JimBob2232

Not to mention that the new york subway never closed during the RNC convention...

Maybe he has won 3 out of 5 hmm....

I hate shootouts to decide a game. How about alternating power plays. Similar to college football, where if you score, the other team has to score to force a 2nd OT.

East W L New England 12 4 NY Jets 9-7 (Upgraded from 8-8. Pennington looks like the real deal and Martin isnt showing his age) Buffalo 8-8 (Downgraded from 9-7 Should still be decent, but 0-2 hurts their chances of making the playoffs) Miami 4-12 (Downgraded from 6-10. I knew they would be bad, just not this bad.) North W L Baltimore 10 6 Cincinnati 8 8 Pittsburgh 8-8 (upgraded from 5-11. Really showed me something beating Miami. Roth is the real deal.) Cleveland 5 11 South W L Indianapolis 11 5 Jacksonville 10 6 Tennessee 9 7 Houston 6 10 West W L Kansas City 8-8 (downgraded from 10-6 Should regain old form, but 0-3 start causes them to miss the playoffs) Denver 8-8 Oakland 7-9 (upgrade from 6-10 Collins is a top notch QB and should rejuvinate the offense) San Diego 3 13 East W L Philadelphia 11 5 Washington 8 8 Dallas 7 9 NY Giants 7-9 (upgraded from 6-10. This is a suprise team to me so far. Could make the playoffs if bulger keeps his job) North W L Minnesota 12 4 Green Bay 10 6 Detroit 9 7 Chicago 4 12 (downgraded from 6-10. Grossman out kills this team.) South W L Atlanta 10 6 (upgraded from 9-7. Not a shock they are doing well, but need to put more points on the board and get PP involved.) Carolina 9 7 New Orleans 9 7 Tampa Bay 4-12 (downgraded from 7-9 My suprise team. How bad can they be? Simms will start and the losses will continue) West W L Seattle 11 5 St. Louis 8 8 San Francisco 5 11 Arizona 4 12 Misc. Changes in Bold AFC Division Winners New England, Baltimore, Indianapolis, Denver* AFC Wildcard: Jacksonville, Tennessee** *Replaced Kansas City with Denver **Replaced Buffalo with Tennessee NFC Division Winners Seattle, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Minnesota NFC Wildcard: Green Bay, Carolina AFC Championship Game: New England* vs. Indianapolis NFC Championship Game: Minnesota vs. Philadelphia Super Bowl: Indianapolis Vs. Minnesota Winner: Minnesota *Replaced Kansas City with New England MVP: Dante Cullpepper Offensive ROY: Roy Williams Defensive ROY: Sean Taylor

Yes, but who cares. The yankees and red sox still make alot of money, but cant spend it all on Free Agents. They can keep their Derek Jeters, Mariano Riveras, Jorge Posadas, Bernie Williams and um....cant think of anyone the redsox actually brought up...but they cant go out and buy talent (ala Giambi, Mussina Pedro, Ramirez, Schilling, etc.). Its a win-win world for all. (except for the players union, but screw em). It could actually result in higher salaries for the premium players because the yankees for instance, would get a break on the cap for keeping derek jeter. Thus they could offer him alot more money than other franchises. It would completely revamp the landscape.

This is the solution too all of baseballs problems. A salary cap with this rule. i have been saying it for years. It would bring back dynasty players (i.e. players spending entire career on one team).

McMicheal is a good enough TE to play in most leagues...dont forget about Plexico...but point made.

There are some good ones in there too http://hogan.ohio.com/ohio/bok/album/show.php3?id=1651

I am mildly adverse to a flat tax. At least a pure flat tax like we have been accustomed to hearing about. While I do feel taxes are extremely high in this country, I do also feel it is fair for people who earn more money pay a marginally higher income tax rate. (though not at the disparity we are currently seeing). I like the national sales tax approach. But again, it MUST be met with the elimination of at least the income tax, and preferably all taxes. One of the big benefits of this plan, is the increased revenue from currently untaxable sources. With a national sales tax, all revenue from drugs and gambing (two sources of income, which goes unreported). Drug dealers certainally wouldnt even think about putting their drug revenue on a 1040. But they will go out and buy that new mercades. And when they do, they will pay the national sales tax on it. This NST must be done carefully as to not disproportionatly affect the lower class. The rebate plan the Government has thought of, isnt a bad start, though I would also like to see all food purchases and clothing under $500 dollars be tax exempt at the federal level. Good discussion to be having in washington. Much better than who did what in the 1970s thats for sure.

Correct me if im wrong, but Yucca mountain is in nevada is it not? If your argument held any water, Yucca Mountain would be in NY or California. So what you are saying is, that only the votes of 537 people in florida mattered in 2000? How wrong you are. If 100 people vote for something, and 90 vote against it, the outcome of the vote isnt decided by the 10 people who swung the election, but by the 91 people who voted in the affermative giving the plurality of the votes to their cause. To say republicans in NY have no vote is wrong. 2,403,374 people in NY voted for bush. Every one of those votes counted. 4,107,697 people voted for gore. If you are looking for votes that dont count, its the extra 1.7 million people who voted for Gore that had their votes not count. Mathmatically possible, yes. However, Relative to the election being close and the candidates with the most popular votes losing the electoral college, this situation is much less likely. Oh, and BTW, this reform garbage that states like Colorado is trying to push through (and Maine and one other state I believe) is a joke. They are trying to make their electoral votes selected as a percentage of the popular vote in the state. You get 50% of the pop vote, you get 50% of the electoral votes. Sounds fair right? Wrong. Why would ANY candidate spend time in your state? Talk about your needs? The way our country is devided at MOST he could expect to win one electoral vote. You essentially take your state out of political play. Its a bonehead move to do if you are in a state legislative position.

I take the opposite opinion here. I think the electoral college is a good and necessary part of our electoral process. What does need to be changed, is to eliminate the human portion of the electoral college, and require by law that all electors vote for the candidate chosen by the electorate. The first thing you have to remember about the electoral college, it is highly unlikely that a person will win the popular vote, but lose the electoral college UNLESS the election is very close (as it was in 2000). What the electoral college offers is a clear and decicive way to pick a winner of the election, should the race become extremely tight. People point to the mess in florida in 2000 as a reason to eliminate the electoral college. In fact the exact opposite is true. Without the electoral college process, there would have been recounts not only in Florida, but in every state and county in the union. It would have been complete chaos. Moreso, there have been 53 elections since George Washington was elected. Only 3 times has there been a discrepancy between the electoral college and the popular vote. The electoral college provided a clear winner. On at least 12 other occasions, the popular vote was close enough to have the election contested, and a nationwide recound, such as we saw in florida, would persue. If gore won Tennesee, he would be president, If he won Missouri he would have been president. Same with Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, washington and many other states. Its not ONE STATE that won this election for bush, but rather 50 states.

Dan Marino. Muhahaha

Well, since we are comparing academic credentials, I have an BS in Chemical Engineering with a Master of Business Administration and am currently working as a Nuclear Engineer. I am a member of Tau Beta Pi (an engineering honor society). I dont know why this matters...but since you brought it up... The point im trying to make here, isnt that the media shouldnt be allowed to do what it does, nor is it that we need a new "reformed media" if you will. Instead I just wish that the majority of people would view particularly television media for what it is. Entertainment with a news backdrop. Its reality tv programming. We might as well as viewers, vote off the story we dont like every week so we dont have to hear it again. I agree with you on print media. It is much better. Radio is also reasonable, but you have to weigh through the partisan twist everything on radio is exposed to. Though usually you know the twist the host is trying to place on a particular story. The problem is, people like dan rather who are partisans, and who are actively campaing and raising money for the democratic party, then come on and do the nightly news and try to be fair. Its not just dan rather either. Tom brokaw was even on some peoples list to be Kerrys VP choice! But I digress... I understand editorial decisions are made. They have to be. Editorial decisions are based first on what people want to hear. Then on what people need to or should hear. For every story about Lacy Peterson or Kobe Bryant, there is a story about something more important and meaningful to our everyday life. Something more worthy of making the editorial cut, but it wont because people want to know whats going on in those stories. People mistake these stories for news. It should be on E! or Entertainment Tonight. Unfortunatly people who want the real news will not find it on CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, or dare I say, Fox News. This leads to an uninformed electorate, who is tasked with making some very very tough decisions here in the next couple months. People like you and me, who take the time to become informed on a plethora of key issues, can formulate an educated opinion on tax reform, Iraq, social security, health care, etc. But people who rely on the alphabet channels do not have access to the kinds of information they need to make these vitals choices. I just wish they would realize they are being fed a bunch of garbage, and go out looking for their own answers to issues instead of relying on Dan Rather to tell them what to think. I hope this scandal will go a long way to helping this cause.

I am not quite sure why the antaganizing lead...we seem to be on the same page here. I am all for the first amendment and freedom of the press. However, i view the vast majority of the media as entertainment rather than a news source at this point. I base this on the over sensationalizing of stories for the sole purpose of increasing ratings. This is not a conclusion I came upon because of the Dan Rather story alone. But one over many years of watching the news. Remember all the shark attacks one year? It was no more than any other year. Why the media frenzy over it? One year they went crazy with child abductions. Was it more than normal? No. But it got the attention of the public and they ran it to death. Then there was the disease era. Remember smallpox, sars, west nile and monkeypox? What happened to them? did they just go away? No. Its just not a story that gets ratings anymore. The urge to be the first one supporting a story, superseeds the underlying accuracy of the story. This is wrong. While I fully support the media, and freedom of the press, the press is not doing its intended job. They are giant profit producting corporations producing television programs, with the sole purpose of making money for their stakeholders. While I am also not against the profit motive, the two collide, and do a net disservice to the american people.

Are these the same major news stations who report on forged documents. Are these the same major news stations that called the 2000 election wrong, not once but twice? Are these the same major news stations that are more concerned with sensationalizing the news and gaining ratings than reporting the news? I think it is. I hate to say it, but it almost seems as if you cant even trust the news in this country anymore.

You are entitled to your opinion and your vote, but before you jump completely onto the kerry bandwagon, ask yourself, what exactly will he do? Will he, as I suspect, sit by idlely, and let iraq melt into civil war, causign unrest in the entire middle east while he tries to gain the support of France and the rest of Europe. Or will he somehow magically find the kahones to go in there, remove al-sadr and the rest of the insurgents, and win the peace, and bring our boys home without another soldier leaving blood on the sand? Ironically, re-electing bush will likely be the medicine we need here, because after he is re-elected, he will not be subjected to re-election again, and can do what needs to be done, rather than the politically correct thing. That said, I would urge you to take a look at third party candidates this election. There are some good candidates out there, specifically in the libertarian party. We need to eliminate the 2 party system. Even if you conclude that kerry is the medicine we need in these times, he is not the cure. The cure is a more open and honest debate by all candidates from all parties and all walks of life. Democracy is not a monopoly.

George Bush said Iraq had WMD. So did his son. So did Clinton, Gore, Tony Blair, Schroeder and Chirac. So did putin and virtually every world leader, and member of the US congress. My opinion still stands that Iraq had and possesed WMD, and somehow managed to either hide them really really well, or ship them out of the country (more likely). Bush or Gore, the same scenario would exist provided that Gore actually went into Iraq, to confront the threat that WMD posed to the US. I think God George W. Bush was elected in 2000. Gore simply would not have been strong enough to handle the post 911 events with such leadership and conviction. I do not believe gore would have handled this war in the manner it needs to be handled; taking the fight to the enemy before they take the fight to us. This is my problem with Kerry as well. He is too worried about what the world thinks of us, rather than our national security. I do not think the world hates us for one. Russia is now talking about pre-emptive strikes against chechnyan rebels to protect their own interests. Let the terrorists strike berlin paris and see if france and germany change their opinion. I bet it would. If Bush or Gore spent millions of dollars and thousands of lives in Iraq, my criticism would be the same. Not because this war wasnt necessary, it is. But because of the way it has been run. Make no mistake about it, Iraq is a mess. Bush is running for election, and is afraid to take the necessary actions in iraq. WHY IS AL SADR STILL ALIVE? We had him. We had him trapped, and let him go because bush was too afraid to take out the mosque he was in. Political pressure has forced bushs hand in iraq, and for that he is to blame. However as i stated earlier, gore wouldnt even be there. So its a half-assed effort, or no effort. Great choice huh? Well, i'll tackle this, since I live a mile from one of the largest shipping yards on the east coast, and coincidentally work in a nuclear plant. More can be done. I see great strides being taken (at the nuc plant), more emphasis on checking IDs, reinforced barriers, more drills are taking place, counter-terrorism briefings and more armed guards to name a few. From outside, you wouldnt notice many of these changes, but the workforce is far more prepared to deal with such an attack. As far as the shipping yard goes, I have seen no visable changes, but I know they have spent millions of dollars on radiation detection equipment, suervaillance cameras, fence improvements, etc. Yes, more can be done. Is bush the right guy? Probably not. Is kerry? Doubtful. The point here is that, while I did vote for GWB in 2000, I will not be voting for him in 2004. I will also not be voting for kerry. I will be voting for a yet to be decided 3rd party candidate. Not because i think they can win, but because I feel we need to end this 2 party monopoly on our political system. It is detrimental to our country.

Republican Run NPR? You MUST be kidding me.

I second this opinion, and I am planning on doing so myself.

We must deport all illegal aliens. We must secure our borders. We need politians with the guts to say, and do this.

Newsflash! Every one of them is right! The problem is, what is kerry going to do about it? He has less than 2 months to formulate a legitimate plan, and sell it to the american people. He should have done this long ago. Those are all good reasons not to vote for bush...but why change course and vote for kerry?

Part of the issue here is that Dan Rather is percieved to have alot more credibility than Brit Hume. Walk down the street and ask people if they know who brit hume is. Then ask them about dan rather. Brit, though no less of a journalist, does not have the name recognition, and therefore could be criticized at will by the media. You cant take dan rather to the woodshead, as much as he may deserve it, because the american people have been watching him for 95 years, and have grown to a certain comfort and trust level with him. This certainally damages his reputation, but he wont be destroyed over it in the way a brit hume could be. I will say this though. Democrats are much better at crying loudly when things dont go their way. Trent lott makes one comment, gets taken out of context, and next thing you know its all over everywhere, meanwhile Senator Robert Byrd was a former leader in the KKK, and nothing ever gets said about that. I think, in some twisted way, behavior like this (forging of a letter, releasing bush DWI records on the evening of the election, etc.), is expected from the democratic party. So the republicans treat it as the status quo. Meanwhile, the republicans are supposed to be the more "moral party", and whenever they do something even close to questionable, the democrats make sure to blow it up in their face, in an effort to destroy their base.

If the democrats #1 concern was eliminating bush, there were better candidates to do so. Lieberman would be running away with this election. Gephart and Edwards would be giving bush a run for his money. Even a guy like wesley clark would be doing better than kerry. The fact is that the media and the establishment picked Kerry, and now they realize they have a very poor candidate. People are trying to decide who to vote against, not for. Its sad, but true. The reality is that Bush has bungled this war in iraq, and kerry has no vision or plan to get us out of it. The economy isnt as rosy as the bush people are portraying it to be, yet kerry has no plan to fix it. The republicans use scare tactics to try to scare the elderly into thinking they will lose medicare benefits. The democrats use scare tactics to try to scare families into thinking bush wants to re-initiate the draft. Its all a bunch of hooey, and I for one am sick of it. What happened to old school polititians? People like Zell Miller. People like Ronald Reagan. People like FDR? God First. America Second. Politics a distant third. Unfortunatly in todays society, Politics is first, america second and god a distant third.

I would rather have a good $4M/yr guard, than a bad $4M/yr tackle.

Funny how the next picture is a home defibulator....