Guard Dog

If you hear a great choking sound coming from the south, thats just the Panthers on game night. Last night they go into the 3rd up 4-2, and lost to Boston.

Thats no joke about Japan. When I was in the military I was stationed in Okinawa. Everyone knew that was one thing you just did not do. The JP would not have it.

Link:http://www.cbs12.com/news/cioffi_4706592__...eggy_drunk.html Irony, my favorite form of humor.

Rumor control: Royals and Brewers talk about swapping leagues.

I had McCain 1st with 70%. Huckabee was 66% Paul was 60% Hillary was 34%, Obama was 29%. My best match was Fred Thomson at 74%. I don't see how with Thompson, he never said anything while he was running. Who the heck knows what he believed.

Pop, you need to understand something about politics. And I'm not talking about just the US here, but politics in general. It is a game that the idealists lose and pragmatists win. That is why we have McCain and Clinton/Obama to choose from and not Duncan Hunter and Dennis Kucinich. No one, democrat, republican, whatever gets into office, let alone governs effectively, without shaking hands with the devil. Your first point is that the past three republican presidents have been budget busters. That is true on the surface but let's look at that. First of all the President does not spend money, Congress does. Reagan and Bush were facing a hostile congress so to get what they wanted they had to make sure there was room in the budget for what the democrats wanted. That

Ok, we can work with that. I'd say that Bush certainly qualifies as a neo-conservative based on this outline. And I can say with absolute certainty I do not. But this is not about me. On taxes and federal spending McCain has either sponsored of voted in favor of tax cuts 85% of the time. He has either sponsored or voted in favor of spending cuts 90% of the time. Just looking it over he seems to be more in favor of cutting corporate and capital gains taxes rather than personal income takes and that certainly does more to encourage economic growth. In 1992 he co-sponsored and voted for a bill to require a super majority of Congress to raise taxes and that same year voted for a 15% reduction in capital gains taxes. He voted against Bill Clinton's 1994 budget and tax increase (the largest in American history). He has voted in favor of the $500 per child tax credit, eliminating the marriage penalty, the lifetime learning tax credit (he co-sponsored it's creation) and the balanced budget amendment. He has voted against eliminating the "death tax" and voted against Bush's tax cuts. It must be noted that he voted against Bush's tax cuts only AFTER the cap on discretionary spending was removed from the bill. In short he seems to be a consistent fiscal conservative who favors cutting taxes AND spending rather than the GWB model of cut taxes and spend like a drunken sailor. Not very Neo-Con of him. As far as the size and scope of government, that is impossible to say. He has been in the Senate for a long time and by his voting record he would seem to be inclined towards less government intervention and has consistently voted to reduce spending. But since he has never held an executive office, I really can not make a call. On social policy and traditional values he is a really mixed bag. On one hand he opposes abortion but does not want to overturn Roe. He is in favor of funding embryonic stem cell research but wants strict government control of the process. He is in favor or amnesty and work permits of illegal immigrants but voted in favor of the border fence. He is a strong environmentalist but does not support ethanol subsidies (but he is very much in favor of federal mileage regulations). He has been a consistent champion of affirmative action voting against every bill that limits or weakens it and he sponsored and got passed a bill offering tax credits to media companies owned by minorities in 1999. On crime he has voted in favor of sentencing guide lines and voted for the Brady Bill then voted against the Assault Weapons Ban. He opposes drilling in ANWR and the Gulf of Mexico and promises to invest federal dollars in nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuels. Not Neo-Con at all. On foreign policy he has been VERY critical of "Nation Building" and almost apoplectic over treatment of detainees in Gitmo. But he does support the "Surge" escalation in Iraq (and who could argue, it is working). He voted in favor of the Iraq war from the start but has been very critical of how it has been managed. He is very much in favor or reducing foreign military commitments overseas (particularly Europe and the West Pacific) but has no trouble with a permanent US presence in the middle east. Too be honest, I would have a hard time defining him as a neo con at all. Politically he is probably a lot closer to JFK that the guy they are actually comparing to JFK (Obama). My read on McCain is he takes every issue and acts on it based on his own personal belief no matter what the party line is. I don't know if that makes him a maverick because I really don't believe he's bucking the party line just to do it. I think he just goes about his life being who he is and is comfortable enough in his own skin to do it. My sourced linked below, because I flatter myself to think I know a lot but I know I don't know everything. http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/ http://mccain.senate.gov/public/ http://www.nationalplatforms.com/candidates/john_mccain.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1202951082...in_commentaries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_pos...n#Social_policy http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/26/us/polit...amp;oref=slogin

I would not call myself a McCain supporter because of anything he has ever said or done. He is simply the lesser of all evils. But in the interest of discussion I'll try to make an answer. But first, what is your definition of "Neo-Conservative"? I ask that because it is a term/pejorative that seems to have different meanings to different people.

My best guesses are Charlie Crist, JC Watts, Lindsey Graham, or Mark Sanford and my long shot would be Joe Liberman, THAT choice would light a fire in the tinderbox. But he really can't afford another "moderate" on the ticket with him. I've also heard Phil Gramm, Mel Martinez and Jeb Bush mentioned. I doubt they will get a serious look though. My preference would be Sanford, Crist, or Watts. Any of the three would make a fine President.

He's a Rockefeller Republican. That is he is from the liberal wing of the Republican Party. Not exactly a smaller government type (which bothers me). He does not appeal to the social conservatives either and that is to the good. One this I really do like about him is he is a big proponent of modernizing the military and Homeland Security and reducing manpower in favor of automated and unmanned systems like the Predators. He is also a proponent of developing missile shield technology and has been a friend to NASA in the Senate. On the whole he is a capable, competent Washington bureaucrat who will move the direction of government to the left of where it has been on social and economic issues. In foreign policy he is solidly on the site of the stick as opposed to the carrot. In short, he is the vanilla choice. Not exciting or sexy but what you see it what you get. No surprises with him I think. I'm voting for him.

Oh I'm not drowning it in CC, just a little to give it a hint of sweetness. Grenadine (1 tsp in a 4 oz glass) works too but I don't have any. I usually do drink straight or on the rocks but not Jack. Wild Turkey, Makers Mark, or Knob Creek is best neat or on ice.

Our last thread on this subject is past it's expiration date and was a little derailed anyway. I was partly to blame for that I must admit. So, here is where we stand: Democrats: Hillary Clinton: 1016 Delegates Barack Obama: 1158 Delegates First one to 2025 secures the nomination There are some 800 Superdelegates that will make their choices at or before the convention. As it stands Clinton has 234, Obama has 161. The Supers are under no obligation to follow the results of the election Republicans John McCain: 918 Delegates Mike Huckabee: 214 Delegates First one to 1191 secures the nomination. The Republican Party does not use superdelegates and the nominee must be elected by voters.

That was so hard for me to watch. That is the second game in a row the pathers had a 2+ goal lead in the third and choked on it.

Glass + Ice + Jack Daniels + Splash of Cherry Coca Cola = Happy Guard Dog I think when future historians are recounting America's contributions to the human race, Bourbon should be in the top 10. It really is the ultimate whiskey. Think about it: Scotch: Too imposing, it's rough on the tongue and there are so many bad brands out there that do not really age their product. Vodka: Excellent whiskey, it's humble earthy and blends well with any acidic drink mix. But nobody wants to drink it right out of the bottle. Gin: Ugh, ever had a gin hangover? Canadian: Too sweet. Too much sugar in the distilling process and the yeast can not consume it all. Irish: No flavor. It's just grain alcohol with a little color. Cognac: It's liquor for those who can't handle liquor. So you see, Bourbon wins hands down. Hmmm while writing this I finished my drink. I think I'll make another.

Having learned TNOs whole story I could not have imagined it ending any other way.

In the immortal words of Pete Townshend "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"

I must admit, i have always enjoyed attending minor leauge games more than the majors (something about $5.00 beers offends my sense of right and wrong). But I do go to Marlins games whenever I can. Especially when the Braves are in town. Atlanta and Tampa are my favorites but with the Marlins so close I follow them as well. If you are not a baseball fan and wish to become one, I reccomend a trip to Cooperstown. If that does not make a fan of you, nothing will.

Just to hit on one thing again. Firearm ownership is a Constitutionally guaranteed right. So to make illegal to buy or own firearms in the US you will need a pluarality of Americans to agree to surrender that right. I can promise you, that will not happen. I know many of you, especially Europeans, have difficulty getting your mind around that but let me remind you that for all of our similarities, the US is a very different place than Europe. We have a different history, different cultural values, and different mindset. I say this without casting aspersions on one or the other (something many of YOU should try) and making no claim as to which is wiser or more right. It just is.

Gorgon did you read my last post? Guns have never been LESS available in the US than they are today. As I pointed out, 30 years ago any 18 year old could walk into a department store, buy a gun and ammo and load it there on the spot and shoot everyone in sight. But it just did not happn. By blaming it all on the guns you are pinning a fairly recent social phenomenon on an inanimte object that has been readily available to anyone who wanted it for hundreds of years. If I were to seriously pose the argument that video game violence put the impulses in the shooters head therefore video games are to blame you would laugh at me. You would no doubt argue that video games are inanimate objects that are enjoyed by countless thousands of people who would never hurt a fly. How does that exact same argument not work on guns? I own several and I would not hurt a fly.

Barry Bonds is now out of baseball. Apparently he will not be missed. http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_rumors/mlb A pretty good read to put the steroid business in perspective: http://www.suntimes.com/sports/mariotti/79...i021808.article

Obviously it was a typo. The true intent was that "the right of the people to keep bear arms shall not be infringed." The arms of bears were popular commodities back in the day. Actually it should read "the right of the people to keep and arm bears should not be infringed". Who worries about crime when you have an armed bear following you around?

The United States Constitution, Amendment 2, second clause states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.". That is it. Gun control is unconstitutional, illegal, and quite frankly, not wanted since every politician who brings is up is quickly voted out of office. If there are enough americans who decide they have had enough of it then they can get their representative to propose a Constitutional amendment banning private gun ownership. Then we ALL get an up or down vote on the issue. But asking congress to pass a law is like trying to sneak in the back door what they know we wont accept in the front. And asking the court to re-interpret the 2nd amendment and decide it does not allow protect private gun ownership is even more despicable. It's time to face the facts, the US does not want gun control and no matter how many of these tragedies happen, we are not going to change our minds. Two things to consider. Fact: In Washington DC is was illegal to own a handgun. Fact: Washington DC has the highest per capita murder rate in the county over the past 15 years. Fact: %97 of murders in Washington DC are comitted with handguns. The other thing is this. Since the federal government passed legislation outlawing automatic weapons some 30 years ago, restrictions on gun ownership have grown tighter and tighter on both the state local and federal level. But gun crime has increased. In the 1960's you could walk into K-Mart (a popular department store at the time) and buy a semi automatic handgun AND ammunition for it at the same counter at the same time. No background checks, no waiting periods, no age restrictions per se (you had to be 18 it has now been bumped up to 21). And gun crime was just not that common. Campus shootings? Unheard of! It's easy to point the finger at the gun but I think there is a larger issue here. Guns have never been harder to get, and gun crime has never been higher. Personally I think the problem is violent video games. I think violent video games should be outlawed and the people who produce and sell them should be jailed. Nobody ever killed anyone after playing Space Invaders! (HA! Just kidding Calax! )

Since you brought it up Sand, here is an interesting OT note. Did you know Chuck Norris has become involved in politics? He has been working in Huckabees campaign and has even been tossed around as a potntial running mate for Huckabee. Of course, that was before Huck was all but eliminated. It might have been worth it just for the talk and forum fodder.

This year the Tampa Bay (ahem) Rays have completed their transormation from a cool logo and mascot to a ridiculous one. How ironic is it that a team that now styles itself after a ray of sunshine plays indoors? BTW, Atlanta now has Glavine and Smoltz again. I know they are old not but it is still pretty cool. I'm going up to Orlando the Friday after next to check out their scrimmage.

I aboslutely HATE the F#&!%@ Hurricanes. They have been the biggest Panther killers over the years. Everything was fine, Horton scores on a penalty shot, cats are up 4-2 just keep the pressure up and they would be fine. But what happens? 3 unanswered goals. Florida has not won in Carolina since 2002.