounds of the agreement to filibuster these judges. Though doing so may not be considered an "extraordinary circumstance". I expect these 2 to be filibustered. Though I wouldnt be suprised if 2 or 3 of the democratic signees vote for cloture due to the agreement. They probably wouldnt be confirmed even if they went up for a vote. Here is the full text of the agreement.

What tactics are you referring to campy?

I consider myself a conservative moreso than a republican. In fact recently I am beginning to move closer and closer to the libertarian side of things. However, I think one of the big mistakes we make as society is placing labels on groups of people. too many people vote for a candidate because of the letter next to their name, and not on what they stand for. I do think your labels are a bit wrong. I dont think the term conservative and liberal is a reflection soley upon fiscal matters. And I dont like rep or dem is a reflection on just social matters. Many a democrat has run as being a "fiscal conservative". I have yet to hear the term "fiscal liberal". But again, I dont think its even important what we label people. We should be looking at they dynamics of the situation and not a letter next to a name.

Yeah...if it does anything. About the only thing this agreement does is ensure 3 judges get a vote. After that, the democrats are still free to filibuster any nomination if they deem the circumstance "extreme". For the record, the senate JUST TODAY voted not to close debate on Bolton. This is effectively a filibuster. They will do this again and again until frist pulls his trump card and brings back up the nuclear option. This is not over yet by any means.

Well...they would if the democrats actually put someone up with strong moral values that are in line with the evangelical movement....but they wont. In fact they will find someone so far to the left that the evengelicals will have no choice but to vote for a conservative who may not even represent their views. Where this really comes into play is the republican primary. Where the better republican candidates may lose out because there are more conservative candicates that more closely reflect the views of the conservative party. Regardless of who runs, the election will be close...AGAIN. One exception. If is it mccain vs. Hillary, mccain wins in a landslide. Hillary will only get the pro-hillary voters. Many democrats will cross over, many republicans will be dismayed, but will vote for McCain. And the overwhelming majority of fringe voters will go to mccain. Hillary is very polarizing. About 25 percent of the population really likes her. Some will vote for her because of the D next to her name, but many will be turned off, and mccain gives them a good alternative (one that Bush or Rice doesnt give them)

I doubt Bush will run in 08. 2012 or 2016 is a definate possiblity. Dont discount a few virginians from this race. Gov. Mark Warner ( D ) Sen. George Allen ( R ) Warner is a popular governor of a southern state, who probably would swing it into the democrats column. (I know many here dont like him, but you cant deny his popularity in VA). Sen. Allen would also be a strong candidate. Would probably make a better VP at this point than pres. I wouldnt be suprised to see him on the ticket in 2008. The democrats have the same bunch of tried and tested losers they will run out there (Clark, Edwards, Gore, Kerry) which is why Hillary and Warner make alot of sense, The republicans have a lot of big name moderates. (McCain, Powell, Guiliani etc.), who will struggle in primaries. (Powell wont run anyway, and Guliani is unlikely). But they are lacking strong conservatives to challange them. Frist has blown his chance already IMO. The guy is a horrible leader in the senate. Santorum might lose his senate seat. I dont think Rice wants to run. Maybe Mitt Romney, but I dont know much about him. The republicans are hurting with strong conservatives going up for nomination. And Newt....fughetaboutit. Edited to remove registered trademark of sir george allen.

No big deal. Lots of guys didnt show up. I wouldnt lose sleep over it. Willis was probably bowling.

How about travis and our #1 for tennessees #1.... Hmm....DO IT

I believe that the agreement also stated that the others would NOT get an up or down vote. If the republicans put them up for a vote, I belive this would be in violation of the agreement and the democrats woudl then be right (not constitutionally...but whatever) to fillibuster. There is also some debate as to whether they would even get the 50 necessary votes to begin with. I agree with frist and reid looking weak. This is because they are. Frist is blowing his presidential aspirations pretty good right now, and Reid is lucky he is in the senate until 2010, because he doesnt have a snowballs chance in Baltimore of winning an election in Nevada right now. We need change in the senate. We need people who dont think they are on top of the world. Look at that press conference. Every one of them thought that they just saved the world and are the most important people on earth. We need representatives of the people in office. Not this bunch of gomers. IT IS WRITTEN IN! Read the constitution (or my post)! It is there! It specifically states that the senate must advise and consent by way of 2/3 vote for treaties. It then says the senate must advise and consent (with no mention of a 2/3 vote) for judges. Therefore judges need only a majority of votes, or else it would also say 2/3 is required. The senate MUST abide by the constitutional requirements it is founded upon. Show me where the constitution says ANYTHING about going in alphabetical order. I am not completely against the fillibuster. But when the constitution specifically calls out for a majority vote, it cannot be ignored.

Yes....they caved and gave them new teams Same thing they will do with LA! Now the real question is this...I am an out of town bills fan...and I am not from buffalo (albany). I am now in Virginia. For the sake of discussion, lets say a new team comes to buffalo (unlikely...). I am not sure I will be a bills fan... I am attached to this team...but if they moved and a completely different franchise came in, it would be interesting to see what happens.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/stor..._len&id=2067684 Aaron Elling anyone? LOL

As another recent clarkson alum...The Dome was where it was at!

This was posted (by me) elsewhere on PPP: First: The ACTUAL text of the constitution in its entirety: Section II, Clause 2 Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. So to disect this passage a little: "He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;" Notice this says 2/3s Of the senators present... FOR A TREATY. This is what the text actually says. Then in Regards to Nominations: "He (the President) shall have Power, and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advise and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court , and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not otherwise herein provided for, and which shall be established by Law; but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments." Now, there is a common standard for interpretation: if a word or phrase is used with similar usage in the same or related documents then those words or phrases may be taken to mean the same thing. In this second half of the passage the Senate is again authorized to provide both Advise and Consent; however, there is no requirement for a 2/3s majority of "the Senators present" ... This is a simple case of reading the constitution. It is in black and white. I am still baffled how you can compromise over this issue.