Mikesgirl1

Do not hold your hopes high. Next year you all will be talking about how greedy Pavano is for not taking less money with the Marlins. Face it! we don't have the money to keep most of our players, specially when we don't even have a ballpark and maybe never will. That's an unfortunate truth and it's something that will just keep feeding into itself. In order to build the solid fanbase that this team needs, we need to try to keep the players that people come to see. This in turn, leads to higher revenues which leads to higher payrolls which keeps these guys with us. Our management has to look at the long term picture in cases like this. Of course, that's easier said than done.. hopefully the new park will help raise revenue. The problem here is that most of the revenue they are getting from increase in attendance is going to the wrong packet due to the bad deal they have with Huizenga. If we don't get a new ballpark deal done by next year, this is what's going to happen: 1. Mike Lowell out the door. 2. Carl Pavano out the door. 3. Luis Castillo out the door. and any of these scenarios is also likely, so get used to it: 1. Moving the team to another city. 2. Fire Sale! :thumbdown

Do not hold your hopes high. Next year you all will be talking about how greedy Pavano is for not taking less money with the Marlins. Face it! we don't have the money to keep most of our players, specially when we don't even have a ballpark and maybe never will.

Where is the option for both?

It seems that a lot of you give too much credit to a group of people who are in the business just to make profit... Loria, Beinfest and Samson have good intentions but if you think they wanted to keep Pudge, you are sadly mistaken. We all know the "budgetary" constraints this team has and they probably thought it wouldn't be as bad having Castro instead of Pudge. Since Castro showed such batting power, they figured it would be worth the try. I sincerely think they did not offer Pudge a deal. It was easier and more convenient to give the impression they did and then dump the blame on Pudge. Just remember there are always two sides to a story and some prefer to believe Pudge didn't want to stay because of money than OMG thinking the ball club owners maybe didn't want to pay him to stay.

COOL THREAD! War Inc.

Ashcroft Sings :plain Why is this guy our Attorney General? He should be pursuing his career in show biz :mischief I'm serious the guy has a nice voice.

Try channel 210 for DTV...that's where I have the game on. :notworthy Thanks! you rule!

Damm it! I have Direct TV and it is showing the Red Sox game! Capefish... What channel are you watching it in?

This Quizz is loaded! I'm agent Smith too... :rofl "you know a crap load about computers (mostly porn).... hahahaha

Jesus has no party affiliation. Leave him alone! If he were to live in these crazy times, he would probably be aprehended, tortured and killed again. No one likes a free-spirit stirring up the masses and going against the church's silly rules.

Fidel Castro = Irrelevant

WOW. I guess the French are not as obnoxious as they say huh? :mischief I don't know what is it with Americans bashing the French, when most have not even been outside their little towns, much less traveled to France... OMG "I ain't goin' to no stinkin' France!" :mischief

Tonyi, you wanted that info... In November 2, 2000 issue of Editor and Publisher, a survey was done of endorsements by outlets and more than twice supported Bush and his agenda over Gore. Doesn't that make you think, That the editors may have a little bias just as The Liberal Reporters do, the thing is Editors have more power though. The liberal media bias is still apparent with every broadcast. I really feel sorry that there is young people who think like you out there :confused Read Rune's article above your post. You may just get the big picture... Just may be. Cut the patronizing. That attitude only pisses people off. I'm sorry we aren't as "enlightened" as you so to believe that Bush = Evil. In my world, there is no "good" Vs. "evil"... Bush is not "evil" he is just a liar who is playing with all of us and the future of this country. Stand for the right thing once in your life... Patronizing? I don't patronize, I express my opinion and when I say what I say, I really feel that way, it is sad man, really sad. THAT RIGHT THERE IS PATRONIZING. "Aww geez, I'm sorry. I can't help it if I want to stand up to the murderous liar Bush, although I never said he was evil. I'm really sorry that you can't see that, I guess you have been brainwashed too much. Geez. That must suck" Grow up and then talk to me... Now that is patronizing. :cool

agreed, we need mixed government... But I see it very difficult since this country is so polarized, comes November and may either have a Completely Republican Congress and Bush re-elected or a Democrat Congress and Kerry as president... :mischief I have my fingers crossed that if it comes to it... the latter will be the case. Don't blame me for hating this admins. policies to that extent. :hat Traditionally speaking it is very, very rare that a party carries both the presidency and control of the congress via a presidential election year vote. I don't know fish fillet, we are living strange times. People are thinking about these elections as if it was a contest of something. My team against your team. I've heard a lot people that will vote on the premise of party affiliation rather than on the issues. :confused

Preeminent Scientists Protest Bush Administration's Misuse of Science Nobel Laureates, National Medal of Science Recipients, and Other Leading Researchers Call for End to Scientific Abuses February 18, 2004 Washington, D.C.?Today, more than 60 leading scientists?including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university chairs and presidents?issued a statement calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. According to the scientists, the Bush administration has, among other abuses, suppressed and distorted scientific analysis from federal agencies, and taken actions that have undermined the quality of scientific advisory panels. ?Across a broad range of issues, the administration has undermined the quality of the scientific advisory system and the morale of the government?s outstanding scientific personnel,? said Dr. Kurt Gottfried, emeritus professor of physics at Cornell University and Chairman of the Union of Concerned Scientists. ?Whether the issue is lead paint, clean air or climate change, this behavior has serious consequences for all Americans.? ?Science, to quote President Bush's father, the former president, relies on freedom of inquiry and objectivity,? said Russell Train, head of the Environmental Protection Agency under Nixon and Ford, who joined the scientists in calling for action. ?But this administration has obstructed that freedom and distorted that objectivity in ways that were unheard of in any previous administration.? The statement notes that while scientific input to the government is rarely the only factor in public policy decisions, this input should be weighed from an objective and impartial perspective. However, the administration of George W. Bush has disregarded this principle. ?The Earth system follows laws which scientists strive to understand,? said Dr. F. Sherwood Rowland a Nobel laureate in chemistry. ?The public deserves rational decisionmaking based on the best scientific advice about what is likely to happen, not what political entities might wish to happen.? ?We are not simply raising warning flags about an academic subject of interest only to scientists and doctors,? said Dr. Neal Lane, a former director of the National Science Foundation and a former Presidential Science Advisor. ?In case after case, scientific input to policymaking is being censored and distorted. This will have serious consequences for public health.? In conjunction with the statement, the Union of Concerned Scientists today released a report Scientific Integrity in Policymaking that investigates numerous allegations in the scientists? statement involving censorship and political interference with independent scientific inquiry at the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Departments of Health and Human Services, Agriculture, Interior and Defense. One example cited in the statement and report involves the suppression of an EPA study that found the bipartisan Senate Clear Air bill would do more to reduce mercury contamination in fish and prevent more deaths than the administration's proposed Clear Skies Act. ?This is akin to the White House directing the National Weather Service to alter a hurricane forecast because they want everyone to think we have clear skies ahead,? said Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists ?The hurricane is still coming, but without factual information no one will be ready for it.? Comparing President Bush with his father, George H.W. Bush and former president Richard M. Nixon, the statement warned that had these former presidents similarly dismissed science in favor of political ends, over 200,000 deaths and millions of respiratory and cardiovascular disease cases would not have been prevented with the signing of the original Clean Air Act and the 1990 amendments to that Act. The statement demands that the Bush administration?s ?distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends must cease? and calls for Congressional oversight hearings, guaranteed public access to government scientific studies and other measures to prevent such abuses in the future. The statement further calls on the scientific, engineering and medical communities to work together to reestablish scientific integrity in the policymaking process. ________________________________________________________________ Among the statement signers are: Philip W. Anderson*? David Baltimore*? Paul Berg*? Lewis Branscomb Thomas Eisner* Jerome Friedman? Richard Garwin* Walter Kohn*? Neal Lane Leon Lederman*? Mario Molina? W.H.K. Panofsky* F. Sherwood Rowland? J. Robert Schrieffer*? Richard Smalley? Harold E. Varmus? Steven Weinberg*? E.O Wilson* * National Medal of Science ? Nobel laureate LINK WTF! :mad : :blink:

because we now know for a fact that Iraq didn't either. American interests are a lot more than military. If someone can't understand this simple fact, then there's no way to communicate. Would you kindly explain to me what was it that justified for us to go invade Iraq when in fact we were fighting in Afghanistan... A war I and others like me were in agreement with???? No Iraq links to Al-Qaeda, no WMD's. Hussein wasn't invading Kwaiit like it did in the 90's when Bush Senior rightly launched an attack to kick his ass out. He wasn't doing anything to America. Give me a good, detailed explanation what the hell were this people thinking when ignoring several officials in his administration and outside of the administration that warned them of the consequences of taking this road. Tell me why? I still don't know and I bet you don't either.

Tonyi, you wanted that info... In November 2, 2000 issue of Editor and Publisher, a survey was done of endorsements by outlets and more than twice supported Bush and his agenda over Gore. Doesn't that make you think, That the editors may have a little bias just as The Liberal Reporters do, the thing is Editors have more power though. The liberal media bias is still apparent with every broadcast. I really feel sorry that there is young people who think like you out there :confused Read Rune's article above your post. You may just get the big picture... Just may be. Cut the patronizing. That attitude only pisses people off. I'm sorry we aren't as "enlightened" as you so to believe that Bush = Evil. In my world, there is no "good" Vs. "evil"... Bush is not "evil" he is just a liar who is playing with all of us and the future of this country. Stand for the right thing once in your life... Patronizing? I don't patronize, I express my opinion and when I say what I say, I really feel that way, it is sad man, really sad.

Joe Wilson is a former ambassabor who wrote The Politics of Truth. He was asked by the Pentagon I believe to go and investigate whether or not the rumor that Hussein had tried to buy Uranium in Africa was true or not. He found out that it was not true. He told Condy Rice. Then when he saw Bush use that information in the state of the union speech to justify going to war, he wrote a piece in the Post about how it wasnt true. The administration would later say they were unaware when it was in fact revealed that the rumor wasnt true despite Wilson telling them that. Soon after, conservative writer Robert Novak wrote a piece that revealed the name of Wilson's wife, an undercover CIA agent. He got the name from someone in the White House-this leak is extremelly serious. Bush 1 called it the sickest form of treason. Someone in the White House did this and Wilson believes it is in retaliation for his piece in the Times. There is currently an investigation. Wilson wrote Politics of Truth about his experiences as a public servant under numerous Presidents. He also writes about the administration and why he has a strong suspicion that Cheney is the one who ordered his wife's name revealed. OOOOHHHHH Silly me. I know about the whole scandal but the name of the guy escaped me. Some say it was Karl Rove who actually leaked it. He was heard saying that wilson's wife was "Fair game". Unbelievable man, I just can't understand how can people still back this administration. I can't remember a more secretive, treacherous, dangerous Presidency. How many scandals, lies, deaths and betrayals is the American public going to take before they wake up. I wish the same people that were so viciously after "Slick Willy" would be like this after President Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, etc. Why is everyone giving this guy a free pass????? I don't care if he is Republican, Democrat or Libertarian, this guy has the destiny of this nation in his hands, he needs to tell us the truth and we as a people should demand the truth. Some are taking this as if it was a game, a baseball match in which it is "my guy" against "your guy"... In fact it isn't, we are deciding the future of all of us, leave party affiliations behind and do the right thing for the country for once.... :banghead

"if it was to get rid of an evil dictator, why not N. Korea's dictator, Cuba's dictator, etc?" The answer to this is obvious when you think about it. Cuba's "threat" has been rendered non-existant since the Soviet Union collapsed and stopped pumping money/weapons into them as their proxy. The Cubans rather quickly halted their "adventuring" in the Carribean, Central America, Africa after the Soviet support dried up. In reality the only threat is to global warming because of Fidel's extended speeches full of hot air :lol The DPRK's "threat" is somewhat more credible, but still very marginal in real terms. Geography limits them to exactly one path of territorial conquest since they certainly aren't going to try and carve off a piece of the PRC. This is a country with minimal "blue water" naval assets, so you can forget about any serious seaborn invasion threats to Japan (or anywhere else). In essence, the DPRK is reduced to sabre rattling against the ROK. Their long range missile and nuke weapon development is largely symbolic - an international "face saving" measure. They don't have the resources to ever develop enough to be a real threat. Sure, they could launch a couple of missiles against the US, Australia, etc but to what end? This would be suicidal - they have nothing to prevent COMSUBPAC's boomers from turning the country into a glowing moonscape in response. You'd see a military coup before this happened. The next DPRK "threat" (which is really a non-threat) is their WMD arms exports - and THIS is where the rubber really meets the road with the DPRK. This is their only CONCRETE bargaining chip, everything else is just public bluster they can't ever use in reality. But what advantage is there to the DPRK in exporting these arms to places that aren't really their ideological breathren? None really - its strictly an economic thing to pull some cash into their pathetic economy. THIS is what the DPRK's game is ultimately angling for - they want the world to pull them out of their self inflicted economic death spiral, and will be quite willing to give up all their "threats" if the aid largess is big enough. The question to the US regarding the DPRK is do we want to allow them to extort us for a huge economic aid package in exchange for their dropping all these threats (that aren't really threats they can execute on anyway). The DPRK needs to "save face" internationally and internally, so they can't just come begging hat in hand. The USA needs to demonstrate that its unwilling to be so crudely extorted or else we could wind up setting a dangerous precedent and encouraging other flaky regimes to try the same thing. No, didn't answer the question, since Iraq's supposed threat, wasn't real nor imminent and the latest "explanation" (if you could call it that) has been "to get rid of an evil dictator". My question remains, if it was to get rid of an evil dictator why not Fidel or North Korea's dictator? and don't tell me because Fidel doesn't pose a threat to American interests, because we now know for a fact that Iraq didn't either.

Tonyi, you wanted that info... In November 2, 2000 issue of Editor and Publisher, a survey was done of endorsements by outlets and more than twice supported Bush and his agenda over Gore. Doesn't that make you think, That the editors may have a little bias just as The Liberal Reporters do, the thing is Editors have more power though. The liberal media bias is still apparent with every broadcast. I really feel sorry that there is young people who think like you out there :confused Read Rune's article above your post. You may just get the big picture... Just may be.

Just started yesterday...its a little slow so far. But Ive heard it picks up. I also wanna read Joe Wilson's book. Joe Wilson??? I don't recall the name, what book? :blink:

includes, Dick Clark's "Against All Enemies" Reading it right now. :thumbup :w00t How is it???? Man! I can't wait, I'm about to drop the "reader" to just jump on that book. The reader however, has pretty interesting stuff in it.

The greatest Bush ad, is The Kerry wanting to raise Oil Price ads. He supported that back in the 80's when Price's were not a problem to help solve some of our economic problems yet it's being used today. Are you talking about the 50 cent tax on gasoline? Yeah, he (Kerry) did some research on this back in the 70's but dropped it because it wasn't viable... Yet the Bushies say he "still" supports that... Go figure! Politics as usual! :mischief Bushies, just a question out of the blue did you read Bushwacked? Bushies was used over and over and just reminded me. That's the ad, was that Bush directly or one of the conservative groups? Bush directly... I haven't seen any add attacking Kerry without the "I am George Bush and I approved this message". On the "Bushwacked", no I haven't. Who wrote it? Molly Ivins, excellent book if you strongly dislike tax cuts, his policy on the enviorment, and some of his own shady buisness deals with Harken. :blink: Are you kidding? I've hated just about everything the guy has done, including existing... Just joking. I'd buy it now but I haven't finished "I hate the GOP reader" and have a pile of books waiting to be read which includes, Dick Clark's "Against All Enemies" and the "Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them".

Ok, it has been widely discussed whether it is a fact or fiction... I thought I'd at least put up the trailer so some of the Neocons have at least a taste of it... For us liberals is a major congregation event come June 25th. Farenheit 9/11 Trailer

The greatest Bush ad, is The Kerry wanting to raise Oil Price ads. He supported that back in the 80's when Price's were not a problem to help solve some of our economic problems yet it's being used today. Are you talking about the 50 cent tax on gasoline? Yeah, he (Kerry) did some research on this back in the 70's but dropped it because it wasn't viable... Yet the Bushies say he "still" supports that... Go figure! Politics as usual! :mischief Bushies, just a question out of the blue did you read Bushwacked? Bushies was used over and over and just reminded me. That's the ad, was that Bush directly or one of the conservative groups? Bush directly... I haven't seen any add attacking Kerry without the "I am George Bush and I approved this message". On the "Bushwacked", no I haven't. Who wrote it?