EvilMonkey

OK, whenever a Republican politician or activist is caught in some kind of sex scandal, or gets divorced, etc., the left and the media (I know, the same thing) make a big deal out of it since part of the republican party wants to be the 'moral' party. Shouldn't the equivilent for the Dems be taxes and related items? It always seems like Dems or their supporters are getting busted for not paying taxes, or following reporting rules, etc., even while they agitate for higher taxes and more rules on everyone else. I found this story funny. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/al_net_...NnBRAZagK0TgvwN

QUOTE (Tex @ Sep 7, 2010 -> 07:10 AM) They don't have to sue him, they would not have to pay him for not playing. If he is threatening to retire, which basically he is, the team does not have to pay him. For him to have to pay the team, wouldn't the team have to show some damages? I can't see the team suing him, forcing him to play. Now of course we are talking the contractual part of the equation. I wish more teams would just let the guy go. When both sides sign a contract, they hope they are getting a bargain. If the player sucks, the player is overpaid, and in a sense "wins" the negotiation. If the player does better than expected, the team wins. Accept the results and live with it. I would thinnk the team can show damages by him not playing. They would have to play someone else at his spot, and if he doesn't play at all, spend money to 'hire' someone else to do either his job, or to replace whoever is doing his job. They could also argue that thier team's value has been diminished by him not playing as well, especially if he is a good player. Payton manning holds out and they replace him with Kyle Orton, the team's value is greatly dimished.

I just read a story about some guy on the Jets who ended his holdout because he got a new contract. My question is this. HOW can a player, who has a contract, NOT show up to camp and play because he wants a new one? If the player is signed to a three year deal, and after the second year decides he doesn't like the last year terms and doesn't show up to play, isn't he in breach of contract? Could the team, if it wanted to, sue his ass for the entire value of the contract for failure to perform? I just don't get that aspect of things. Anyone have answers?

Manny

Alexei

Can you say 'DOH!' http://jalopnik.com/5629715/jesse-jacksons...reen-jobs-rally

Rios

http://www.compassdirect.org/english/country/pakistan/24955/ No doubt they mean this to be a gesture of interfaith harmony and respect for the Christian community at large. Maybe they will even add a pool and call it a community center? But they are a religion pf peace, don't foget. Translation: piss us off and when we kill you, it will be YOUR fault.

Konerko

So, could this be sort of classified as trying to steal an election? http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article...ate=fullarticle

QUOTE (knightni @ Sep 1, 2010 -> 11:14 PM) Yeah. I'll be working on it tonight and tomorrow night. THANKS!!

Any chance the standing will be updated soon? Just askin, interested in how far back I am.

He mentions 'anchor babies', how long until someone tries to pin him as a 'eeeeevil teabagger'?

Rios

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 27, 2010 -> 08:02 AM) If it were 8000 blocks away, there'd still be opposition. I'm in one of the states where we're getting the same exact protests over building of a new Mosque. They're vandalizing mosques and protesting mosques in Orange county and organizing Qu'ran burnings in Florida, for crying out loud. http://www.sacbee.com/2010/08/27/2989095/f...l#ixzz0xyRziZom Gonna be carefull how much I paste here, since McClatchy seems to like suing blogs that paste too much stuff of their. and

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 29, 2010 -> 05:44 PM) It really is remarkable how many members of the CBC are going down. Maybe thinking that they were 'protected' from scrutiny because they were black led a larger percentage of them to f*ck up. Power corrupts the weak. And even ordinary people sometimes commit crimes of opportunity. If they would like to argue that they are being looked at because they are black, that is one thing. And it may even be true. But to use that as a reason that they shouldn't be in trouble in the first place? No. If they break laws, they as guilty as anyone else.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/24504...ends-daniel-fos More at the link. I wonder if the CBC will cry racism on this one as well.

Carlos Q

Alexei

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Aug 27, 2010 -> 12:18 PM) From your link. Being interviewed doesn't make you a suspect. I'll get you other links when I get home from work. He IS the suspect atm.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 27, 2010 -> 10:56 AM) I guess all liberals are violent, 1st amendment right disrupters. Death threats Edit: and a shooting Don't forget firebombers. It was a Carnahan staffer that firebombed his office, not a 'evil Tea Bagger' like att the lefty rags in St. Louis said it was. http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/...on_campaign.php

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Aug 26, 2010 -> 07:23 PM) ALL of the opposition is because they're Muslim. And there is significant opposition actually *trying to stop them*. These aren't just crowds of people protesting "hey, building that is rude!". They're trying to screw them with zoning laws, or get the building (and nothing else in the area) declared a historical landmark so no one can build there, or get Congress to investigate the people building it. So, if this mosque was going up 12 blocks away from the get go, you are saying that there would still be this massive opposition to it? I will grant you that there will always be some opposition to it, but you can't say it would be on the same level it is now. Hell, they could have diffused this thing right from the start, made HUGE PR points to their side and almost neutered the opposition if right away they said something like " You know, our intentions were pure in trying to build this center here, to build bridges and heal the divide. but however pure the motives are, it is clear that choosing this site has had the opposite effect, and in the interest of fostering peace and understanding, we are beginning our search for a new site immediately." But no, they just did their heels in and get indignant at our indignation, as if they are the only ones that are allowed to be upset at anything.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 26, 2010 -> 05:29 PM) I see "Tea Party" and I really just think "Republican" Fair enough, because when I see "Progressive" I really think just another liberal who is too ashamed to call himself a liberal.

In just the first section of your link, they talk about the Center for Public Integrity as a 'non-partisan watchdog group.' Go to wikipedia and in the first paragraph you get " The Center is partisan, and advocates for traditionally liberal causes" Ancd it is funded in part by the aforementioned Mr. Soros. "The Center has been criticized for accepting large funds from George Soros, a politically active billionaire and critic of the Bush administration.[25][28][29][30]. The Web site of one of Soros' organizations, the Open Society Institute, discloses four grants to the Center, all made before his entry into the 2004 presidential contest. They are: A $72,400 one-year grant in 2000 supporting "an investigative journalism series on prosecutorial misconduct."[32] A $75,000 one-year grant in 2001 supporting "an examination of wrongful convictions resulting from prosecutorial misconduct."[33] A $100,000 one-year grant in 2002 "to investigate the political spending of the telecommunications industry on the federal, state and local levels."[34] A $1 million three-year grant in 2002 "to support the Global Access Project" Oh, and this line, by the king of astroturfing himself about the Kochs in laughable. "David Axelrod, Obama’s senior adviser, said, “What they don’t say is that, in part, this is a grassroots citizens’ movement brought to you by a bunch of oil billionaires.”

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 26, 2010 -> 04:13 PM) You should read up on Koch industries. They're like George Soros except no one pays attention and they give a ton more money to political causes. I have heard of them. And of course everythgn I read has the think tanks they support as being very partisan and right leaning, while contrasting to all the center, non-partisan groups funded by Soros. I still dont see where the funding is coming from for the Tea party stuff.