JimBob2232

Yeah, I picked up a-train, my mistake. Chapman is not available. Thanks for your input, I think thats what I will do.

The bye week bug has bitten hard, and my normal 2 RB starters are on bye. I was fortunate enough to pick up Thomas Jones, but the other RB position is suspect. I still have henry on my roster, but I know he is a bad play this week. Also on my roster is Dorsey Levens, but he isnt suposed to start. Verron Hayes of Pit is available, since staley is out, but bettis is supposed to be the #1 back. Right now im leaning toward levens and hoping westbrook cant go long, anyone got any suggestions?

With drew throwing the ball, I believe we need someone on offense to start batting down some of his throws.

Well, lets examine this 7-2 possibility Should Lose: NE, Pit, Could Win: Jets, Sea and StL Should Win: Miami, Cleveland, Cincinnati, San Fran For the sake of argument, say we beat Mia, Cle, Cin and SF, and we beat the Jets tomorrow. Lets rack up the loss at NE. We are now 7-6, with Pit, Sea and StL left. Its entirely possible pit will be resting some starters that last week of the season. If we play like we are capable of (big stretch i know, but im the eternal optimist), we can beat StL and probably Seattle. 7-2 is a stretch, no doubt, but not as impossible as one would think, but WE have to come out and win those games. Hopefully we can pull it off.

I also wouldnt me. Okay, perhaps I would be frustrated, but lets look at this objectively. Bush really doesnt have national appeal. The entire northeast and west coast voted strongly against him, while the entire middle of the country voted strongly for him. The EC is in place to require a candidate to have national appeal. Bush is very borderline in his "national appeal". Its just the way it is.

"Those who do not know history are bound to repeat it." The electoral college is a good and necessary evil in our society. The election in 2000 proved once again, how valuable a commodity the electoral college is. Opponents to the college point to Florida as a reason to abolish the EC. The exact opposite is true. The first thing that is important to remember, is that it is extremely unlikely that there will be a split in the EC and PV when the margin of victory in the Popular vote is wide. Therefore it stands to reason, that the only time we are in this position is when the popular vote is very close. When the popular vote is very close, the framers of our constitution gave us a clear and decisive way to decide the election...the Electoral College. Remeber Florida 2000. Remember the never ending chaos? Remember hanging chads and lawyers around every corner? The endless recounts and press conferences. Now imagine if we had no electoral college, that scene would play out in every polling place in every county and city in the entire united states. It is precicely BECAUSE of the electoral college that our focus was in FL and FL alone. In 1888 there was a presidential election between grover clevelend and Bengimin Harrison. Grover cleveland ran on a message of reducing tarrifs, an issue extremely important to southern states. As a result, southern states voted him as their presidential choice with an overwhelming 2/3 majority. The problem was, these few states provided a large chunk of the popular vote, but the majority of states did not benefit from the tarrif reduction, and voted for Harrison. As a result, the electoral college did EXACTLY what is was intended to do, it prevented a candidate from winning the white house on the basis of one regions support, at the expense of the rest of the country. This could still happen (and almost did happen this week) today. President Bush has a Huge support in the center of this country. The purpose of the electoral college is to ensure broad support across the country. Two more quick things to remember. 1) The EC is not inherently unfair. It is not unfair that tiny Vermont has as many senators as Huge California. Its not unfair that the winner of the world series is the one to win 4 games, not the one who scores the most runs. Such is the system we have, and it is in place for a very good reason. 2) The EC is here to stay. Debate it all you want, it takes 2/3 of the states to ratify a constitutional ammendment, and Small states like vermont and Rhode Island will not vote in favor, since it basically takes them out of the entire electoral process. One bit of reform that does make sense however, is to do away with the "physical" electoral college. As it stands today, many states do not require their electors to vote for the candidate chosen by their state. There have been a few faithless electors in the past, and the day will arrive where a faithless elector will decide an election, and that is just wrong. Either eliminate the actual elector process, or require them to vote for the candidate chosen by their state.

Thanks for keeping the debate civil.

US Constitution (Article III, Section 3): Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort... There is a fine line between a dissenting opinion and treason, I fully understand this distinction. However, once free speech goes so far as to give "Aid and comfort" to our enemies it is BY DEFINITION OF OUR CONSTITUTION, treason. Acts depicted in many of these photos are sedition at best and treason at worst, and might I say, the reason the democratic party is a national party no more.

My point is not to limit free speech. Free speech is an important part of our fabric in this country. However, once free speech crosses the line and becomes treason it should be proscecuted as such. Where to draw the line is fuzzy and I understand that. But people like this have no place in a civilized society. BTW I want to say that it is very refreshing to be able to have a conversation such as this without resorting to petty insults. If only we could get more debate in our society maybe we will actually become that one america john edwards was talking about.

Which is EXACTLY why she wont run. No republican will vote for her, and the reasonable portion of the democratic party wont vote for her. She gets 30% of the vote. Tops. Look at that Red/Blue map. Now consider she won just 55% of all votes in NEW YORK. She has no chance in any of the states bush won, and would even lose many states kerry won (WI, IA, NH).

I have no problem making the same argument about our troops mistreating prioners as they did. The problem with the blame there, is that the military has such a structure where it may not be the people actually commiting the crime, but somewhere further up that should have the blame, I dont konw, but its no more or less wrong. There is a vast difference between not standing for the pledge of allegiance and burning an effigy of our president however. Indeed both are exercises of free speech. One is mild and one is very strong. One gravely damages our country, the other causes a PTA meeting. Most likely the children are in rebellion, and not against the US, but against the words "under god", and their dissent is a perfectly acceptable reaction in America, and does not aid and comfort our enemies. The extent of the potential damage to our country is what defines treason IMO. These people should be found and brought up on charges.

Its not just F@# Bush... Come on man...I am all for freedom of speech, but I can tell you right now, these pictures of GWB burning made me sick. And yes, I woudl feel the exact same way if it was kerry or clinton. Who does it hurt? It hurts our military. It hurts the image and respect of our country. It motivates our enemy and can be used as terrorist recruiting propaganda. These people (and im not talking about the people wearing the you're fired buttons, but the people buring GWB), are NOT americans. They may be citizens of this great land, but they are no more american than osama bin laden, and should be treated accordingly. At best its sedition, at worst treason. And last I checked treason was punishible by death.

I believe that these actions amount to a betrayal of the united states of america, and our leadership, and provide comfort and aid to our enemies.

Like Jock Chiraq (yes I konw...)

I honestly dont know if it is winnable. But I konw one thing. We must win to save our country. So that is a fight worth fighting

I have no problem with people dissenting against this administration, but seditious acts like these border on treason IMO. I am ashamed to have people like this amungst us.

Thats the thing with Zell. HIS party is "American" not democrat or republican. He could care less what political party has the presidency and the senate. All he cares about is that the best people are in government. Sadly with his retirement one of the best is gone from government. When asked why he didnt switch parties, his response was that its like living in an old house. The plumbings broke and the roof leaks, and while you would probably be more comfortable in a new house, this IS your house, so why move. (roughly what he said anyway). I'm telling you, if you like those 2 essays, there are 100 more on his webpage to scan though. He sure has a way with words. As far as him in the cabinet, i think its unlikely. He is getting up there in years and probably wants to get out of the public eye. But politicians like him are rare, unfortunatly. And for the record, he did always vote to organize with the democrats.

Oh, i absolutley did. I have been watching this guy for years. I actually have that beltway diet story i just posted cutout from the wall street journal. He is a true patriot.

This is another one of my favorite zell pieces circa 2001/2002. Check out is website before it goes down http://miller.senate.gov/index.htm for more. I also recommend his book "A national pary no more" The Beltway Diet By Zell Miller (As appeared in The Wall Street Journal) Let's see now. What bountiful feasts do we have spread before us in this tax-cut debate? There's the filet mignon and baked Alaska on the white tablecloth of the Republicans. There's the burgers and brownies on the limp paper plates of the Democrats. But there's something missing from both these enticing meals. Where's the spinach? Where's the sacrifice? Both parties want Congress to do what we've always done: Scarf up their feast, belch loudly and say, "Charge it" as we get up from the table. When I was growing up without a father in the hard scrapple of Appalachia, my mother used to tell my sister and me, "Take what you want, sayeth the Lord; take it and pay for it." I was a grown man before I realized that is not in the Bible. It was just my mother's scripture. It also is one the truest laws of life: You can have anything in life, but you must pay for it. Here in Washington, that rule has been twisted into: You can have anything in life, and someone else will pay for it. There's no one on this Hill or in this country who likes tax cuts more than I do. I've never seen one too big for me to swallow without water. I'd even be willing to pass both the president's plan and the Democrats' plan -- as long as we were willing to cut federal spending at the same time. I just firmly believe that government takes too much from our taxpayers -- big and little alike. So, as both parties spoon those delicious tax cuts onto our plates, let's save room for the spinach. Let's suck in our gut, tighten our belts and spend these precious tax dollars only on what's really important. Unfortunately, in this citadel of "champagne wishes and caviar dreams," there is hardly ever any talk -- much less, action -- on cutting spending. It's often mentioned on the campaign trail, but amnesia strikes as soon as the candidates win and get inside the Beltway. And then, each year, as sure as the swallows return to Capistrano, every federal program that the mindof man, woman and K Street can conceive finds its way into the budget and settles into a permanent home. Not for just a day, or a year, but forever. I think it's time to turn up the volume on the theme from "The Bridge on the River Kwai" and begin a forced march to reality. In this time of competing tax cuts, we ought to remember why the people don't like taxes in the first place. When I was a boy growing up in the tiny town of Young Harris, my mama was the mayor and folks came to our house to pay their taxes. And I remember hearing them grumble each time when they turned over their hard-earned dollars. What it taught me was that people don't complain about taxes because they are selfish or stingy. They complain because they simply don't believe they're getting their money's worth. No one has ever spoken about taxes more eloquently than that great patriot Thomas Paine: "It is not the produce of riches only, but of hard earnings of labor and poverty. It is drawn even from the bitterness of want and misery." Congress forgets all too often that there is no such thing as "government money." There is only "taxpayers' money." I got into government because I've always believed that government can help people. But good government doesn't mean big government. Good government means providing basic services efficiently. Good government means not just asking how to make a program more efficient, but asking what would happen if we got rid of the program entirely. Why waste time making something more efficient if we don't need it? There's a whole herd of sacred cows grazing in the lush green pastures of the federal government. Even though many of them quit giving milk long ago, we still fund them. I say take 'em out and shoot 'em. It's no secret that I like this president. He's the right man and I want to support him. But federal spending has gone wild and someone must take the lead in stopping it. Most functions of government grew by at least 5% a year for each of the last four years. Some grew by twice that much. That's got to stop. We now have the biggest, most expensive federal government in history. Federal employees are thicker than maggots on a rotting carcass. So, why not start by abolishing vacant positions in every department except Defense and Homeland Security? Congress could set the example by cutting our own staff to show that we are willing to stop feeding the hungry beast. When it comes to out-of-control federal spending, you don't find many members of Congress who have made it a high priority. In the Senate, there's John McCain and the pork projects he ridicules; there's George Voinovich, Russ Feingold, Judd Gregg; there's Larry Craig with his balanced budget amendment. That's not even enough for a baseball team. And yes, I'm guilty of not supporting them as I should have. It's been said the Democrats blame the deficit on Republican tax cuts and the Republicans blame the deficits on the Democrats' social programs. And as long as they can blame each other, they will never solve the problem. So, we need that tax-cutting Texan to also become a budget-cutting president. We need more members of Congress to decide that now is the time to cut taxes and at the same time tighten our belt. It's simple: Collect fewer dollars; spend fewer dollars. In the '80s and '90s, we "drank that free bubble up and ate that rainbow stew," as Merle Haggard sings. Now, it's time to go on a diet. Mr. Miller is a Democratic senator from Georgia.

Lynah is a great place to see a hockey game. No Joke. And this coming from a die-hard Clarkson fan. LETS GO TECH!

I love Zell. Too bad he left the senate. He will be missed.

Not bad, pretty close. where did you find this info?

Right, but there has been some talk about amending the constitution to say that you have to be a citizen for 20 years to run. I think that is very wrong, and thus why I said "shouldnt be". I disagree that Pataki or Guliani cannot win a nomination. Though I will agree both would be best served as a VP for 4 years before running on their own, they are both very strong men with a good track record in New York. The fact they could deliver a state like NY for the republican party would be a very strong selling point. BTW, I forgot to add McCain to my list

I dont believe its being released, but rather leaked.

So what do I win?! I was a little off on the popular vote I guess....Anyone know where I can find out if Badnarik got more votes than nader? I cant find definitive vote counts on anyone other than bush/kerry anywhere