Jump to content

KirtFalcon

Members
  • Posts

    47,966
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    352

Everything posted by KirtFalcon

  1. The ONLY team in 2A that would be a close game for Tatum is Newton. Don't judge them by their record so far this season, the only teams they have lost to are VERY good 3A playoff caliber teams. They almost beat Carthage a couple of weeks ago. I would love to see a Tatum vs Newton matchup. :w00t:
  2. I can't even remember the last time Timpson beat Garrison in football. It's been at least 10 years I believe. I can't imagine Garrison not giving it their best shot even though they aren't quite the powerhouse team they have been in the past. Garrison usually rebounds . . going with Garrison by 14. :whistle:
  3. Dave Eberhart, NewsMax.com Monday, Oct. 9, 2006 North Korea's first detonation of a nuclear weapon may have taken place during the watch of George W. Bush — but it was under the Clinton administration's watch that the communist regime began gathering necessary materials and constructing the bomb. As Western powers race to confirm that North Korea did in fact explode a nuclear device in Gilju, a remote region in the Hamgyong province, some see it as a culmination of weak U.S. action during the 1990s that led to this fateful day. Fateful Beginnings After entering into an agreement with the United States in 1994, the Clinton administration ignored evidence the North Koreans were violating the agreement and continuing to build a nuclear weapon. "In July of 2002, documentary evidence was found in the form of purchase orders for the materials necessary to enrich uranium," NewsMax's James Hirsen previously reported. "In October 2002, Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly met with his North Korean counterpart for scheduled talks. Kelly confronted North Korea with the tangible evidence of its duplicity. After a day of outright denial, North Korea abruptly reversed its position and defiantly acknowledged a secret nuclear program." Timeline of a Nuclear Bomb A review of recent history shows that that the Clinton administration gave up a clear and perhaps last best chance to nip the North Korean bomb in the bud: 1985: North Korea signs the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. 1989: The Central Intelligence Agency discovers the North Koreans are building a reprocessing facility — a reactor capable of converting fuel rods into weapons-grade plutonium. The fuel rods were extracted 10 years before from that nation's Yongbyon reactor. The rods represent a shortcut to enriched plutonium and an atomic bomb. Spring, 1994: A year into President Clinton's first term, North Korea prepares to remove the Yongbyon fuel rods from their storage site. North Korea expels international weapons inspectors and withdraws from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. # Clinton asks the United Nations Security Council to consider sanctions. North Korean spokesmen proclaim such sanctions would cause war. # The Pentagon draws up plans to send 50,000 troops to South Korea — along with 400 war planes, 50 ships, Apache helicopters, Bradley fighting vehicles, and Patriot missiles. An advance force of 250 soldiers is sent in to set up headquarters for the expanded force. # Clinton balks and sets up a diplomatic back-channel to end the crisis — former President Jimmy Carter. Exceeding instructions, Carter negotiates the outlines of a treaty and announces the terms live on CNN. Oct. 21, 1994: The United States and North Korea sign a formal accord based on those outlines, called the Agreed Framework. Under its terms: # North Korea promises to renew its commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, lock up the fuel rods, and let inspectors back in to monitor the facility. # The United States agrees — with financial backing from South Korea and Japan — that it will provide two light-water nuclear reactors for electricity, send a large supply of fuel oil, and that it will not invade North Korea. # Upon delivery of the first light-water reactor, inspections of suspected North Korean nuclear sites were supposed to start. After the second reactor arrived, North Korea was supposed to ship its fuel rods out of the country. # The two countries also agreed to lower trade barriers and install ambassadors in each other's capitals — with the United States providing full assurances that it would never use nuclear weapons against North Korea. (None of the above came to pass. Congress did not make the financial commitment — neither did South Korea. The light-water reactors were never funded. The enumerated steps toward normalization were never taken.) Jan. 2002: In President Bush's State of the Union Address, he famously labels North Korea, Iran, and Iraq as an "axis of evil." Oct., 2002: Officials from the U.S. State Department fly to Pyongyang, where that government admits it had acquired centrifuges for processing highly enriched uranium, which could be used for building nuclear weapons. # It is now clear to all parties that the promised reactors are never going to be built. Normalization of relations fizzles. # The CIA learns that North Korea may have been acquiring centrifuges for enriching uranium since the late 1990s — probably from Pakistan. Oct. 20, 2002: Bush announces that the United States is formally withdrawing from the Carter-brokered 1994 agreement. # The United States. halts oil supplies to North Korea and urges other countries to cut off all economic relations with Pyongyang. Dec., 2002: North Korea expels the international weapons inspectors, restarts the nuclear reactor at Yongbyon, and unlocks the container holding the fuel rods. Jan. 10, 2003: North Korea withdraws from the Non-Proliferation Treaty — noting, however, that there would be a change of position if the U.S. resumed its obligations under the Agreed Framework and signed a non-aggression pledge. March, 2003: President Bush orders several B-1 and B-52 bombers to the U.S. Air Force base in Guam — within range of North Korea. April, 2003: North Korea's deputy foreign minister announces that his country now has "deterrent" nuclear weapons. May, 2003: Bush orders the Guam-based aircraft back to their home bases. October, 2003: The North Koreans announce they have reprocessed all 8,000 of their fuel rods and solved the technical problems of converting the plutonium into nuclear bombs.
  4. Rivals.com has him at 6'1" 195lb . . . 4.6 He certainly looks and plays bigger. I was surprised he wasn't taller because I have seen him play a few times. He can really go up and get the ball. :w00t: He isn't a speed burner but he is really a ball hawk especially on defense. I see him as a safety more than a receiver. :whistle:
  5. Dez Bryant is an awsome receiver and an even better defensive back. I believe defense is where he will play pro football. :whistle:
  6. Nixon was one of the best foreign policy presidents in my lifetime. I don't think he was as corrupt as Clinton, nor was his mistakes as harmful to America as the Clinton presidency. There were far worse things done by Clinton that he could have been impeached for than the Monica fiasco. Nixon's big sin was the cover up after Watergate. If he had confessed and said he had made a mistake, I believe his presidency would have survived. Overall, Nixon was a good president if you consider his accomplishments. Reagan was the greatest president in history. :whistle:
  7. I agree, it's time for the Cowboys to replace Bledsoe because they can't protect him in the pocket and he isn't a scrambler. Romo has better legs, but I don't believe he is the long term solution either. Romo might be a better choice because he is more mobile but who knows how he would perform week in and week out. I really believe the Cowboys need to put QB at the top of their draft list priority and draft a 1st round prospect and develop him. How many years have they wasted since Aikman retired getting by with retread NFL veteran QBs instead of drafting a top flight QB?
  8. Anybody who has actually taken the time to read my posts know my posts are based on my beliefs as well. I have been outspoken against republicans and dimocrats as well when I disagree with either. I don't toe the party line either, so to speak. I disagree with many things both President Bush and the republicans have done since they took control of the White House and congress. Spending is out of control and I blame everyone from President Bush on down. I disagree with Bush on immigration and think he is probably one of the worst communicators to ever hold his office. He should have taken his case to the public, like Reagan, far sooner and far more often instead of allowing the media to distort the facts. I am furious at the republican congress and Bush for not living up to many things they campaigned and won on. I think they have abandoned their conservative base in many ways. That said, I will still speak out against a biased liberal media and their obvious double standard every time I see it displayed. I will also oppose liberal views when I disagree with their idiocy. I believe Foley should be expelled from congress and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. However, I will again point out there was no such outrage in the media and in congress when far worse behavior was demonstrated by more than one liberal dimocrat. I am a conservative Reagan republican and I long for the day when we have more men of that mold running our country! :whistle:
  9. There is nothing worse than people who call themselves centerists or moderates. They typically refuse to take a stand one way or the other and speak out for or against an issue until they are sure which way the political winds are blowing. They are generally afraid to speak out on issues for fear of being called out to defend themselves. They wait until the the smoke seems to be blowing in one direction and jump on the bandwagon going in that direction. They don't seem to have core beliefs or see right or wrong in much at all. In my opinion, they tend to be unsure of themselves and rarely speak out early on issues while being quick to speak out mainly against conservatives. I believe most are "closet liberals" who don't have the gumption to take a stand! At least with liberals and conservatives you know where they stand . . . moderates also make up the vast majority of those so called "undecided voters" with their finger in the wind trying to find their way! :whistle:
  10. Cable news ratings king celebrates its first decade, as the left tries to muzzle Murdoch's creation. By Brian C. Anderson, BRIAN C. ANDERSON is senior editor of City Journal and author of "South Park Conservatives: The Revolt Against Liberal Media Bias." October 4, 2006 FOX NEWS turns 10 this week, and it has every reason to celebrate. Launched by media tycoon Rupert Murdoch and former political consultant Roger Ailes as a refuge for viewers fed up with real or perceived liberal bias elsewhere in the media, Fox is the undisputed ratings champion of cable news. It's been trouncing CNN, MSNBC and CNBC for years, and it sometimes draws a fatter audience share than all its competitors combined, though viewership has slumped a little of late. Pugnacious Bill O'Reilly and conservative tough guy Sean Hannity have become two of the nation's most powerful broadcasters thanks to this kind of ratings pull. Fox is the news media success story of the last decade. Liberals aren't celebrating the channel's birthday, though. Even before an angry Bill Clinton exploded at "Fox News Sunday" anchor Chris Wallace a couple of weeks ago, accusing him of "a nice little conservative hit job" after getting pressed about his record on fighting Al Qaeda, Democratic pols and advocates have relentlessly attacked the cable network, accusing it of being a Republican propaganda mill. Al Gore has likened Fox to a right-wing "fifth column." Leftist groups, including MoveOn.org, funded the documentary "Outfoxed," which purports to expose the channel's nefarious Republican agenda, and petitioned the Federal Trade Commission to ban Fox's use of its famous "Fair and Balanced" slogan as deceptive advertising. "When a news outlet is allowed to blur the lines between opinion and journalism and call it 'fair and balanced,' I think it's confusing to consumers of information in this country, and it's dangerous to democracy," fretted an official at Common Cause, one of the organizations joining the petition. Hollywood celebrities never miss an opportunity to bash "Faux News." Comedy Central's witty "Colbert Report" is a nightly satire of the channel and of O'Reilly in particular. What explains all this hysteria? Success, of course. The propaganda charge is unfair, at least when it comes to the network's presentation of news. In the 2004 presidential race, Fox pollsters consistently underestimated President Bush's support. In its final preelection poll, Fox had Kerry winning by a couple of points, one of the only polls to show the Democrat on top. I'm not sure a right-wing fifth column would do that. A recent comprehensive study by UCLA political scientist Tim Groseclose and University of Missouri-Columbia economics professor Jeffrey Milyo found Brit Hume's "Special Report" — Fox's most straightforward news show — more centrist than any of the three major networks' evening newscasts, all of which leaned left. The program is a model of smart news television. And although it's true that the network's opinion shows (as opposed to its news shows) are, as they're supposed to be, noisily opinionated, it's equally true that Fox's biggest star, O'Reilly, is no mainstream Republican. He regularly charges the oil companies with price-gouging and attacks big business for squashing the little guy. And who can say what host Greta Van Susteren's politics are? She mostly zeroes in on lurid murder mysteries and scandals. Liberals troop into and out of the Fox studios every day — some of them, like host Alan Colmes and news analyst Marvin Kalb, affiliated with the channel. There's no doubt, of course, that Fox News is more conservative than CBS or CNN. But, after all, that was its founding mission. Fox's real ethos is not Republican but anti-elitist — a major reason it connects with so many Americans and annoys so many coastal elites. "There's a whole country that elitists will never acknowledge," Ailes once observed. "What people resent deeply out there are those in the 'blue states' thinking they're smarter." This anti-elitism shows itself in Fox's pro-U.S. stance in covering the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and its broadcasters' use of terms such as "terrorist" instead of "militant" to refer to … well, terrorists. Since the Vietnam War era, mainstream journalists have tended to see such blunt language and side-taking as unsophisticated, a betrayal of journalistic objectivity. Another aspect of Fox's anti-elitism: Christians, far from being seen as lunatics or curiosities — as too often is the case in the mainstream media — actually get some respect. "We regularly have on the Rev. Franklin Graham, Dr. James Dobson and other religious leaders, just as we put on Pat Ireland and Eleanor Clift," Hannity told me a while back. "Most Americans believe in God and have that as their foundation in life. So why shouldn't we have as guests people that they like, respect and want to hear from?" What really frustrates liberals about Fox, though, is simply that, along with talk radio and the conservative blogosphere, it has helped shatter the left's near-monopoly on news and information. Fox's opinion-driven programming gives conservatives and liberals a chance to get a hearing for their ideas. But Democratic politicians and activists who go on Fox also must defend their views, often against tough questioning, something that happens less often on the networks, where most journalists are left-of-center, survey after survey has shown. Even more significant, Fox came on the scene a decade ago as a professional news organization that could define and report news as something different from what the elite consensus says it is. To take one of many examples, the corruption of the United Nations' oil-for-food initiative in Iraq, initially downplayed by the mainstream media because of their sympathy for internationalism, was uncovered — deemed newsworthy — on Fox. All this wouldn't matter if Fox News wasn't so influential. But it is. According to the Pew Research Center, more than 20% of Americans now claim to get news from it, and lots of them (37%) are Democrats or independents. The network's success has also sparked a "Fox effect," leading some competitors to become more open to right-of-center opinions: MSNBC's "Scarborough Country," hosted by former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough, is a prime example. Until a few years ago, Democrats never had to deal with all these mediatized conservatives. Nothing would please liberals more than to drag the nation back to the days when the New York Times and CBS News determined what was newsworthy. A group of congressional Democrats has warned Fox to end its supposed anti-Democratic bias — or else. Should Democrats retake Congress, an effort to shut down, or at least muzzle, Fox, is far from inconceivable, creepy and illiberal as that sounds. Something Fox News doubtless is keeping in mind as it pops the champagne corks this week.
  11. That's right, never discuss the merits of the post, attack the messenger, change the subject . . . typical liberal tactics yet again . . . and on cue! :lol:
  12. All things considered, Rick Perry is still the best choice for Texas.
  13. How about selective outrage? How about the double standard for Republicans by the media and liberal dimocrats? I guess like your name indicates "Middle" you just stand in the middle and pass judgement on anyone on the conservative side of things with an opinion. For once, try having some backbone son and stand for something. There's nothing worse than a "goody two shoes" fence sitter who piously criticizes those of us who actually stand for something. You have to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything
  14. . . . . and on cue, Cheapy once again comes to the defense of the liberal dimocrats!!! :whistle: :whome::whistle:
  15. Yea, that reminds me of Hillary Clinton's tactic when testifying under oath! It was her standard answer for almost every question! :whistle: :whome::whistle:
  16. I believe Barney was running a gay brothel or something like that. The Republicans showed some backbone and immediately got rid of Foley, as they should have. Unlike the selective outrage and double standard the liberal media and dimocrats display when the shoe is on the other foot! :whistle:
  17. I really think it could be worse . . . if Troup wants to run the score up! :w00t: :whome::w00t:
  18. I wouldn't be surprised to see Garrison play a "back-up" at QB this week to let their starter's injury heal. I don't look for a blow out at all. :whistle:
  19. Reality will set in for you about mid way through the 1st quarter. . . :whistle: :whome::whistle:
  20. A couple of better questions: How good is your QB at scrambling and throwing from his backside? and How good is your offensive line at protecting against a ton of pressure? :whistle:
  21. Statistics can be very misleading scd708. The biggest reason Tatum didn't have that many 1st downs was because it didn't take them long to score. Their drives had a lot fewer plays because they were gaining a lot more yards on each play. I agree, the game was a lot closer than the score indicated, but don't think we "out gained" them based on stats. If you add in Tatum's defensive and special teams yards gained, it is really lop sided in their favor. Just a little reality for ya! :w00t:
×
×
  • Create New...