That's great, I'm glad for you.
If you can't separate the issue then, with what is happening now, so be it. The deal with Favre isn't about the money, never has been. There are deeper, darker issues at hand here, that none of us are privy to.
A player can retire, and then "un-retire" if they so wish. It is then up to the team to decide whether they want the player back, or not. There is nothing hypocritical about that. What was that saying you've been tossing around? Oh, yeah ... judge not, lest ye be judged ... Sound familiar?
As far as the other theatrics, oh, well. The crux of it is that Favre still wants to play, should still play, and will play. The Packers decided that their team wasn't where that will happen. It's business, and completely different from a contract dispute, such as Sterling Sharpe, or Javon Walker, or even Ryan Grant.
Oh yeah, I can't stand boxing, and I like MMA even less.
I also honestly don't think we could have drifted farther off the topic than I have now.
do you believe everything amnesty international says about the usa? the government has lost a lot of credibility with me with the whole there are weapons of mass destruction in iraq and we have proof, but they were wrong.
and, you know i can say the state dept is full of wackjobs. god knows congress is.
there is a great documentary called "the revolution will not be televised" where some irish filmmakers were doing a documentary on chavez and happen to catch the whole coup on film. it shows how the tv stations were complicit with the coup and distorted images to make it look like the chavez supporters were crazy people shooting innocent demostrators. whether one likes chavez or not it is a great film. here's a link to it: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...90545689805144
i know you won't watch it, but it is a great film.
Actually, it was created by former Gov. Tommy Thompson. It was also a brilliant plan that was implemented in 1997, or so.
It was so revolutionary that many copied it elsewhere. It absolutely needed to be done, and I would gladly challenge any claim that it costs more now than before.
I saw firsthand how much abuse was on the welfare system here before. We removed a lot of free loaders off of our tax roll.
And before you get upset by that remark, the free loaders were those people who came here only to collect welfare. It happened, and it was ridiculous. Prior to W2, people flocked here to get on the system, because the requirements to collect were so lenient and lax.
The abuses happening were criminal.
something had to change, but i do believe in a safety net (i'm not anti-new deal). i take you up on your challenge though, that it hasn't cost more.
one thing that i found hilarious during the whole thing was the group that called themselves the welfare warriors. some people have no shame. when i was growing up, one hid the fact that they received food stamps. i also know some people who grew up upper middle class who got food stamps when they left their parents' house to experience what it was like to be poor. that really ****ed me off. the majority of poor people i knew didn't want to be poor, and didn't feel great about being on welfare. but, i knew people who had pride, but were willing to swallow it when they had to.
as a firefighter i'm sure you saw a lot of people who were just looking to get over on the system anyway possible. i grew up with some of those people, but they were in the minority. a friend of mine is a nurse and he would get ****ed off at all of the alcoholics and cocaine addicts who would come in the emergency room and tap out the blood bank. such is city living, and i have to admit that i love the city (but not all the people in it).
Are there problems within the USA, sure.. but it's still a democracy. What Chavez has done and is still doing is slowly reversing policy towards a dictatorship.
He has looked to end term limits for president, and has publicly stated that he wants to be president for 25 years.
He has used death squads and imprisonment to supress his political adversaries.
He controls the press and stifles personal freedoms.
How can you defend or deny that?
the majority of the media in venezeula is against chavez and calls for his removal. he does have a show where he rants for hours at a time sometimes, but the majority of the media is independent. otherwise, you wouldn't be able to get info from venezuela against him.
his use of death squads i don't now about. my knowledge is that that info is false. otherwise his referendum would have passed. his political adversaries have held demonstrations against him.
the usa being a democracy is up for debate. the electorial college is for *****, considering gore won the popular vote, meaning the majority of people wanted gore for be president. bush won less of the peoples vote than gore. voter lists are purged, and i don't trust diebold and their voter machines. in 2000 the supreme court ordered that the counting of votes be stopped. if chavez and his opponent were neck and neck, and the election came down to a state that chavez's brother was governor of, and he won that state, i bet you would say that chavez's brother fixed that state so chavez would win.
didn't bush argue that people have the right to vote, but nowhere does it say that your vote has the right to count? people don't even choose who is running for president, it's the super delegates. the primaries are pretty much a show. the electorial college picks the president not the people. if we were a true democracy the people would have had a chance to vote on whether or not we should go to war. we are a republic, and i don't even know about that.
did you read james petras' articles about chavez?
Forgive me if this has already been said, but I don't have the patience to read through 13 pages worth!
Everybody, Obama, Hillary, PELOSI, etc. is harping about the oil companies having windfall profits year after year. This may be so, but their mark up on their product is on average 8%. The average mark up on all other products clothing, food, etc. is 12%. (I'll see if I can find the AP article link on this for proof.) The media is constantly force feeding the populace negative information on "Big Oil". Why don't they approach it from another point of view and ask what can be done to get the price at the pump down? We have China drilling off of our shores, yet the our own oil companies are not allowed to drill anywhere! Rather than blaming Big Oil blame our government. Congress is demanding higher fleet gpm requirements yet absolutely refuses to allow new drilling. We have a veritable bounty of oil all over this country! Yet the presiding argument is NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard).
As for ANWAR and the "horrible" damage that will be caused to the caribou and their habitat; the caribou population has exploded since the pipeline was brought up and running. Why? Because the heat dissipating off of the pipeline makes the surrounding area an ideal breeding area for caribou. So apparently the pipeline has become the local caribou party house! haha
Then we have the libs, and some Republicans, pushing for more E85. Everybody knows how much of a joke that is, but in conjunction with the increase in fuel prices we now have an even larger percentage increase on food such as milk. Yet this is our wonderful Congress' answer to the rising cost of gas, put more corn it!!
It's simple: DRILL DRILL DRILL!!!
The poor things are only getting by with 8%. I'm sure they'll be having to put recaps on the G5.
“The ‘windfall profits’ tax is back, with Barack Obama stumping again to apply it to a handful of big oil companies. Which raises a few questions: What is a ‘windfall’ profit anyway? How does it differ from your everyday, run of the mill profit? Is it some absolute number, a matter of return on equity or sales—or does it merely depend on who earns it? Enquiring entrepreneurs want to know. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama’s ‘emergency’ plan, announced on Friday, doesn’t offer any clarity. To pay for ‘stimulus’ checks of $1,000 for families and $500 for individuals, the Senator says government would take ‘a reasonable share’ of oil company profits. Mr. Obama didn’t bother to define ‘reasonable’... This extraordinary redefinition of free-market success could use some parsing. Take Exxon Mobil, which on Thursday reported the highest quarterly profit ever and is the main target of any ‘windfall’ tax surcharge. Yet if its profits are at record highs, its tax bills are already at record highs too. Between 2003 and 2007, Exxon paid $64.7 billion in U.S. taxes, exceeding its after-tax U.S. earnings by more than $19 billion. That sounds like a government windfall to us, but perhaps we’re missing some... business subtlety. Maybe [Obama has] in mind profit margins as a percentage of sales. Yet by that standard Exxon’s profits don’t seem so large. Exxon’s profit margin stood at 10% for 2007, which is hardly out of line with the oil and gas industry average of 8.3%, or the 8.9% for U.S. manufacturing (excluding the sputtering auto makers). If that’s what constitutes windfall profits, most of corporate America would qualify... The fun part about this game is anyone can play. Jim Johnson, formerly of Fannie Mae and formerly a political fixer for Mr. Obama, reaped a windfall before Fannie’s multibillion-dollar accounting scandal. Bill Clinton took down as much as $15 million working as a rainmaker for billionaire financier Ron Burkle’s Yucaipa Companies. This may be the very definition of ‘windfall.’... The point is that what constitutes an abnormal profit is entirely arbitrary. It is in the eye of the political beholder, who is usually looking to soak some unpopular business. In other words, a windfall is nothing more than a profit earned by a business that some politician dislikes. And a tax on that profit is merely a form of politically motivated expropriation. It’s what politicians do in Venezuela, not in a free country.” —The Wall Street Journal
It’s one thing [for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi] to not allow a vote on more energy production. It’s another to not even allow people to speak about it... You can turn off the lights, but you cannot silence the will of the American people.” —John Campbell
“I really believe that the reason why the Democratic leadership has not brought [The American Energy Act] or a compromise bill like that to the floor is because it would pass.” —Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN)
No theories at all. There is plenty of evidence, look for it. I did. I even posted a couple things for all to check out.
The Bush administration is and always has been in bed with the far right (among others) and have made no secret of it. In fact, it was part of his platform during the elections.
Want one example? Just do a search on that champion of morality, Alberto Gonzales and his crusade against that most precious of rights, freedom of speech.
Trust me, its all there for all to see if you take the time to look.
If it makes you feel better to ignore the truth and in doing so digress into insults, so be it.
Then again, perhaps your one of the the far right nuts who supports whats going on.
Either way, since you went where you did in your last post, its clear that an intelligent discussion is out of the question. I'm finished with this exchange.
Have a nice day...
So basically, your position is that the US is not a democracy and Venezuela is?
I'm not going to correct you on your wild and uneducated position that America is not a democracy. It's not a debate at all, and I urge you to get your hands on a fifth grade civics text.
Super delegates do not select the candidates. The individual parties do, have a problem with your party's process, take it up with them. FYI, the Republican party does not use super delegates.
The electoral college... well, I'm not a fan either, but you cannot point to that as an example of how the US is not a democracy. It has no bearing on how we create laws and govern. It only impacts how we elect the chief executive.
Here is more information by a nonprofit organization www.freedomhouse.org. This organization tracks countries and their progress towards the democratic ideals, such as freedom.
Stop playing devil's advocate. It really isn't a proper role for someone who has such a poor grasp of the topic at hand.