yyz28

Folks, let me be the first to say I think Coach Dodge is going to turn this program around... but let's remember some of the MAJOR negatives that have happened since he has arrived (not all his fault, I'm sure, but problems he faces none the less..)... 1. first year he had a totally ineffective defensive coach. 2. he's a high-school coach who is just learning the College game - his inablity (or unwillingness) to adjust is painfully obvious, but I'm sure he's learning this lesson in a trial by fire. 3. important recruits not following through and playing - seems like every other day leading up to the seaason, I'd come on this board and find this one had de-comitted, this one didn't make the grade, that one has left the team... 4. scholarship problems. 5. Jr's and Sr's on the team were recruited for a totally different style of play. ...this isn't to say they aren't talented, but a drag car isn't going to fare well on a road race course, or vise versa... Someone before me said this was going to be a several year project. I think this is right. I also want to start winning now, but the realist in me says its going to be a while.

A BLESSING!!! A BLESSING FROM THE LORD! God be Praised. ...que flexible animated people farting into trombones...

If we manage to beat Rice, they are going to have a hissy-fit on the hilltop. Snicker. ...their implosion tonight would make an upstate in Manhattan that much sweeter. ...here's to dreamin'!

I'm wholly entertained by this beatdown of SMU. ...though Rice scares me more now.

George Bush is not running for President.

COURSE ITS A GOOD IDEA!!!!

Did Matt Damon ever become non-weird? I'm confused.

Dude... and she't hot. Anyone notice?

Will the Joker version of RV be teaching this class? If so, I'm in!

Work is over-rated.

Exactly... this takes an attack page out of both sides' playbooks.

Medicare Prescription Drug Plan was a bi-partisan plan... ...where'e the news link proving this happend, btw. I'm going to demand of you what you demand of me... First, back up your claim. ...let me hit you with your favorite word... LINK? I'm not talking about lawsuits, I'm talking about the cost of the insuracne doctors, providers and hospitals must carry... that cost is passed on to us. I don't care what your paralegal expert says. I know what my Father-In-Law PAYS per year in Malpractice insurance. That cost is passed on to the patient. ...that insurance is that high because of the cost to defend lawsuits, many of which are frivilous. The problem here is that between them the five biggest health insurers—UnitedHealthCare, Wellpoint, Aetna, Humana, and Cigna—which cover 105 million members, last year had profits between them of $11.8 billion. This is not a small number; these are very profitable companies. But total U.S. health care costs last year were in the area of $2.3 trillion. So, with a membership that included a little more than half of the Americans covered by private insurance, these five insurers’ profits came to 0.5 percent of total health care costs. Profit on insurance premiums are not the lion's share of the costs. You can't drop your price below your costs and stay in business. Why do you think that you're going to pay 50% less? Where does that number come from? I don't care who's providing the insurance. If the costs are 89% of the premiums we currently pay, how do we get down to 50% without the Government (meaning the tax-payer) picking up the remaining 35% of the tab? That's 800 Billion Dollars that has to come from somewhere? Where are we gonna get it? ...that's right, we're going to raise taxes on the companies and investors that create the jobs in this country. The dems call them "the rich". Oh, I read it... I just know that once the government is offering subsidized healthcare, companies are going to have no reason to continue to offer healthcare to the employee... Why have an expense item for something you're already paying taxes to provide. Again, this is a VERY simple concept. I can't give you a link, but I know for a fact this is the case. I don't know the percentage, but I know from experience that this is true. Talk to young people, and see what they tell you about health insurance. My wife works for a company where health insurance for her and our child costs about $215 a month. This is a bargin when compared to the plan my company can afford (we're very small, yet we still cover our employee's premium 100%) 215 is $7 a day, and many of my wife's coworkers CHOOSE not to sacrafice their lifestyle to have insurance for themselves and their kids. I've had employees who make 60+K a year turn down our family coverage. It isn't a matter of "can't afford it". It's a matter of "can't afford it AND maintain the wants in my life I think I need to maintain" for many. When you look at surveys, somewhere between 6-10% of thsoe who are uninsured say they "choose not to have it", which upwards of 50% of those polled say they can't afford it... ...but what isn't studied is how many of that 50% choose to spend their money on a car payment instead of driving a used car and paying for insurance.. It doen't take into account how many of them have $100-$150 cable or satellite service hooked to a HD TV, yet don't have health insurance. It doesn't take into account how many of these families eat out 5 times a week, but don't buy health insurance. What I'm saying is that it doesn't take into account the "priority" factor. I don't pretend to know what that percentage is, but it is a percentage that adds to the 6-10%. A full 3/4 of those without health insurance live above the poverty line, so this isn't just a case of the super-poor who don't have a decent lifestyle are those without health insurance. Actually, that isn't the case. The ENTIRE Health and Human services budget for 2008 is $787 billion. The math demonstrated above, this program you support will cost $800 for the Healthcare portion alone, and that assumes costs don't go up. ...so this plan is going to cost us more. Good debate, I'm enjoying it. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this issue.

C'mon. Did he or did he not approve grants to organizations who's mission was the banning of handguns for law abiding citizens. The answer is YES. He now calls the supreme court decision correct. That is a flip flop... In His Remarks To The Annual AIPAC Policy Conference, Obama Said That Jerusalem Should Be The Undivided Capital Of Israel, But Later Said The City's Future Should Be Negotiated By Israel And The Palestinians: On Wednesday, Obama Said Jerusalem Would Be The Undivided Capital Of Israel. Obama: "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At The Annual AIPAC Policy Conference, Arlington, VA, 6/4/08) One Day Later, Obama Said The Future Of Jerusalem Would Have To Be Negotiated By Israel And The Palestinians. CNN's Candy Crowley: "I want to ask you about something you said in AIPAC yesterday. You said that Jerusalem must remain undivided. Do Palestinians have no claim to Jerusalem in the future?" Obama: "Well, obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues." (CNN's "The Situation Room," 6/5/08) "Facing Criticism From Palestinians, Sen. Barack Obama Acknowledged Today That The Status Of Jerusalem Will Need To Be Negotiated In Future Peace Talks, Amending A Statement Earlier In The Week That Jerusalem 'Must Remain Undivided.'" (Glenn Kessler, "Obama Clarifies Remarks On Jerusalem," The Washington Post's "The Trail," Blog, www.washingtonpost.com, 6/5/08) Obama Now Claims That He Will Only Meet With Foreign Leaders At A Time Of His Choosing If It Will Advance U.S. Interests, But Previously Said He Would Meet With Rogue Leaders His First Year In Office Without Preconditions: In His Remarks To The AIPAC Conference, Obama Claimed That He Would Only Meet With The "Appropriate Iranian Leaders At A Time And Place" Of His Choosing. Obama: "Contrary to the claims of some, I have no interest in sitting down with our adversaries just for the sake of talking. But as President of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leaders at a time and place of my choosing - if, and only if - it can advance the interests of the United States." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At The Annual AIPAC Policy Conference, Arlington, VA, 6/4/08) But At A July 2007 Debate, Obama Said He Would Meet With Hostile Leaders During His First Year In Office. Question: "[W]ould you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"...Obama: "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them - which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration - is ridiculous." (CNN/YouTube Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Charleston, SC, 7/23/07) At A September 2007 Press Conference, Obama Confirmed That He Would Meet Specifically With Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Question: "Senator, you've said before that you'd meet with President Ahmadinejad ..." Obama: "Uh huh." Question: "Would you still meet with him today?" Obama: "Yeah, nothing's changed with respect to my belief that strong countries and strong presidents talk to their enemies and talk to their adversaries. I find many of President Ahmadinejad's statements odious and I've said that repeatedly. And I think that we have to recognize that there are a lot of rogue nations in the world that don't have American interests at heart. But what I also believe is that, as John F. Kennedy said, we should never negotiate out of fear but we should never fear to negotiate." (Sen. Barack Obama, Press Conference, New York, NY, 9/24/07) Obama Has Pivoted In His Opposition To Legislation Labeling Iran's Revolutionary Guard A Terrorist Organization: Obama Has Been Inconsistent In His Views On Labeling Iran's Revolutionary Guard A Terrorist Organization. "Obama's campaign suddenly discovered that their man -despite having spent the last nine months campaigning on his opposition to Kyl-Lieberman - 'has consistently urged that Iran's Revolutionary Guard be labeled what it is: a terrorist organization.' Well, not that consistently. Senator Obama has been scrupulously careful not to call explicitly for designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization. Now, however, with the Democratic nomination almost in hand, Obama feels comfortable telling a pro-Israel audience what it wants to hear."(Danielle Pletka, "Obama's Pander Pivot," Weekly Standard, 6/4/08) "[T]he Audience At AIPAC Might Ask Why Senator Obama Has Pivoted From Opposition To 'Lieberman-Kyl' To Support For The IRGC Designation His Audience Demands. Is This Really Change They Can Believe In?" (Danielle Pletka, "Obama's Pander Pivot," Weekly Standard, 6/4/08) "Which Barack Obama Will Be The Democratic Standard-Bearer: The One Who Vowed To 'Eliminate' The Iranian Nuclear Threat Two Days Ago, Or The One Who Opposed Designating The Revolutionary Guards A Terrorist Organization?" (Editorial, "Obama And Iran," The Washington Times, 6/6/08) Obama Now Claims That He Opposed Palestinian Elections In 2006, But He Supported Them At That Time: Obama Says That He Opposed Palestinian Elections In 2006. Obama: "There is no room at the negotiating table for terrorist organizations. That is why I opposed holding elections in 2006 with Hamas on the ballot. The Israelis and the Palestinian Authority warned us at the time against holding these elections, but this administration pressed ahead. And the result is a Gaza controlled by Hamas, with rockets raining down on Israel." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At The Annual AIPAC Policy Conference, Arlington, VA, 6/4/08) But During His 2006 Trip To The Middle East, Obama Met With Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas And Said The Election Represented An "Opportunity...To Consolidate Behind A Single Government." "Illinois Senator Barack Obama's journey to the Middle East took him to the West Bank Thursday for a meeting with the man elected to replace Yasser Arafat. ... For a time Thursday in the West Bank there was only the clatter of cameras as the newly elected president of the Palestinian authority, Mahmoud Abbas, met with Illinois Senator Barack Obama. At a meeting with Palestinian students Thursday, Obama said the U.S. will never recognize winning Hamas candidates unless the group renounces its fundamental mission to eliminate Israel, and Obama told ABC7 he delivered that message to the Palestinian president. 'Part of the opportunity here with this upcoming election is to consolidate behind a single government with a single authority that can then negotiate as a reliable partner with Israel,' said Obama." (Chuck Goudie, "Obama Meets With Arafat's Successor," ABC 7 News, http://obama.senate.gov, 1/12/06) The Palestinian News Agency WAFA Reported That Obama Was Supportive Of The Palestinian Elections Being Held At Their Scheduled Time. "President Mahmoud Abbas met Thursday with the U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), in the Presidential HQ in Ramallah...President briefed the U.S. Senator about the latest developments in the Palestinian territories including the preparations for the legislative elections.... Abbas and Obama discussed the means of underpinning the American-Palestinian economic relations...Obama asserted the US supports and eager that the Palestinian legislative elections on its proposed time (January 25)." There are 4 of the flips you doubt documented. ...I don't have time to dig up all the links, but everything is referenced. This is fun.

From Jan. 1, 2007 through March of this year, people and political action committees in the health sector have contributed $42 million and to Democratic candidates for congress and the presidency, compared with $34.6 million to Republicans, Dow Jones Newswires reports. That’s a 55% to 45% split, and a big shift from the way things have been. From the 1990 election through the present, total health sector donations have favored Republicans 58% to 42%. ...but I'm sure the Democrats won't have to "pay" back those favors or anything. LOL! Newsflash - Companies donate to parties in power. I am married into a family of healthcare providers, and I hear them talk. Malpractice insurance is the biggest expense in their practicies. Not salaries. Not drugs and treatments. Nope... Malpractice insurance. Why? The number of frivilous lawsuits filed against doctors. Tort-Reform is desprately needed and will help a great deal to get healthcare costs down. M'kay... see, this is what will get the thread locked... I think this is a bad idea. First, if there is a government option, companies are dis-incented to offer plans on their own. Second, there is no such thing as "Government Backed". What you mean is "Tax-Payer Backed". Unlimited Free Supply will create unlimited demand. Unlimited demand leads to rationing. Simple economics. To resolve an issue that may OR MAY NOT be an issue for 15% of the country, we're going to force the other 85% of us who have healh care and the 60+% of us who are happy with our coverage to change what we have? Good plan. (<-- I type that with my tounge burried in my cheek..) ...and MANY of those who don't have health insurance are without because they can't afford it... many choose to spend their money on other things. People who NEED healthcare and can't afford it have an outlet at county AND private hospitals - they can't deny treatment, by law - WE'RE ALREADY PAYING FOR THAT SERVICE FOR THOSE WHO NEED IT.

Sarah Palin - Has executive experience and is well known for sticking to her issues and keeping her campaign promises, and has private sector experience. She has a track record of getting her agenda done. Barak Obama - Has legislative experience but didn't drive any important legislation in the statehouse or on Capitol Hill. Has no private sector experience. Despite 10 years in government, Barak's homestate of Illinois still has increasing tuition, increasing healthcare costs, etc... ...and let's not forget... the Clintons, Biden and other democrats have been most critical of Barak when it comes to experience. Barak's inexperience isn't what scares me.

I'll do this when I have some time, but there have been a lot of examples. Iraq. Energy. Abortion. Gun Control. He sat on the board during his time in Chicago of an organization that supported the total ban of handguns and assualt weapons, and then later praised the Supreme Court decision calling the DC ban unconsitutional as "properly upholding the 2nd amendment" and descirbing it as a decision he agreed with. He ripped Hillary Clinton for months for voting to list Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. Days after Clinton conceded, Obama flipped and said he supported the definition. Obama repeatedly vowed to meet with various heads of terror states—most notably Ahmadinejad of Iran—"without preconditions." Then, with the nomination in sight, he zigzagged: "There's no reason why we would necessarily meet with Ahmadinejad. He's not the most powerful person in Iran." In October, he supported NAFTA expansion. In March, campaigning in the Ohio primary, he called for a "reopening" of the trade pact's terms. late July, he called his own primary rhetoric "overheated" and said NAFTA has had a positive effect on the US economy. In July, after signaling opposition to nuclear power, he told Democratic governors he's open to expanding it. On Public funding, he promised to accept public financing before he knew he could raise more money from donors. Now that he can raise twice as much from donors as Uncle Sam would give him if he forswore private donations, of course he's pursuing the bigger bucks. What's more troubling is Obama's list of flip-flops is so limitless, he's beginning to sound like he tailors his position to whichever audience he's addressing at the moment. When he spoke to an AIPAC meeting a couple of months back, he said he supports Israeli control of Jerusalem. The next day, trying to placate angry Arab supporters, Obama said "negotiators" should work out the contentious Jerusalem issue. On July 9th, Today, he voted for H.R.6304, which amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (F.I.S.A). In doing so he voted to give telecommunication providers immunity against civil damages that they might incur in the course of enabling the government to execute wiretaps and other types of electronic surveillance. He did so, after an amendment to the bill that would have stripped out the immunity provision, S.Amdt. 5064, was defeated 32-66. In voting for the bill, Obama acted in direct contradiction to his earlier statements. In 2007 Bill Burton, an Obama campaign spokesman, said “To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.” On Iraq, in a 2004 interview Ted Koppel asked, "But do you think that most the delegates on the floor really understand that President Kerry is not going to pursue a policy in Iraq that is essentially different from the one that George Bush is pursuing?" "Oh, I think that they understand that," Obama said. "I think that they recognize that we cannot afford to simply cut and run in Iraq, and that we are in a difficult situation right now. And I think that what they are hoping for is somebody who is going to bring a thoughtfulness and a base of experience to decision-making in the White House, which John Kerry possesses,.... (Emphasis added.) Obama's campaign has been built on skipping over his position on Iraq from 2004 until October of 2006. When you see that part it makes his flip flops look even more cynical. What happened in October of 2006 to make him change his mind? Certainly the war had become more difficult. Since then, he has stated he'd pull out immediately. ...now, he's taking credit for the 16 - 24 month timeline laid out by the Bush Administration and the Iraqi Government. ...ok, I guess I had some time. ...now, let me back up and say "I'm not such a stickler for flip-flops". As new information comes to light and facts change as often happens when dealing with fluid situations, I don't have too much of a problem with Politicians who change their minds. I'm a little concerned by guys who seem to do it so often, and for purely policial reasons (saying one thing to your base to win a primary, then saying something different to the rest of the country to get elected) but both parties are guilty of having their stands and platforms move as a result of public pressure and polling.

As vice president or to look at? I'm confused by the point of this thread now. Are we talking politics or hot chicks?

...I just call him Milhouse since we can't us Hussain. ...BTW, I have 2 good friends with the last name of Hussain. I don't think they are terrorists. I have no problem with Barak's middle name. He has Muslim heritige (I'm not saying he IS muslim, everyone just calm the $%^& down...) ... SO WHAT?!?!?! He should be proud of his name and tell people who don't like it to stick it up their posterior.

Now... THAT's FUNNY! ROTFLMAO!!!!

I dunno... total ugly duckling. She was not attractive as a kid and a teenager. ...but she really blossomed as she got into her 20's.

Dude... no sh!t... When did Chelsea get hot? DAYMN. ...and Sarah's bangin'. ...she hunts, fishes, and rides snow-mobiles.

I did a quick google search, and didn't find anything, but if you can back it up, c'mon.

WOAH!!! When have the Republican party done anything of the sort? I'd like to see the documentation where the RNC or a Republican running for national office threatend a free speech venue with legal action. ...and you'll note they have not debated the facts - they simply demand it stop being said. “Barack Obama is friends with Ayers, defending him as, quote, ‘Respectable’ and ‘Mainstream,’” the ad states. “Obama’s political career was launched in Ayers’ home. And the two served together on a left-wing board." Those are documented facts. You can decide they don't matter to you, but they are FACTS. Plain in simple. ...and please tell me you're not holding McCain Responsible for a political ad someone else runs. You're not suggesting he's "guilty by association" are you? ...that's not fair is it? That would be like dumping on, oh, I dunno... OBAMA for his RELATIONSHIP WITH AYERS!!!! Just because I have sent money to McCain's campagin doesn't mean it's his fault when I call Obama a moron. Have a good evening. Enjoy Milhouse's speech.

He's talking about the immigration bill. ...he totally flip-flopped on that issue because he was convinced by the massive outcry against the measure it was the wrong way to go. For the record... I don't think much of McCain, but he's a HELL of a lot better than Obama. They are both flip floppers. Most politicians are... "What, the polls disagree with me? I'd better get in line, to hell with my personal beliefs..."

THANK YOU!!! Let's see... Bush had economic challenges Clinton did not. He had the 2001 recession and that year's terror attack. And, Bush faced lingering fallout from the bursting of the stock market bubble in 2000. He also was confronted with a wave of corporate accounting scandals that rocked Wall Street. Clinton was also President when an entire new industry was being born and growing. The economy lost jobs in 2001 and 2002. Since then jobs have been growing each year — including 2006 & 2007, when the economy was hit by the real-estate bust. Those jolts did affect jobs on Bush's watch. Yet there are deeper reasons for slower job growth, too. The principal reason is that the labor force has grown much more slowly during the president's term than under the presidencies of Clinton and Reagan and that has nothing to do with anything but demographics. Baby boomers — a huge block of workers — poured into the work force in the 1980s and were rising through the ranks in the 1990s. That's not the case now as boomers face retirement, and there are fewer young people to take their places. Women, meanwhile, who helped to bulk up the labor force over the past few decades, aren't streaming into jobs as they once did. These changing demographic factors will shape the country's future and how we measure "job growth". "The impending retirement of the baby boomers and the fact that women are no longer increasing their participation in the labor force at the rate they were in the past will tend to restrain the future growth of the U.S. labor force," Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said in a major speech on the economy's outlook in late November.