molson_golden2002

http://nfldraft.rivals.com/cviewplayer.asp...report#scouting We are building that same 1999 defense again.....I hope

Ya, my side screwed up. They wrote a law that looked good before the credit crunch hit and didn't after. So it goes.

Well, I'd argue that we would be trying to have fewer drop outs by getting to the kids at a younger age and engaging them in learning sooner. Fewer drop outs helps the country as a whole. Again, I'm not against spending for science at all. I've argued here on this board--actually earlier in this thread I believe--for more spending on science, much more actually. I think that it should be spent on helping the nation move towards energy independence though. That should be a long term goal of the government, some sort of Manhatten Project for energy. An investment like that would really pay off. And I'm not just talking about alternative energy but also having the government become involved in actively promoting conservation on a wide scale. It would be expensive but a worthwhile investment. Hell, I think research funding for cancer research and other other diseases should be massively increased also. I have absolutely no interest in a manned space mission to Mars though

Well I'm sorry you feel that way about people like me being angry. Perhaps I should just ignore it all and shrug my shoulders and say life sucks. A lot of us are annoyed, get in line. I guess that's why we come here and B word about it. I guess its easy to believe the left wing outrage is all phony and about political power, so it goes. You can't change a thing without grabbing power, and to do that you have to say and do things that are rather unbecoming. So it goes. But sitting on your ass and doing nothing simply not to annoy people is cowardly and wrong. This country is really on the wrong track and THAT is frustrating to me. Lots of other people are obviously angry too. The "solutions" you spoke of, in my opinion, were basically curing the disease by killing the patient. I've offered my solutions--which were roundly condemned here, I might add--so it's not like I'm just complaining. Just remember, whether you like it or not big changes are coming. It's being forced upon us by powers beyond our control. The economy, energy prices [the big one], pollution, budget considerations, a changing world order and many other things, I'm sure. Now, as a country we can worry about those things, or we could argue about the "war on Christmas," gay marriage, flag burning, wearing flag lapells or what ever other distrations that are thrown out there. What would you pick?

I think you are on to something there. Obama is much more liberal than Hillary is, at least in his rhetoric

How about Hillary supporters voting for McCain? I could see some of that happening

If it's Hillary it will be said and viewed as her fault--and Bill's--and Obama will play the race card saying America wasn't ready for a black man. Maybe we are not. Are you saying this: The older Americans, the "Reagan Democrats," will go Republican and the religious right will be ignored by the Republicans? The Democrats will lose what remaining working class votes--white working class really--and the Republicans will become the moderate party of protecting the welfare state but also strong on defense, low taxes etc. Maybe McCain is moderate enough to address many issues Bush would not, global warming, conservation, alternative energy, all while winding down the Iraq fiasco....McCain becomes the model Republican others seek to immitate and the Republicans are set for years to come following his script. If that is what you are saying, then I suppose that could happen. I just wonder how McCain handles the deficit and taxes.

He's bitter

The end of the Democratic party?? You mean the party that in all probablity will increase its majorities in both houses of congress? I think the Democrats are in a much better position to accept a loss in November for the presidential race than the Republicans are. If the Republicans lose they will be out of power and heading towards rump status in the country after November if all the Democratic cards fall into place. God have mercy on the Republicans if the Democrats actually manage the country well, using "mainstream values" to do it, or not.

1) Wonderful 2) Absolutely, but you assume all the answers are somewhere else. Conservation, technology and innovation might just solve the problem down here, or in combination with people finding value in space. 3-Sorry, but education pays a giant dividend. Way bigger than NASA. We complain about it all the time but it does provide a basic foundadtion for individual advancement.

How's the work of abolishing the federal government going Mr. Rational?

First off I have nothing against space exploration per say and I think its fine. But the comparison to the Spanish mission to the new world is silly. Totally different. Great there are a few people set up in artificial environments at great cost to live and do experiments, wonderful! But if the argument is, as was posted, should we spend to explore up there, or should we spend to fix our world down here, I'm all for fixing the only world I will ever probably live on. Hopefully we can do both. As for thinking my posts suck, so be it. I do argue poorly here, yes. I do not put much effort into them I admit, but then again I feel I am answering morons generally and not much effort is needed. Also, do you know how many replies I get per post? I mean they just come out from under every rock to attack me from everywhere. I don't have the time--like a few other posters do to write 24/7-- out a reply. I'm not going to appologize for that. I have a core set of beliefs and spew them with venom I admit, but if you feel I have not answered when you "called me out" I will put you at the top of my reply list. You are a liberal, so? Liberals don't disagree or something? What's your point?

Wow crayonz, no mention of the Canadian riot? http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20080422/ca...me_habs_arson_7 Canadians? Rioting?

1) There would have been a lot of happy "Indians" 2) Who cares? You do understand we can't live in space, yet people could and did live in Florida, right? 3) Gasp!!! Tax money on another government program? Psssst, government can't do anything right, remember?

I thought you would be really angry about this. After all, these generals are making fortunes spreading Bush's talking point and you do it for nothing. Or did somebody say something about you getting a sucker? Sucker!

I've already explained that dearest Tom. But more to the point, the military officers sell themselves as honorbound gentlemen bound by the Constitution and people do believe that. Heck, I even wanted to give some of these guys the benefit of the doubt, but it's all too clear now they just don't deserve it. Nothing more than administrion hacks in uniform.............just like your General Petraeus Or is he different Tom?

That's it

Ya, “You have a real choice in this election. Either Democrat would be better than John McCain – and all three of us would be better than George Bush,” Mr. Obama said. “But what you have to ask yourself is, who has the chance to actually, really change things in a fundamental way?” http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04...tter-than-bush/

Good one

Ya, back in the good old days these things would warrent a slap on the wrist! Recruits were allowed to enlist after having been convicted of crimes including assault, burglary, drug possession and making terrorist threats. God you are a stupid foking idiot! Sh-- for brains!

The military is pretty rotten at the top, why shouldn't it be at the bottom as well?

What didn't you specifically like about the story of our corrupted military? This was really interesting: Some analysts said that even before the war started, they privately had questions about the justification for the invasion, but were careful not to express them on air. Mr. Bevelacqua, then a Fox analyst, was among those invited to a briefing in early 2003 about Iraq’s purported stockpiles of illicit weapons. He recalled asking the briefer whether the United States had “smoking gun” proof. “ ‘We don’t have any hard evidence,’ ” Mr. Bevelacqua recalled the briefer replying. He said he and other analysts were alarmed by this concession. “We are looking at ourselves saying, ‘What are we doing?’ ” Another analyst, Robert L. Maginnis, a retired Army lieutenant colonel who works in the Pentagon for a military contractor, attended the same briefing and recalled feeling “very disappointed” after being shown satellite photographs purporting to show bunkers associated with a hidden weapons program. Mr. Maginnis said he concluded that the analysts were being “manipulated” to convey a false sense of certainty about the evidence of the weapons. Yet he and Mr. Bevelacqua and the other analysts who attended the briefing did not share any misgivings with the American public. Mr. Bevelacqua and another Fox analyst, Mr. Cowan, had formed the wvc3 Group, and hoped to win military and national security contracts. “There’s no way I was going to go down that road and get completely torn apart,” Mr. Bevelacqua said. “You’re talking about fighting a huge machine.”

So, Reporters/Journalist Bad That's what you guys got out of this? BTW, Number of cowardly, lazy journalists killed in Iraq: 210 Number of brave--and now very wealthy--United States Generals killed: 0 The cost of right wing deniablity: priceless

I completely understood they were biased, but this article fills in the cracks of exactly how much under the thumb of the admistration they were. They would have lost their jobs at the TV networks if they didn't tow Bush's line. And then the corporate angle comes in, are they just promoting the war to help their companies bottom line?

Duped? I don't watch these idiots. This only gives proof to what I've realized for years now, since the war began, since Colin Powell was explaining how drone aircraft were going to kill me with bioweapons.