EvilMonkey

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jul 6, 2005 -> 04:48 AM) Evil, at the heart of what Kip is trying to say is absolutely correct. These "mainstreamers" report this because it is what sells the most advertising. I'm sorry it's that way, but it is absolutely true. Major corporations would not be able to sell time to anyone reporting "happy" news, because "happy news", there's nothing to report. Kip's right on the money with this one. /faints I understand that, and agree with that. But then he should be happy that this group is going to report happy stories for a change, instead of ones designed only with ratings in mind.

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Jul 6, 2005 -> 04:41 AM) Sure it's news, but when 2 or 3 American soldiers are killed or 30 or 40 Iraqis are killed which story is going to start off a newscast, which story is more important to Americans or Iraqis? So why do you have a problem with a newscast that might lead with a good news story? You got your panties in a bunch from the get-go about it. I would think you would be happy to see news being broadcast, not for its ability to caching the cash register, but for the actual newsworthyness of it. You have your hatred for all things Conservative that you can't see that what they are trying to do is exactally what you want, news not for profit, but for NEWS!

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Jul 6, 2005 -> 04:33 AM) I agree 1000000000000000000%. I don't think they should report news for ratings. News for profit is ridiculous. I don't think that the media covers the deaths because they are pinkos, but because it makes the cash register go Ching. So answer me this. Is the successful building of a school or water plant news? Yes, or no. Considering where the country was, it SHOULD be news. However, the fact that it is GOOD news means it will not make most broadcasts. The 'why' it won't mkae the broadcast is someone in the newsroom, decided what they think is, and is not, news. Which, according to you, they SHOULD NOT DO.

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Jul 6, 2005 -> 04:29 AM) News people are supposed to report the news, not what they think should be the news. And I suppose only body counts are news, eh? Or car bombings? How about building schools, or water purification plants? Shouldn't those make news?

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Jul 6, 2005 -> 04:24 AM) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161463,00.html I'm sure their report will be fair and balanced as always. I don't know what media they're listening to. I love that intelligent people are out there to tell us the truth The foxnews article actually outlines very well what's going good in Iraq. We don't need a bunch of agenda minded people telling us that. Are people on the left going to believe them? Of course not. They don't have to be fair and balanced, dipweed. By reporting good news, they will already be balancing out what you normally get from there.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Jul 5, 2005 -> 01:15 AM) Well I heard that KW offered Carlos Lee and I think BMac for him and BB said no. So it would've taken alot. Maybe Steff could confirm this, but I remember KW inquiring about him and Mulder. Well, Bean would have tried to screw the Sox in any trade. I meant more in general. Hudson was traded for less than Lee and Bmac. And Schmidt, if wanted, could be had for less than alot of people think. Unless the Yankmees decide that they want another pitcher.

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2005 @ Jul 5, 2005 -> 12:57 AM) The A's simply couldn't afford Hudson. It was in their best interest to get something for him or lose him and get nothing. Different situation. You are correct for the reason the A's let him go. However, people on here thought it would take a package of 4 or more players to GET Hudson, when in fact, it was 2 mid level prospects.

I like your reasoning, but you will find on here that many people severly overestimate what it would take to get a different player. I remember talk about Hudson. People going crazy, saying it woul dtake Bmac, Garland and 1 or 2 more players. Look what Oakland actually got for him. Not much. Even the recent thread about Chavez had us giving up the moon. It is probably a deep rooted complex because of the Todd Ritchie deal. Although after a few years, neither side seems to have had much success in that deal. However, on a different note, I don't want him, unless the price is nothing more than 2 mid-level prospects.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jul 3, 2005 -> 07:13 PM) I was in my dads car for the game Freddy pitched and heard the Tigers broadcast via XM and they had Trammel on before the game and all he did was say nice things about the Sox. Yeah, I was listening to the games on my XM as well. The announcers were very complimentary. I enjoy listening to the other teams announcers on there. Some are good, but most are just horrible.

Notice how they were already ahead 5-1 when he hit the HR? Nothing like clutch hitting.

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Jul 4, 2005 -> 05:01 AM) You don't have to know much about Al-Jazeera to know they aren't a terrorist network or the enemy. Besides if we don't discuss things where we don't have expertise we'll never be encouraged to learn more about them. My bad. I should have said that your lack of knowledge didn't stop you from reaching a conclusion, not commenting. Notice how you said with certainty that . I wonder where you got that bit of first hand info?

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Jul 3, 2005 -> 02:20 AM) I'm just going to disagree with you on the Al-Jazeera issue. But probably neither of us know enough about Al-Jazeera to make a good judgement. Yet that didn't seem to stop you from commenting.

QUOTE(ChiSoxyGirl @ Jul 2, 2005 -> 04:08 AM) And my vote would be fiction. I read non-fiction all day and could use a mind's toy. How about the letters to Penthouse? Those would qualify as fiction. Just make sure you don't leave it in the bathroom when company comes over. Just try explaining that you are reading them for a project connected to SoxTalk.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jul 4, 2005 -> 03:44 AM) He says "all...communities". The (Iraqi) insurgents aren't a "community" unto themselves, they are rogue members of particular communities. What he's basically saying is that Sunnis, Kurds, Shia, women, etc must all have a voice and believe in their own importance. Which is just the same detailless drivel we've heard for the past year, but it's not an argument for a special Department of Terrorist Affairs in the new government. Jackie, I hear ya, and I truly believe that. I believe he didn't mean to include terrorists inhis planning. But he is a man that is careful with his words, more so that someone like Rove. Yet, those of a more liberal bent here seem to think that what Rove says it what he means to the letter, no room for 'what he meant'. However, WHATEVER Kofi meant, he is still a piece of s***.

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Jul 3, 2005 -> 11:05 PM) I'd agree that insurgents are terrorists but I don't think Kofi is implying that they should be included. He says that the process needs to be all inclusive, but makes a point of mentioning those who aren't interested in contributing. I'm just not sure what you mean EM. He starts with mentioning that there are those who don't want a stable Iraq. next paragraph, he says we need to include all Iraq"is, so that they can see that they all stand to be winners here. So he is basically saying "Hey, we need to show these people that they can be prosperous too, and maybe they will put away their guns, and forget their hatred towards all things American and discover the joys of being an Iraqi." Or is it OK for Kofi to have MEANT all, except terrorists? Being the career politician that he is, I am sure that he is as careful with his words, if not MORE so, than say, Karl Rove.

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Jul 3, 2005 -> 09:50 PM) If you could read you'd realize he never mentions including terrorists. \ Insurgents = terrorists. You like to play the semantics game when it suits your purposes. And you please tell me just what the UN actually DID to help facilitate the election. Did they supply troops, or security forces to help ensure that the people could freely vote? What did they actually do? If they did something, please tell me. As for your parsing on all the rest, if someone read that piece that didn't know anything prior that happened, they would come away with the impression that the UN played the main, pivitol role in the liberation and elections in Iraq, which is as far from the truth as Kip Wells is from being a good pitcher

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Jul 3, 2005 -> 05:44 PM) That's bulls*** you can slam the UN all you want but I'm sure they've played a played a large part in the rebuilding process and as a spokesman for the UN Kofi is outlining what they have done. He's not lying about anything here. So basically what you're saying is he has lied about basically everything the UN is doing, f***ing bulls***. And he doesn't say anything about including the terrorists, gosh. I'd like to see the f'n mess Iraq is left in if UN just pulls out of that hole and leaves everything up to the Iraqi government. Kip, you don't know s***. You profess to 'be sure' that the UN is doing more than can be seen or proven. Why is that? Maybe because you want to believe it. Show me something they are doing other than creating layers of government and red tape. They didn't want to be there, they didn't want us there, and they sure as hell aren't doing anything to help the situation, except trying to take credit for whatever successes are there. And why wouldn't Kofi lie? He lied about everything else. You seem to ascribe a 'can do no wrong' attitude to those that you agree with (kofi, Kerry, etc.), but a 'can do no right' attitude to those you don't (Rove, Bush, etc.). Get your head out of your ass and wake up. They all lie, they all tellthe truth, they all are in it for themselves, they all f*** up.

Kip, can you read? Maybe you should take off your anti-Bush blinders first,then maybe you can understand the words in front of you. The op-ed piece starts off with Kofi telling us about the resolution that the UN passed, outlining the timetable that Iraq was to fulfill. Who made up the timetable? Not Kofi, we did. Who was responsible for the implimentation of it? Not the UN, the US was. Then he talks about elections, which would have NEVER HAPPENED, if not for the US. Sure, just take credit, when you did NOTHING. Oh wait, they have sent about 800 or so 'personnel' to help assist with the constitution making. Then, when he does mention the terrorists, he says that we need to 'include' them in the process Does this go for the terrorists blowing up police stations and mosques? Shoudl they be 'included'? Then he tries to take even more credit for stuff the US has done. The UN hasn't built s***! They have supplied beaurocratic layers of bulls***, and thats about it. Seriously, what have they done? Hey, here's an idea Kofi, how about thanking the US for removing the evil Hussain and spending so damn much of our own resources and money to try and help the Iraqi people? Don't people usually thank their larger doners or benefactors? f*** you, Kofi.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jul 3, 2005 -> 02:58 PM) When you are under oath, there is no such thing as a little white lie. Perjury is perjury. Yup. Just like you can't be 'a little bit pregnant'. You are, or you are not.

Also, her name and status was revealed by Time in 2003, way before this happened. http://online.wsj.com/public/corrections?page=Corrections

Here is a different take on this, from last year. http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00352.html WSJ: Time to End Plame Leak Investigation Laurie Mylroie Mon, 19 Jul 2004 22:45:21 -0700 oversold the case for war but because he's sometimes appeared to have lost confidence in the cause. >> Wall Street Journal REVIEW & OUTLOOK Mr. Wilson's Defense Why the Plame special prosecutor should close up shop. Tuesday, July 20, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT After U.S. and British intelligence reports exposed his falsehoods in the last 10 days, Joe Wilson is finally defending himself. We're therefore glad to return to this story one more time, because there are some larger lessons here about the law, and for the Beltway media and Bush White House. Mr. Wilson's defense, in essence, is that the "Republican-written" Senate Intelligence Committee report is a partisan hatchet job. We could forgive people for being taken in by this, considering the way the Committee's ranking Democrat, Jay Rockefeller, has been spinning it over the past week. But the fact is that the three most damning conclusions are contained not in Chairman Pat Roberts's "Additional Views," but in the main body of the report approved by Mr. Rockefeller and seven other Democrats. Number one: The winner of last year's Award for Truth Telling from the Nation magazine foundation, didn't tell the truth when he wrote that his wife, CIA officer Valerie Plame, "had nothing to do with" his selection for the Niger mission. Mr. Wilson is now pretending there is some kind of important distinction between whether she "recommended" or "proposed" him for the trip. Mr. Wilson had been denying any involvement at all on Ms. Plame's part, in order to suggest that her identity was disclosed by a still-unknown Administration official out of pure malice. If instead an Administration official cited nepotism truthfully in order to explain the oddity of Mr. Wilson's selection for the Niger mission, then there was no underlying crime. Motive is crucial under the controlling statute. The 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act was written in the wake of the Philip Agee scandal to protect the CIA from deliberate subversion, not to protect the identities of agents and their spouses who choose to enter into a national political debate. In short, the entire leak probe now looks like a familiar Beltway case of criminalizing political differences. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald should fold up his tent. Number two: Joe Wilson didn't tell the truth about how he supposedly came to realize that it was "highly doubtful" there was anything to the story he'd been sent to Niger to investigate. He told everyone that he'd recognized as obvious forgeries the documents purporting to show an Iraq-Niger uranium deal. But the forged documents to which he referred didn't reach U.S. intelligence until eight months after his trip. Mr. Wilson has said that he "misspoke"--multiple times, apparently--on this issue. Number three: Joe Wilson was also not telling the truth when he said that his final report to the CIA had "debunked" the Niger story. The Senate Intelligence report--again, the bipartisan portion of it--says Mr. Wilson's debrief was interpreted as providing "some confirmation of foreign government service reporting" that Iraq had sought uranium in Niger. That's because Niger's former Prime Minister had told Mr. Wilson he interpreted a 1999 visit from an Iraqi trade delegation as showing an interest in uranium. This is a remarkable record of falsehood. We'll let our readers judge if they think Mr. Wilson was deliberately wrong, and therefore can be said to have "lied." We certainly know what critics would say if President Bush had been caught saying such things. But in any event, we'd think that the news outlets that broadcast Mr. Wilson's story over the past year would want to retrace their own missteps. Mr. Wilson made three separate appearances on NBC's "Meet the Press," according to the Weekly Standard. New York Times columnist Nick Kristof first brought the still anonymous Niger envoy to public attention in May 2003, so he too must feel burned by his source. Alone among major sellers of the Wilson story, the Washington Post has done an admirable job so far of correcting the record. Also remarkable is that the views of former CIA employee Larry Johnson continue to be cited anywhere on this and related issues. Mr. Johnson was certain last October that the disclosure of Ms. Plame's identity was a purely "political attack," now disproven. He is also a friend of Ms. Plame and the author of a summer 2001 op-ed titled "The Declining Terrorist Threat." You'd think reporters would at least quote him with a political warning label. The final canard advanced by Mr. Wilson's defenders is that our own recent editorials and other criticism was somehow "orchestrated." Well, by whom? Certainly not by the same White House that has been all too silent about this entire episode, in large part because it prematurely apologized last year for the "16 words" in a State of the Union address that have now been declared "well-founded" by Lord Butler's inquiry in Britain. If Mr. Bush ends up losing the election over Iraq, it won't be because he oversold the case for war but because he's sometimes appeared to have lost confidence in the cause.

I have a 95 Ford T-bird with the V-8 (110,000 miles) that is my commuter car. Still has excellent pickup, and I rarely get passed on the tollway. Also have a 01 Dodge Dakota truck I use for work. Have the v-6 in that,though.

You know, if we were Norway, all these alleged torturers would be looing at community service, at best! http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1071523.ece

Want to committ to a weeks stay at the new hotel, once built? It's a petition to show support for the project, so that the town can see the economic viability of the project. http://www.pledgebank.com/LostLibHotel

QUOTE(Steff @ Jun 28, 2005 -> 06:45 PM) Is it hot outside! The car thermometer said 102 here in Hillside. I can only imagine what it is out in Plainfield where it's usually 5 to 8 degrees hotter. And they say tomorrow will be worse. You say Plainfiled is usually HOTTER? Great, I am going to be moving outta the hood, and into hell!