-
Posts
49,997 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
356
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by KirtFalcon
-
The alarmist pro-global warming scientists and their liberal media allies are only reporting evidence they feel supports their ridiculous claims. They are totally ignoring any and all evidence that doesn't support their agenda. Dozens of credible highly qualified climatologists have given several accounts of contrary evidence and the media is choosing to ignore it for the sake of the cause!
-
The next three years in Dallas
KirtFalcon replied to Rhino2K's topic in Cowboys/Texans/NFL/Pro Football
That's laughable . . . I don't even think the defense is allowed to blitz in these games. Plain, vanilla defenses all the way. Did they go for the two-point conversion because they weren't sure about Romo handling the snap? Comparing Romo to Favre is really funny too! If I were the Cowboys, I would draft a QB in the 1st round soon! :whome: -
The next three years in Dallas
KirtFalcon replied to Rhino2K's topic in Cowboys/Texans/NFL/Pro Football
A solid young quarterback, who can scramble and who can make things happen (kind of like a young Brett Favre)... Get real . . . Romo is not and will never be anything close to Brett Favre. Now that's a good one! :lol: -
Rudolph Guiliani: The Republicans Best Hope?
KirtFalcon replied to Broker2205's topic in Political Arena
McCain is a hot headed moron. He stabbed Bush in the back every chance he got for his own personal gain. Had top republicans stood behind our president, I doubt we would have a dimocrat majority now in congress and we wouldn't be worried about Speaker Pelosi. I don't trust McCain as far as I can spit. He is the reason the bogus campaign finance reform bill limiting free speech was passed. What if it comes down to Rudy against Obama? That's a no brainer as well. Obama is just another liberal. If you check out his voting record it's easy to see where he stands on the issues. I doubt if American's will elect someone with a middle nane like Hussein to be our president any time soon! :whistle: -
Rudolph Guiliani: The Republicans Best Hope?
KirtFalcon replied to Broker2205's topic in Political Arena
I would support Rudy before McCain. The main thing going for him is his leadership abilities and the fact that he stands on his principals, unlike most politicians, including Hillary Clinton who change their position like the wind according to polls and how they think they are perceived politically. Rudy, like Reagan, has his core beliefs and is willing to say like me or not these are my position on the issues. I don't agree with Rudy on all the issues but I would vote for a leader over a twist-in-the-wind politican any day. If it comes down to Rudy vs Hillary, it's a no brainer! :whistle: -
aLGore = Igore = Mad Scientist ..... Do ya git it now? :whome:
-
What Texas QB Will be better in the long run???
KirtFalcon replied to crossfire1407's topic in College Football/Sports
I don't think any of them will be NFL starters. They may get a look and a tryout, but they aren't NFL caliber. :whistle: -
aLGore and the Unibomer are two of the biggest nutcases America has produced in the past 100 years! :w00t: Their writings (Earth in the Balance and the Unibomber's manafesto) are virtually indistinguishable from each other. :w00t:
-
Thu Feb 8, 2007 8:52am ET BERLIN (Reuters) - U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton should tap into her feminine side and wear dresses and skirts instead of trousers, fashion designer Donatella Versace was quoted as saying on Thursday. "I can understand (trousers) are comfortable but she's a woman and she is allowed to show that," Versace told Germany's weekly newspaper Die Zeit in an interview. "She should treat femininity as an opportunity and not try to emulate masculinity in politics," Versace said. Skirts should reach to the knee and be worn with a short jacket or coat, she said. The best color would be black rather than the blue Clinton currently favors, she added. "I admire her for her determination, which will hopefully take her to the White House," Versace told the paper. ........................................ Ole Versace must not have heard about her BIG FAT ANKLES that she's been trying to hide the past several years. That's why she NEVER wears skirts or dresses. They are some THICK ANKLES!!! :w00t: You used to be able to "google" images of her and those fat ankles, but somehow they seem to have been purged off the internet. We need to find someone with some old photos of those fat ankles and get them circulated again on the net. - KF :whome:
-
McKnight will be used all over the field. He is a great special teams kick returner and excellent slot receiver. USC will use him just like they did Bush. If he gets the ball in space, he will be looking to take it to the house.
-
The American Thinker February 07, 2007 By James Lewis Give me your tired, your poor... and two trillion dollars! You can't fault Hillary for a lack of ambition. The last time we heard about HillaryCare was in 1994, when the healthcare sector was one-seventh of the US economy. Now our Gross Domestic Product is 12.5 trillion dollars a year and healthcare is one-sixth of that, or more than two trillion dollars. That's two with 12 zeros after it. Just to get an idea --- 2 trillion bucks is nearly the total annual output of countries like France, Britain, Germany or China. That's what it would cost if Hillary has her way. Because HillaryCare is back, of course. Like the corpse that keeps coming back to life, it will be all over the campaign --- even if Mrs. Clinton tries to smother it with a pillow to hide it from view. Cradle-to-the-grave medical care is just too big a part of the Left's agenda to ignore. Obama is already pushing his version, outflanking Hillary on the Left. But Senator Clinton is not likely to want to repeat the disaster of 1994, when the GOP gained a House majority for the first time in half a century because voters saw that HillaryCare was a gigantic grab for power --- a vast empire to be managed by Nurse Ratched, complete with racial quotas, centralized assignment of doctors to inner city neighborhoods, and any other goodies Hillary and Ira Magaziner took it in their heads to pile on. So she may not talk about it during the campaign. But it's there, all right. HillaryCare tears the veil from the Left's pose of compassion more than anything else. Nothing exposes the intellectual poverty of liberalism as clearly. Because --- suppose you are a well-meaning liberal who is really worried about the ten percent of our population who don't have health insurance. What would you do if you were honest, and not just trying to score political points? Well, one thing to consider is a compromise with Republicans on tax credits for private health insurance. You might study the Heritage Foundation free market proposals, and Mitt Romney's attempt to put them into practice in Massachusetts. You would learn from economists about the efficiency of markets, and because you were an open-minded and compassionate person, you wouldn't care who received the political credit --- as long as people were being helped. What Mrs. Clinton and the Democrats keep doing is just the opposite. Rather than look for a compromise that would help people, without a Stalinesque monopoly over a two-trillion dollar slice of our economy, the Left just throws mud pies at free market proposals. Market ideas are just a plot of the rich against the poor, or some other piece of standard demagogy of the Left. Bottom line, Hillary Clinton ends up harming the very people she claims to care about --- because she insists on total control over those two trillion bucks' worth of economic activity. That's why HillaryCare is a power grab rather than a serious public policy proposal. The numbers never made sense. Democrats are therefore neither intellectually or morally serious about health care for the uninsured. It is just another example of how the Dems have turned into a political machine whose only justification is its quest for power. Free market proposals might help millions of people, but they would not empower the Democrats. They are never even talked about on the Left. Instead, the American Left is green-eyed with envy about the locked-in control of Socialist parties in Europe. Hillary, Obama and all the others are telling us very clearly what they really stand for: Untrammeled power. That's what the rhetoric of compassion really comes down to, just a giant lever to perpetuate the liberal ruling class. I simply can't vote for Democrats any more --- or for phony Republicans like Governor Arnie --- as long as they are so deeply dishonest and obsessed with unrestrained control. Europe is the logical outcome of that, as we can see in Britain, where the majority of laws are now made by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. Parliament is now just a powerless talking fest. If we had a responsible Democrat Party we would have solved Social Security insolvency by now. We would have covered the uninsured. We would have improved the cruel and destructive inner city schools--- if only the Left cared enough. We know the Democrats are wildly irresponsible in foreign policy. But they are equally empty-headed domestically. This is a sad thing. If voters understood the Left accurately, they would go the way of the Whigs. The Dems only manage to cling to power because they have stacked the media and Hollywood with their empty-headed and narcissistic minions. Take that away, and they would fall apart. New blood would be enormously beneficial for the Left and for the United States, which needs two vigorous, intellectually open parties, competing for our support.
-
I like a lot of what I have read about him and would support him. Reality is, he's not even on the radar screen when all the contenders and long shots are mentioned. What chance does he really have of getting the nomination as a Republican? Virtually no one has even heard of him outside Texas.
-
I saw McKnight play a few times over the past couple of seasons. He is a war horse!!! He could be the next Reggie Bush. I don't think he has much to worry about breaking into the starting lineup at USC. I just wish Texas could have signed him. :w00t:
-
That's good to hear, as long as it's working. What do you do when you run into a top notch playoff caliber defense that shuts your running game down ... See if your QB can complete a few 3rd and longs, or punt on 4th down? :w00t:
-
Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
KirtFalcon replied to a topic in Political Arena
The tree hugging liberals don't want any facts. Haven't you heard? They have declared the debate is over. I saw an article last week talking about how ridiculous it is to declare that "the science is solid" concerning man-made global warming. To make a long storu short, these "grant dependant" political scientists are now 90% sure man is causing global warming, thus we have scientific concensus. The problem is, according to scientific logic, there is no such thing as a concensus when it comes to science. Everything must pass the 4 scientific steps, the last of which is scientific tests must PROVE the theory otherwise you don't have solid scientific evidence. Guess which step has not been accomplished by these climate wizards? That's right, it hasn't been proven because the evidence doesn't support the theory! :w00t: -
What do you think about the HORRIBLE MVP selection
KirtFalcon replied to Aggie2008's topic in Cowboys/Texans/NFL/Pro Football
I would have given it to the defensive back that ran back the interception for a TD! ... instead of Manning :shrug: Domminick Rhoades would have been a better choice too. :whistle: -
And the Dallas Cowboys new Coach is.....
KirtFalcon replied to ibleedmaroon's topic in Cowboys/Texans/NFL/Pro Football
Why not put a few pounds on Gramatica and move him to inside linebacker. :w00t: -
Fair . . . . sloppy play on both sides. Not one of the more spectacular playoff games I have seen lately.
-
SUPERBOWL XLI THREAD AND POLL
KirtFalcon replied to RETIREDFAN1's topic in Cowboys/Texans/NFL/Pro Football
The score could have been a lot worse if the Colts had converted a couple of those field goals into TDs. The opening kickoff gave the Bears some hope, but I had a feeling their offense would sputter and they couldn't match the Colts on the scoreboard. It pretty much played out about like I figured. :whistle: -
SUPERBOWL XLI THREAD AND POLL
KirtFalcon replied to RETIREDFAN1's topic in Cowboys/Texans/NFL/Pro Football
I don't think the weather will be that much of a factor. I heard the field can handle up to three inches per hour without much of a problem. If anything, I think the advantage goes to the Colts receivers if it rains very much. -
I don't support the Bulldogs because I want the most qualified person who I believe gives them the best chance of winning? I'm just giving my opinion of what type of coach I believe would be best for the program. That doesn't mean I don't support the program. I don't know about you, but I'm a little tired of watching teams that play Garrison play 11 men on the line of scrimmage because they know they can't throw the football and are going to run the ball 95% of the time. Garrison has had some great athletes the past several years and they have had success a few years with that grind it out offensive philosophy, it works for a while when you have superior talent but sooner or later the well runs dry and it doesn't work anymore. In 2003 when the won their state championship they had a somewhat balanced offensive attack and that made all the difference in the world. You may have a difference of opinion on who you think would be the best fit to coach the team, that's your business. :harhar:
-
New York Post February 3, 2007 -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton left no room for doubt yesterday: "If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will," she told the winter meeting of the Democratic National Committee. But didn't she - just two weeks ago - declare that she is "not for imposing a . . . certain withdrawal date" for U.S. troops from Iraq? Well, January 2009 (at the latest) sure sounds like a "certain withdrawal date." Welcome to the latest chapter of the longest-running work in progress Washington has ever seen: Sen. Clinton's ever-morphing, "quick, check the polls" position on the Iraq war. Actually, it's not clear whether yesterday's new twist-and-turn was another of her pre-planned, carefully crafted policy shifts on Iraq. After all, she was taking some unexpected heat at the moment: heckling by demonstrators who haven't forgiven Clinton for voting in favor of the war back in 2002. But she had something for them, too. "If I had been president in October of 2002, I would not have started this war," she declared. Really? Now it's one thing to say, as so many Democrats already have done, that voting for the war is something they regret. But to maintain that, had she been in the White House, there wouldn't have been a war in the first place? That certainly flies in the face of what she actually said in October 2002 - that she was voting for the war "with conviction," because "I want this president, or any future president, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country, at the United Nations or at war." That's a position she'll no doubt urge on Congress should she win the 2008 election. But it's also one fraught with political risks as the Democratic field hurtles leftward in the run-up to 2008. None of this comes as any surprise, of course - for more than four years, Clinton has been a whirling dervish on Iraq: Round and around and around she goes, and where she'll stop, nobody knows. One thing is certain, though: If you want to chart where she stands at any given moment, just check the latest polls. Back in 2003, Hillary was a hawk, endorsing the use of force to topple Saddam Hussein, in line with official U.S. policy enacted during her husband's administration. Since then, as White House spokesman Tony Snow noted, she "in many cases has stood with the president." Now, reflecting the change in the public mood - and with an eye on the Democratic primaries - she's become a Cindy Sheehan-esque dove, loudly demanding an end to the war "as soon as possible." Maybe that explains why, given a chance to engage in actual public discussion on Iraq, Clinton chooses political posturing instead. As widely respected Washington Post columnist David Broder noted, Clinton - a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee - last week ignored an opportunity to question Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, the new U.S. commander in Iraq. Instead, wrote Broder, she "used her time to make a speech about Iraq policy and did not ask a single question of the man who will be leading the military campaign." In sharp contrast, Sen. John McCain - a far more courageous, but no less outspoken White House hopeful - grilled Petraeus, asking 14 questions before running out of time. Notes Broder: "Perhaps she feared that dialogue with Gen. Petraeus would lead her into dangerous, uncharted waters." Indeed. Elevating substance over pretense can be a politically risky business. Clearly, Sen. Clinton will brook no risks at all.
-
In the world of football, based on what I have observed over the past 35 or so years . . . absolutely! Like I said there are exceptions, but generally it's a valid connection. :whistle: Sorry if I stepped on your toes there thelinecoach. :whome:
-
Hillary's Commie Comments . . . Listen for yourself
KirtFalcon replied to KirtFalcon's topic in Political Arena
That's a far cry from the government TAKING profits from "selective" evil companies while ignoring socially acceptable companies making billions in profits. :whistle: