Max Fischer

You're right, what was I thinking. Thing is, the scene with the fish head drinking cappaciano with an oriental woman in a Italian restaurant may be pushing the bounds of believability. I say switch the drink to a mocha latte in a Greek restaurant and you'll likely get less push back.

My advice is when you pitch this story leave out the part about the fish head drinking cappachino in an Italian restaurant with an oriental woman. Trust me, those Hollywood vultures always steal the best ideas.

Don't want to stretch the bounds of your ability to make a reasoned argument, they didn't cover this topic on talk radio and/or you're too busy burning the constitution?

Never said you were a Republican. I simply refer to your apparent aversion to posted articles. Anyway . . . this does matter if you are interested in politics and its effect on you and I. It would seem that someone of your strong opinions would find interest in the ever volatile relationship between President Bush and the "traditional" conservatives and the effect of this possible rift on economic and foreign policy. To me, it is incomprehensable that someone concerned about Iraq (or any matter) will not see how this story could prove influential on future policy. Often it matters little who's right and who's wrong. Instead, if you believe that policy is heavily influenced by politics take a hard look at the influence of the speakers. If the speakers represent a significant political faction, or even more important, are influential in that group, it would be educational to note what they say and how it may change the political landscape. Thus, the first question should be "does it matter what these people say?" In this case, it is my strong opinion that the CATO Institute has great influence on Republican policy and since the two featured speaker's were deeply critical of Bush it can no doubt have a measurable effect on policy (and quite possibly November's election.)

And . . .? Care to revise and extend your remarks?

"Unconscionable" "irresponsible," "vindictive" "inept" "reckless" Who are they talking about? "a socialist" "a 48 percent increase in spending in just six years" "federalization of public schools" "the biggest entitlement since LBJ" "a big-government agenda" Oh, it's just Republicans beating up on Clinton and the Democrats again, right? "You have to understand the people in this administration have no principles" "complete contempt" for democratic processes, torture of detainees, ignoring habeas "corpus and a "vast expansion of the federal government." Oh, wait, crazy liberals saying "Bush Bad" crap." THINK AGAIN. "a new ideology, the ideology of Christian fundamentalism." "He's a socialist in so many respects, a Christian socialist." "If Bush were running today against Bill Clinton, I'd vote for Clinton" Splitsville? Commentary (to hopefully satisfy the inevitable backlash): A 5% drop in turnout among traditional conservative Republicans (the non-social Reaganites -- see William Buckely) and we could see a big shift at the polls this November. True Reaganites (and you can count Reagan Dems, though that term has lost much of its usefulness), not the social conservatives, are what keep the GOP alive. They are much more likely to disengage than the social conservatives. Moreover, does this add more fuel to the fire that there may be a growing split in the GOP between traditional, neo and religious social conservatives?

Of course, my first reaction was "who's Perry Fewell?" Oh, our new guy. Funny how we haven't talked much about our new coaches.

There is no doubt Westboro has discovered the furthest edges of the extremes but there are more than enough people who agree with the basic premise that God indeed thinks homosexuality is a great sin and He is not happy (and perhaps very angry) with America for "putting up" with "Gays." I view Westboro on the extreme edge but certainly somewhat representative of those who consider homosexuality a big problem; which is why an awful lot of time, money and energy is devoted in every capitol in the nation "fighting" over the "homosexual agenda," whatever that is. In another generation or two homosexuality will likely become so "accepted" that people will wonder what all the fuss was about - and ironically, it may go the way of interracial marriage et al to the point were it will no longer have the same level of social and political gravitas it has now.

Where extremism, patriotism and simple decency collide. Why people care so much about such things is beyond me. Can it get much worse than this?http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/14012107.htm

Last gasp? (Is that you Mr. Cheny? ) So, why don't we send the troops home and stop spending tens of millions a year on a relatively peaceful country? Isn't it because Iraq is a complete mess held together with bubble gum and band aids? The article is bogus (or at least refutable) since not every part of Iraq is under siege. Just because bombs don't go off every week doesn't mean that the "unseen" political dynamics are about to explode. The country is politically unstable and that is why we haven't left and will not leave anytime soon. The question isn't who is thinking there is a serious chance of civil war (including Dems, Reps, foriegn policy experts, the US military and the current Iraqi gov't) but who doesn't? BTW, I had to laugh in disgust at FoxNews for its campaign to suggest that the media is making up the idea that Civil War is a possibility while at the same time posing the question of whether civil war may be a "good thing." No shame.

Brought to you by the last few people who don't think Iraq is f*cked up. Did this guy work for Saddam's Ministry of Information? So, the idea that Iraq has the makings of a civil war is complete fiction? Is that what you are saying, Wacka? I get it. It's like Disney World in Iraq and it's only the media's fault for our belief that Iraq situation may not be ideal. No, thanks. I'll take the word of most of the world's experts on Iraq and the Middle East -- including most of the Republicans who are not currently working for the President.

Show me were Coy Wire's name is written in as the starter with indelible ink and I'll worry. I'll reserve judgement until we know who else is in camp by July. Even if a miracle happened and the team made the playoffs in 2006, it's very doubtful Milloy would be on the team in 2007. Moreover, the point of this thread was don't kid yourself that we'd go to playoffs in 2006 or that our record would be much different with these wholesale changes. Bite the bullet now and plan for a serious playoff run in 2007.

If you believe Milloy played well for his salary and experience then it's your credibility that is in question.

But there is always apprehension replacing players who look good on paper b/c there is little guarantee you'll replace them those who'll play significantly better THIS season. Cuts are not a one to one salary swap: it's likely we'll replace those players who are younger yet less experienced and on paper not going to be a significant difference in 2007.

"Win now." What else does a new GM say? We're going to cut a bunch of drift wood, play the young guys, lose a bunch of games but we're going to be good in 2007? Marv didn't say, but that's what I heard. Now his actions speak much louder than his words, and I for one am OK with it. I rather root for guys who play hard and trying to learn to be winners than root for a bunch of underacheivers who would be gone after next season anyway.

The way I see it Williams was an "easy" cut but Adams, Milloy, Campbell and probably Moulds cuts mean they are not going to waste time and money paying for players that won't be key members of a 2007 playoff team. I'd rather be 4-12 this year and be in good position to be a serious playoff contender in 2007 and beyond; than kidding ourselves in 2006, missing the playoffs anway and starting all over again.

Also assuming the Bills pocket the $9M-$19M in cap $$$ and skip the draft.

We must be talking about different things. Isn't partisan politics, politics? Isn't Iraq about politics? How do you separate the two? Good luck, but I don't see how it's possible unless you purposely ignore the giant election thing in the middle of the room. I don't think it's possible to "discuss Iraq" without the overbearing partisan political implications and before you dismiss it you have to dismiss WFB comments as having NO impact on Iraq policy. Which is very unlikely since I believe you have sidestepped what WFB represents in the debate about, tada, Iraq. Ah, another debate topic! Doesn't politics always drive policy?

But its the purpose of the board to place an issue on the table and debate it? You don't have to make a counter-argument, but perhaps comment on what WFB said, what/if any impact does it have, what if/any does it say about the American political landscape. If not worthy of ones brain power, then don't touch it. Above all, why disparge someone for putting it up for discussion? It's not unreasonable to believe that when a traditional stalwart of American conservative thinking crticizes a Republican President it could stir a rational debate. For myself, it does open it up to interesting questions about GWB's positoin among the "old guard" conservatives and if even a small fraction of so-called sure-fire Republican votes simply stay home in disgust, it could mean the difference in a handful of key races. The deeply partisan nature of the US today means that "independents" and the enthusiasm of a Party base are even more pronounced in non-presidential year politics. However, it remains to be seen if WFB's comments are indicative of his "factions'" thinking or if he alone in this assessment. I'm not sure, but THAT has to be another relevent question, don't you think?

This is another example of why this forum does not work and precisely why very few people come to this board. It is not a discussion, it's talk radio and personal attacks. Cognitive dissonance rules. There could have been a lively discussion about Buckley's comments and whether or not they have an impact on the current political debate. Last time I check, WFB was still a pretty big deal iin conservative circles and he's no doubt harshly criticizing "his' president. A debate could have begun on several topics: is Buckley right?, are his comments an indication of "traditional conservatism" losing patience with GWB?, is WFB simply out of touch with the Right?, is his brand of conservatism no longer relevant?, does this signal a problem for GWB and possibly the future of the Republican Party? Any of these topics (and more) could have led to a good discussion. Instead, except for perhaps one response, the poster is personally attacked and dismissed. Why? Are people incapable of thoughtful discussion? Do things that question your stance frighten you? You can't make a reasonable counter-argument? Why bother posting if this is just a mutal affirmation club that avoids thoughtful debate? This is more like a state-fun political board in China than something Jefferson would every recongize.

Yeah, but he was totally lost on defense. He can play for the Knicks.

I know this will create a great deal of controversy but this forum seems pretty knowledgable about pop culture. I prefer Mick Shrimpton, but that's just me. Tap's "golden days." Please let me know which album is your favorite. I simply can't decide.

Not . . . that . . . hot? Did I read that correctly? Please provide examples of hot.

Crabs: smashing crabs outdoors. If you're in Annapolis: Cantler's - it's a hole in the wall just out of town but very local and one of the local tributaries. Jimmy Cantler's Riverside Inn 458 Forest Beach Road Annapolis, MD 21401 410-757-1311 (tel) ww.cantlers.com - bring friends, smash crabs, get seriously pissed. Mike's - on the South River. Mike's Restaurant and Crab House 3030 Old Riva Rd. Riva, MD 21140 410-956-2784 (tel) www.mikescrabhouse.com Downtown: Phillips. More of a regular commercial restaurant, but local commercial. Avoid Buddy's Crabs & Ribs like the plague, only tourists go there. Crab CAKEs or any seafood: All on the water, great atmosphere; very good but not very cheap. Not NYC, DC expensive but bring the credit card. The Chart House - Eastport side. O'Leary's - many say this is the best place. Carroll's Creek. Less pricey, downtown, more bar atmosphere: McGarvey's Griffin's O'Brien's Take a cab, parking is hard to find plus you don't have to drive home.

Answers: 1. Sister Morphine. Rolling Stones - Sticky Fingers 2. pathetic 3. Candidans don't you hair mousse, they you moose hair. 4. Ben Watson 5. Vince Young