Jump to content

KirtFalcon

Members
  • Posts

    47,966
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    352

Everything posted by KirtFalcon

  1. What's biased and radical about this report? Bill Sammon is a highly respected and fair minded journalist. Like Bo, your response is typical. You can't look at the substance of what he is saying in his report then evaluate the issues and make an intelligent response. There is nothing contradictory about it, Tony Snow is pointing out the facts you and your liberal buddies don't want to admit or deal with. Like always, you dismiss it with the same tired "rightwing" bashing childish remarks. :whistle: For once, why not try discussing the merit of the actual topic? . . . if you are capable of anything other than shallow minded evaluation. :w00t:
  2. Katherine is the most "refined" singer of all the finalists. :whistle:
  3. It's about time that someone with some backbone exposed the liberal media and called them out on their obvious attempts to make this president look as bad as they possibly can. They need to be called on the carpet for their selective reporting, distortions of the facts, misleading coverage and outright false statements reported in the news almost daily since Bush took office. - KF :whistle: Bill Sammon, The Examiner May 11, 2006 7:00 AM (6 hrs ago) WASHINGTON - New White House Press Secretary Tony Snow is starting off in a combative mode against the press by issuing detailed rebuttals to what he considers unfair coverage of Bush. “The New York Times continues to ignore America’s economic progress,” blared the headline of an e-mail sent to reporters Wednesday by the White House press office. Minutes earlier, another e-mail blasted CBS News, which has had an unusually rocky relationship with the White House since 2004, when CBS aired what turned out to be forged documents in a failed effort to question the president’s military service. “CBS News misleadingly reports that only 8 million seniors have signed up for Medicare prescription drug coverage,” Wednesday’s missive said. “But 37 million seniors have coverage.” On Tuesday, the White House railed against “USA Today’s misleading Medicare story.” “USA Today claims ‘poor, often minority’ Medicare beneficiaries are not enrolling in Medicare drug coverage,” the press office complained. “But by April, more than 70 percent of eligible African Americans, more than 70 percent of eligible Hispanics, and more than 75 percent of eligible Asian Americans are enrolled or have retiree drug coverage.” White House sources said Snow, who started on the job Monday and has yet to give his first public press briefing, is determined to aggressively counter what the administration considers unfair assertions in both news and editorials about Bush. At the same time, he is eager to make the notoriously secretive administration more accessible to the press.
  4. That strikes me as a pretty bold statement, I'm not big on using measuring sticks but Celina is a Hutto Hippo type of team. Big corn fed boys that play hard nosed football. Where did that get Hutto?? Left in the dust because they couldn't keep up with the blazing speed of our skill position players. I for one dont think Celina could have beaten either Wimberly or Tatum last year, but everyone has their opinion. I'm really not a Celina fan, as a matter of fact I dislike them with a passion, but you've got to be kidding me and you couldn't have seen them play last season to make those ridiculous remarks. Celina had plenty of speed to go along with a lot of strength and size. I saw Tatum and Celina twice each last season and I don't think Tatum would have been much of a match for them. :w00t:
  5. It's going to come down to Taylor and Katherine. Elliott, is really going to have to do something fantastic to beat either of them. Chris probably has a future in the business, although he is not my type of performer. I still pick Taylor to be the last one standing! :w00t:
  6. I don't believe you are correct there eagle, the last time Celina was in AAA, they were a top 10 team and went pretty far into the playoffs. The team they had last season was the strongest team they have ever had according their own assessments. They would have won either division of AAA last season. :whistle:
  7. The biggest power shift in AA will be Celina moving back to AAA. They would have beaten ANYONE in AAA or AA last season! :whistle:
  8. Katherine picked a bad song the first time around. She was outstanding on her second one. Elliott was the "bomb" to put it in Randy's terms. Taylor was his usual entertaining self. Chris's first song was good but I didn't care for his second song at all . . . very bland! I'm predicting Katherine and Chris in the bottom two. Most likely Katherine leaving, although everyone has been predicting Elliott . . . mostly on his appearance I believe. Elliott is the best of the male singers though, in my opinion.
  9. Time Magazine . . . need we say more? :whistle:
  10. Young Kennedy ran to the Mayo clinic as fast as he could in hopes of avoiding arrestprosecution! :whistle:
  11. Any way you slice it, he was given preferential treatment. There should be an investigation into whowhy the on scene officers were prevented from doing their job! :whistle:
  12. . . . amazing how the liberals and the biased media was eager to crucify Rush Limbaugh over abuse of presdciption drugs, yet seems more than willing to dismiss young Kennedy's serious accident AND prescription drug problem so easily. :whistle:
  13. Doesn't DUI . . . "driving under the influence" include alcohol and drugs? Either way, he was driving while impaired and a menace to society. He should have been arrested . . . period! :whistle:
  14. Yea . . prescription drugs mixed with alcohol will do a number on people! Reports are now surfacing from people that say young Kennedy was in fact drinking at a bar before the accident. It's even possible that the media might get around reporting this "little" fact. My guess is the media will continue to ignore these reports and stick with Kennedy's "shakey" version of events! :w00t: Looks like his story is beginning to unravel . . . soft of like his old . . . hiccup. . . Dad's!
  15. If it were a Republican in the same situation would there be any doubt that the "BIG" emphasis in the biased liberal media would be on the: "It's my understanding that he had an odor of alcohol about him and he was unsteady on his feet," Cannon said. Funny, there is no mention of this at CNN, ABC, NBC or even FOX that I have heard. The fact that the officers on the scene were not allowed to perform a sobriety test and were ordered to leave the scene says a lot. Kennedy and Cynthia McKinney should have both been treated like any other citizen caught in suspected criminal acts . . . no more or no less! :whistle:
  16. BY RICHARD SISK AND MICHAEL MCAULIFF New York Daily News WASHINGTON - Rep. Patrick Kennedy wrecked his car in an early morning accident on Capitol Hill Thursday, and police say supervisors stopped them from giving him a sobriety test. Two police union officials, who were not at the scene, complained that the Rhode Island congressman and son of Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., looked like he'd been drinking after crashing into a barrier near the Capitol building at 2:45 a.m. "The driver exited the vehicle and he was observed to be staggering," Officer Greg Baird, the acting head of the Capitol police union, wrote in a letter to his boss, according to the newspaper Roll Call. Lou Cannon, president of the Washington chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police, said Kennedy looked intoxicated. "It's my understanding that he had an odor of alcohol about him and he was unsteady on his feet," Cannon said. Kennedy, who has a history of substance abuse and depression, admitted to the car accident, but denied he had been drinking. "I was involved in a traffic incident last night," said the 38-year-old. "I consumed no alcohol prior to the incident. I will fully cooperate with the Capitol Police in whatever investigation they choose to undertake." Late Thursday night, Kennedy put out a second statement saying he had taken sleep medication and a prescription anti-nausea drug that can cause drowsiness. Baird complained in his letter to acting Capitol police Chief Christopher McGaffin that Kennedy and a pair of sergeants thwarted any proper investigation. When cops first approached, he "declared to them he was a Congressman and was late to a vote," Baird's letter says. "The House had adjourned nearly three hours before this incident." It was unclear if Kennedy raised the voting issue intentionally to avoid being detained and tested, because Capitol Hill lawmakers get a legal pass to rush to votes. Baird says the sergeants stopped the officers from doing a field sobriety test, and after talking to the watch commander, "ordered all of the Patrol Division Units to leave the scene and that they were taking over." Kennedy was then given a ride home. Baird's letter also said Kennedy narrowly missed a cop car before slamming into the barrier with his lights off. Capitol police would only say in a statement that they "are investigating a traffic violation." But the police union is demanding a full investigation. "If the events unfolded as they have been reported to me, and I believe they did, a complete and immediate investigation into them is required," Baird wrote. He demanded to know why the responding officers were not allowed to investigate Kennedy. "This appears to be interference with their duties as U.S. Capitol Police Officers and may have prevented the collection of evidence of such violations," he wrote. The early morning crash comes just a couple weeks after Kennedy wrecked another car in Portsmouth, R.I., on April 15. The congressman, driving a 2003 Crown Victoria, reportedly collided with a Nissan Maxima outside a drug store. No charges were filed. Kennedy has grown up in the shadow of his famous uncles - President John F. Kennedy and Sen. Robert Kennedy - and his father, who had his own car crash that killed Mary Jo Kopechne in Chappaquiddick, Mass., in July 1969. The younger scion of America's most storied and star-crossed political dynasty has battled his own demons. He admitted in 2000 that he was a mental health advocate because he had wrestled with depression since he was a teenager - and that led him to abuse cocaine. He told a crowd in Woonsocket, R.I, that he regularly talks to a psychiatrist and takes anti-depressants. "I myself have suffered from depression, I have been treated by psychiatrists," Kennedy said.
  17. Why is America so delicate with the enemy? BY SHELBY STEELE Tuesday, May 2, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT There is something rather odd in the way America has come to fight its wars since World War II. For one thing, it is now unimaginable that we would use anything approaching the full measure of our military power (the nuclear option aside) in the wars we fight. And this seems only reasonable given the relative weakness of our Third World enemies in Vietnam and in the Middle East. But the fact is that we lost in Vietnam, and today, despite our vast power, we are only slogging along--if admirably--in Iraq against a hit-and-run insurgency that cannot stop us even as we seem unable to stop it. Yet no one--including, very likely, the insurgents themselves--believes that America lacks the raw power to defeat this insurgency if it wants to. So clearly it is America that determines the scale of this war. It is America, in fact, that fights so as to make a little room for an insurgency. Certainly since Vietnam, America has increasingly practiced a policy of minimalism and restraint in war. And now this unacknowledged policy, which always makes a space for the enemy, has us in another long and rather passionless war against a weak enemy. Why this new minimalism in war? It began, I believe, in a late-20th-century event that transformed the world more profoundly than the collapse of communism: the world-wide collapse of white supremacy as a source of moral authority, political legitimacy and even sovereignty. This idea had organized the entire world, divided up its resources, imposed the nation-state system across the globe, and delivered the majority of the world's population into servitude and oppression. After World War II, revolutions across the globe, from India to Algeria and from Indonesia to the American civil rights revolution, defeated the authority inherent in white supremacy, if not the idea itself. And this defeat exacted a price: the West was left stigmatized by its sins. Today, the white West--like Germany after the Nazi defeat--lives in a kind of secular penitence in which the slightest echo of past sins brings down withering condemnation. There is now a cloud over white skin where there once was unquestioned authority. I call this white guilt not because it is a guilt of conscience but because people stigmatized with moral crimes--here racism and imperialism--lack moral authority and so act guiltily whether they feel guilt or not. They struggle, above all else, to dissociate themselves from the past sins they are stigmatized with. When they behave in ways that invoke the memory of those sins, they must labor to prove that they have not relapsed into their group's former sinfulness. So when America--the greatest embodiment of Western power--goes to war in Third World Iraq, it must also labor to dissociate that action from the great Western sin of imperialism. Thus, in Iraq we are in two wars, one against an insurgency and another against the past--two fronts, two victories to win, one military, the other a victory of dissociation. The collapse of white supremacy--and the resulting white guilt--introduced a new mechanism of power into the world: stigmatization with the evil of the Western past. And this stigmatization is power because it affects the terms of legitimacy for Western nations and for their actions in the world. In Iraq, America is fighting as much for the legitimacy of its war effort as for victory in war. In fact, legitimacy may be the more important goal. If a military victory makes us look like an imperialist nation bent on occupying and raping the resources of a poor brown nation, then victory would mean less because it would have no legitimacy. Europe would scorn. Conversely, if America suffered a military loss in Iraq but in so doing dispelled the imperialist stigma, the loss would be seen as a necessary sacrifice made to restore our nation's legitimacy. Europe's halls of internationalism would suddenly open to us. Because dissociation from the racist and imperialist stigma is so tied to legitimacy in this age of white guilt, America's act of going to war can have legitimacy only if it seems to be an act of social work--something that uplifts and transforms the poor brown nation (thus dissociating us from the white exploitations of old). So our war effort in Iraq is shrouded in a new language of social work in which democracy is cast as an instrument of social transformation bringing new institutions, new relations between men and women, new ideas of individual autonomy, new and more open forms of education, new ways of overcoming poverty--war as the Great Society. This does not mean that President Bush is insincere in his desire to bring democracy to Iraq, nor is it to say that democracy won't ultimately be socially transformative in Iraq. It's just that today the United States cannot go to war in the Third World simply to defeat a dangerous enemy. White guilt makes our Third World enemies into colored victims, people whose problems--even the tyrannies they live under--were created by the historical disruptions and injustices of the white West. We must "understand" and pity our enemy even as we fight him. And, though Islamic extremism is one of the most pernicious forms of evil opportunism that has ever existed, we have felt compelled to fight it with an almost managerial minimalism that shows us to be beyond the passions of war--and thus well dissociated from the avariciousness of the white supremacist past. Anti-Americanism, whether in Europe or on the American left, works by the mechanism of white guilt. It stigmatizes America with all the imperialistic and racist ugliness of the white Western past so that America becomes a kind of straw man, a construct of Western sin. (The Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prisons were the focus of such stigmatization campaigns.) Once the stigma is in place, one need only be anti-American in order to be "good," in order to have an automatic moral legitimacy and power in relation to America. (People as seemingly disparate as President Jacques Chirac and the Rev. Al Sharpton are devoted pursuers of the moral high ground to be had in anti-Americanism.) This formula is the most dependable source of power for today's international left. Virtue and power by mere anti-Americanism. And it is all the more appealing since, unlike real virtues, it requires no sacrifice or effort--only outrage at every slight echo of the imperialist past. Today words like "power" and "victory" are so stigmatized with Western sin that, in many quarters, it is politically incorrect even to utter them. For the West, "might" can never be right. And victory, when won by the West against a Third World enemy, is always oppression. But, in reality, military victory is also the victory of one idea and the defeat of another. Only American victory in Iraq defeats the idea of Islamic extremism. But in today's atmosphere of Western contrition, it is impolitic to say so. America and the broader West are now going through a rather tender era, a time when Western societies have very little defense against the moral accusations that come from their own left wings and from those vast stretches of nonwhite humanity that were once so disregarded. Europeans are utterly confounded by the swelling Muslim populations in their midst. America has run from its own mounting immigration problem for decades, and even today, after finally taking up the issue, our government seems entirely flummoxed. White guilt is a vacuum of moral authority visited on the present by the shames of the past. In the abstract it seems a slight thing, almost irrelevant, an unconvincing proposition. Yet a society as enormously powerful as America lacks the authority to ask its most brilliant, wealthy and superbly educated minority students to compete freely for college admission with poor whites who lack all these things. Just can't do it. Whether the problem is race relations, education, immigration or war, white guilt imposes so much minimalism and restraint that our worst problems tend to linger and deepen. Our leaders work within a double bind. If they do what is truly necessary to solve a problem--win a war, fix immigration--they lose legitimacy. To maintain their legitimacy, they practice the minimalism that makes problems linger. What but minimalism is left when you are running from stigmatization as a "unilateralist cowboy"? And where is the will to truly regulate the southern border when those who ask for this are slimed as bigots? This is how white guilt defines what is possible in America. You go at a problem until you meet stigmatization, then you retreat into minimalism. Possibly white guilt's worst effect is that it does not permit whites--and nonwhites--to appreciate something extraordinary: the fact that whites in America, and even elsewhere in the West, have achieved a truly remarkable moral transformation. One is forbidden to speak thus, but it is simply true. There are no serious advocates of white supremacy in America today, because whites see this idea as morally repugnant. If there is still the odd white bigot out there surviving past his time, there are millions of whites who only feel goodwill toward minorities. This is a fact that must be integrated into our public life--absorbed as new history--so that America can once again feel the moral authority to seriously tackle its most profound problems. Then, if we decide to go to war, it can be with enough ferocity to win. Mr. Steele, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, is author, most recently, of "White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era," published this week by HarperCollins.
  18. His first song was terrible . . . his second song wasn't much better! :whistle:
  19. . . . with the gold medal! :w00t:
  20. After tonight's performances . . . I think Chris may be in trouble :w00t:
  21. He also doesn't care to be bothered with the facts. Typical liberal! :whistle::w00t::whistle:
  22. I saw a ton of games at the "old" Busch Stadium with I was stationed at Scott AFB in the late 80s. I haven't been to the "new" Busch Stadium yet. Is that really what they call it? I hope to catch a game this year at Wrigley if my trips to Chicago hit during a home stand for the Cubs.
  23. If he plays, it will be for Houston otherwise he will retire. :whistle:
  24. The tree huggers luv ya for it! :w00t:
  25. Don't liberals like sky-high fuel prices? Looks like this is exactly what the liberal tree huggers like aLGore have wanted all along! OpinionJournal.com Saturday, April 29, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT "If $75 a barrel oil and a $3 average for a gallon of gasoline isn't a wake-up call, then what is?"--Senator Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.), April 23, 2006 Yes, that's a fine question Senator Schumer asks. But a wake-up call for what, exactly? A wake-up call to produce more domestic oil? Heaven forbid. In fact, Mr. Schumer and most of his Democratic colleagues in the Senate--the very crowd shouting the loudest about "obscene" gas prices--have voted uniformly for nearly 20 years against allowing most domestic oil production. They have vetoed opening even a tiny portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil and gas production. If there is as much oil as the U.S. Geological Survey estimates, this would increase America's proven domestic oil reserves by about 50%. They have also voted against producing oil from the Outer Continental Shelf, where there are more supplies by some estimates than in Saudi Arabia. Environmental objections seem baseless given that even the high winds and waves of Hurricane Katrina didn't cause oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico. In the 1970s the environmentalists and their followers in Congress even protested building the Alaska pipeline, which today supplies nearly one million barrels of oil a day. If they've discovered some new law of economics in which a fall in output with rising demand can cause a reduction in price, we'd love to hear it. The dirty little secret about oil politics is that today's high gas price is precisely the policy result that Mr. Schumer and other liberals have long desired. High prices have been the prod that the left has favored to persuade Americans to abandon their SUVs and minivans, use mass transit, turn the thermostat down, produce less consumer goods and services, and stop emitting those satanic greenhouse gases. "Why isn't the left dancing in the streets over $3 a gallon gas?" asks Sam Kazman, an analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who's followed the gasoline wars for years. Scan the Web sites of the major environmental groups and you will find long tracts on the evils of fossil fuels and how wonderful it would be if only selfish Americans were more like the enlightened and eco-friendly Europeans. You will find plenty of articles with titles such as: "More Taxes Please: Why the Price of Gas Is too Low." Just last weekend Tia Nelson, the daughter of the founder of Earth Day, declared that even at $3 a gallon she wants gas prices to go higher. Tax on Mobility Average price of a gallon of gas, including tax, on April 10 Price Tax Belgium $6.10 $3.77 Britain $6.13 $4.03 France $5.80 $3.65 Germany $5.96 $3.82 Italy $5.91 $3.57 Netherlands $6.73 $4.12 U.S.* $2.98 $0.38 * Average for 50 states Source: Energy Information Administration At least Ms. Nelson is honest about wanting European-level gas taxes. We doubt that many American voters would be as enthusiastic. If you think $3 a gallon is pinching your pocketbook, fill up in Paris or Amsterdam, where motorists have the high privilege of paying nearly $6 a gallon thanks to these nations' "progressive" energy policies. (See nearby chart.) However, you can be sure you won't hear that from Democrats or Northeastern Republicans on Capitol Hill--at least not in public. Far from it. They're suddenly all for cutting gasoline prices, just as long as that doesn't require producing a single additional barrel of oil. We haven't seen this much insincerity since the last Major League Baseball meeting on steroid abuse. So how do the sages on Capitol Hill propose to reduce gas prices? They want to slap a profits tax on Big Oil because of alleged price gouging. Here we have another head-scratcher that seems to defy even junior-high-school economics. Usually when you tax something, like tobacco, you get less of it. But somehow a tax on oil will magically lead to more oil. As a Harvard study has shown, when the U.S. imposed a windfall profits tax in 1980, prices rose to an inflation-adjusted range even higher than today, and domestic production fell. As for claims of "gouging," the price of gasoline at the pump in the U.S. has risen 25% less than the rise in the global price of crude oil since 2003, according to Wall Street economist Michael Darda. We've also heard proposals to force the oil companies to cut the pay of their CEOs to $500,000. That's about what Kobe Bryant makes for a handful of basketball games, but even if the salaries were chopped to this level--and all of the savings passed on to consumers--the gas price would fall by at most one-tenth of a penny. In any case, CEO pay is an issue to be resolved by shareholders, not Congress. Which brings us to the Bush Administration, which is bludgeoned daily by the likes of Mr. Schumer, whose real concern is exploiting an issue that might elect a Democratic Senate in November. Meanwhile, the White House refuses to attack the left's anti-consumer energy policies and has even capitulated on requiring a rise in auto fuel-efficiency standards. Mr. Bush could instead be talking about the national and economic security need for a pro-domestic-production energy policy--starting with drilling in Alaska. It's worth reminding the American public that in 1995 the Republican Congress passed an ANWR production bill, which Bill Clinton vetoed because he said it could be five to 10 years before the oil would be produced. We would have that oil today if Mr. Clinton had signed that bill. Instead we have rising gas prices and record dependence on foreign oil. Is that enough to spur Congress to act on ANWR and deep-sea production? If not at $75 a barrel and $3 a gallon, Mr. Schumer, then when?
×
×
  • Create New...