Gator Guy

I hold off on judgemtnt until I get some hard facts. In Kirby's case the only thing we know for sure is that there have been all sorts of allegations and rumors around him for a while. We have the words of his ex-wife, and his ex-mistress. We also have the words and testimony of the one woman who brought him to court, but he got off for that. These are not new revelations by any stretch of the imagination, it was the cover story for SI a few years back. to rejoice So pointing out that the world is not losing some savior or great man, and pointing out this is not a tragedy is rejoicing?

http://www.bergen.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcn...jd2cWVlRUV5eTk= School permits Bush mock trial for war crimes Saturday, March 4, 2006 By BONNIE PFISTER ASSOCIATED PRESS PARSIPPANY -- A mock war-crimes trial of President Bush at a Parsippany high school continued Friday, despite criticism from people across the nation who heard about the classroom exercise from a prominent Web site and talk-radio programs. The Parsippany-Troy Hills School District's interim superintendent, James Dwyer, said the hearing in the 12th-grade politics and government class would continue, but a verdict by a five-teacher "international court of justice" panel would not be rendered as originally planned. Speaking after a two-hour meeting with the school board president, the high school principal and a curriculum superintendent, Dwyer said Friday the project was in keeping with the district's curriculum and had received prior administrative approval. The class is an Advanced Placement elective, he said, and the lesson explores current events and foreign policy in an interactive way. "The focus is on the process itself, not on any outcome," Dwyer said. The course's instructor, Joseph Kyle, has taught in the district for eight years. Speaking at a news conference Friday afternoon, he said the tribunal was conceived as a learning exercise, not an opportunity to bash Bush. "I'm incredibly proud of these students," Kyle said, adding that he did not mind being personally criticized but was angered by suggestions that his students were not capable of forming their own opinions. "For anyone who thinks a teacher could propagandize and instill everything they said ... I'd have to be the most powerful man in the universe," Kyle said. "Mentally, they're already beyond college," Kyle said of his Advanced Placement class. Dwyer said he and the school's principal have received more than two dozen e-mails and phone calls about the course since the Web site "The Drudge Report" linked to a newspaper article about the class. Talk-radio programs also apparently have discussed the course, Dwyer said, and listeners contacting the district were 10-1 against allowing the mock hearing. But students involved in the project, which began Monday after several weeks of research, said the decision to hold a trial over Bush's alleged "crimes against civilian populations" and "inhumane treatment of prisoners" was agreed upon by all 27 classmates. Catherine Galdun, one of the student prosecutors, told the Daily Record of Parsippany for Friday's newspapers that she would have been upset had the trial been halted. "I would say that we're doing this in a fair and balanced way," said Galdun, 18. "We're looking at both sides of it. If [critics] don't believe that's right to do in a classroom -- to debate both sides of an issue -- I don't agree with that." Township Council Vice President James Vigilante, a U.S. Air Force reservist, said he could see both sides. "I'm a Bush fan. I don't necessarily, myself, agree with the lesson plan, but on the flip side, I wouldn't condemn the teacher," he told the newspaper. Vigilante, a Republican, added, "For me, it's the right of free speech." The mock hearing is expected to conclude next week.

Here is just a bit of one article about him: Tonya gave police an account of the latest incident and laid out a pattern of violent behavior by Puckett ? although none of it recent ? over the course of their marriage, according to the police report. She told of Kirby putting a cocked gun to her head as she held their then-2-year-old daughter. She told of Kirby trying to strangle her with an electrical cord. She told of Kirby locking her in the basement. She told of Kirby using a power saw to cut through a door. Kirby denied all the allegations to police, saying they argued after Tonya threatened to keep him from seeing their two adopted children again. Hennepin County Attorney Amy Klobuchar declined to file a felony complaint because the alleged threat came on a long-distance call from Atlantic City, making it hard to prove Tonya was in imminent danger. Edina city attorney Marsh Halberg declined to file a misdemeanor complaint because Tonya waited six days to file her report and because the two participants were the only witnesses, and their stories were so conflicting. Even though the courts were out of it, the police report went public three weeks after the alleged threat. You guys can have the opinion you want of him. But when rumors hang around of him being a serial groper, harrassing women, openly cheating on his wife, having allegations of domestic violence, threatening to kill his wife and his mistress, this is not a good guy. He never was convicted of anything, then again I can think of other athletes who were never charged with anything, or never convicted of anything, but people know better. Where there is so much smoke, from so many different people, there has to be a fire somewhere. Fans build up these athletes and think of them of these great people because of what they do on the field. After he retired he could have tried to dispell the rumors surrounding him, or at least offer a counter point to interviews his ex-wife and his ex-mistress gave to news outlets, but he decided to live a secluded life in Arizona. He could have taken a job with the Twins, or done any number of things, but he decided to get out of the lime-light. Something to read into perhaps? You get out of this life what you put into it.

http://www.kmov.com/topstories/stories/030...l.7d361c3f.html State bill proposes Christianity be Missouri?s official religion 09:24 PM CST on Saturday, March 4, 2006 By John Mills, News 4 Missouri legislators in Jefferson City considered a bill that would name Christianity the state's official "majority" religion. House Concurrent Resolution 13 has is pending in the state legislature. Many Missouri residents had not heard about the bill until Thursday. Karen Aroesty of the Anti-defamation league, along with other watch-groups, began a letter writing and email campaign to stop the resolution. The resolution would recognize "a Christian god," and it would not protect minority religions, but "protect the majority's right to express their religious beliefs. The resolution also recognizes that, "a greater power exists," and only Christianity receives what the resolution calls, "justified recognition." State representative David Sater of Cassville in southwestern Missouri, sponsored the resolution, but he has refused to talk about it on camera or over the phone. KMOV also contacted Gov. Matt Blunt's office to see where he stands on the resolution, but he has yet to respond.

Well, I bet he didn't see that coming. I guess you can only grope so many women and urinate in so many parking lots until your body says no more. Oh no wait, he is a Hall of Fame baseball player, so it's a tragedy he got his. Stupid double standard.

OMG! Bush and Hitler both used nationalism and the idea that their culture is the top of the world to promote their way of life in other countries!!! Don't tell the children! I wish a teacher would point out that the first nation leader who called for a war against terrorism to get things similar to the patriot act passed, to be able to spy on their citizens, to get the idea of you are either with us or against us, to make the national idea is to be against terrorism and to try and change the terroristic culture was Stalin. I am sure conservatives would love that too. Why teach the truth? The teacher did not say Bush is Hitler, or like him. In fact he says that Bush is nothing like Hitler, but that they did have similar talking points. Go figure. Plus I missed where the guy said Bush is bad, or that he didn't even vote for him. Saying "OMG Bush is the suxorz, whoever likes him is retarted," would be pushing his mindset on the kids, I missed where he did that. Watch out, or the liberal conspiracy will get you.

This poll was far from scientific. If you look at the details of the poll, aside from the awfully worded questions, you'll see they asked adults not registered voters, and the Democrats polled outnumbered the Republicans almost 2 to 1. You mean a poll with a sample skewed towards Democrats would have low approval numbers for a Republican? I am shocked! Shocked! Shh.....logic not allowed. CBS "weighted" the results to effectively count 289 Republicans versus 381 Democrats. Logic: 289:391 = 1:2 ? It might actually be interesting to note there is more registered democrats than republicans, really in thanks to many southerners who never changed their party affiliation from when the south was a democratic stronghold. It is a representitive poll. Logic? Please, why use that?

Pertaining to the original post: OMG someone has an opinion and money. Personally I find all these "Anti-Choice" billboards up and down the highways as disgusting conservitive blotter, they should be removed. Because as we all know, billboards are infringing on you, and trying to control your mind. Stupid Liberal conspiracy. R.I. candidate calls for Bush impeachment Jim Baron, Times staff reporter 02/02/2006 PROVIDENCE - Declaring that President George W. Bush "has repeatedly lied to our Congress and Americans, broke our laws and abused his executive authority with impunity," U.S. Senate candidate Carl Sheeler called for Bush?s impeachment at a Statehouse news conference Wednesday. On Friday, Sheeler plans to have a billboard posted off Exit 18 of Route 95 at the Thurbers Avenue curve that says "Be Patriotic, Impeach Bush." Advertisement Calling the Bush administration, "a partisan machine of fear and empty promises," Sheeler said, "It?s time we as ordinary citizens stop talking and start acting to bring the change we want to see in our America." He said he believes a majority of Rhode Islanders join him in wanting to see the president be impeached. Under the Constitution, impeachments start in the House of Representatives and Sheeler called on Reps. Patrick Kennedy and Jim Langevin, who are the national co-chairs of the campaign of Sheldon Whitehouse, who is opposing Sheeler for the Democratic nomination for the seat now held by Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee. Questioned by reporters after his speech, Sheeler acknowledged that there are "probably in the neighborhood of 50 or 60" votes for impeachment in the House right now. There are 435 members in the House; 218 votes would be required to force an impeachment trial in the Senate. In proposed articles of impeachment he provided to the media, Sheeler indicated he not only wants Bush impeached, but Vice President Richard Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as well. Among the high crimes and misdemeanors that Sheeler said Bush and his underlings should be impeached for include everything from the invasion of Iraq, to wiretapping without approval of the courts to the handling of Hurricane Katrina. High crimes and misdemeanors, Sheeler said, "are what Congress says they are." Kennedy and Langevin should join the movement toward impeachment started by Democratic Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, Sheeler said, "because this is an election year and this is our democracy. How many Americans earnestly feel they have been betrayed and lied to by the president of the United States? The majority, certainly here in Rhode Island. Calling for impeachment, he said, "is a sign of leadership." Sheeler said impeachment "is not a question of whether it will actually be successful or not, but if our representatives are going to represent our voice." Neither Kennedy nor Langevin appeared eager to join Sheeler?s call for impeachment, but both seemed to sympathize with their fellow Democrat?s dissatisfaction with the Bush administration. "While I appreciate and share Mr. Sheeler?s frustration with this administration," Kennedy said through Spokeswoman Robin Costello, "I think the larger point, which I have often stated, is that the Republicans who run Congress have repeatedly put political protectionism ahead of constitutional checks and balances." Still speaking of the GOP leadership, Kennedy said, "they have failed to hold any meaningful oversight hearings on any issue, such as prewar intelligence in Iraq, the lack of body armor and equipment for the troops, the absence of postwar planning and, most recently, illegal spying on lawful citizens." Without those oversight hearings, Kennedy said, "we don?t know if the president and his administration are guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors or are just disasterously incompetent. "Unlike the Republicans during the Clinton administration," Kennedy said, "I refuse to play politics with something so grave and potentially dangerous for our democracy as impeachment." Without the knowledge that would be gained at oversight hearings, Kennedy said, "calling for impeachment now would be putting the cart before the horse." Langevin offered similar sentiments through Spokeswoman Joy Fox. "The congressman?s position is that it is Congress? constitutional duty to oversee" the executive branch. Although Langevin believes "the Republican Congress hasn?t taken those duties seriously," he thinks "there is other stuff we have to work for, like health care and an energy policy. "He thinks that oversight is needed, that questions need to be answered," Fox said, but that impeachment, "is still a way away."

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/s...ll/13985829.htm Classic has innings limit Cue the Bud Selig jokes ? World Baseball Classic organizers said Tuesday that games in the first two rounds of the tournament will be ended after 14 innings, even if teams remain tied. In addition, the tournament?s technical committee may suspend semifinal games after 14 innings if ?pitcher availability for both teams would be substantially jeopardized by not suspending the game, and pitcher availability would be substantially enhanced by resuming the game as a suspended game on the next day.? Ties would count as half a win and half a loss in determining a team?s winning percentage, organizers said. Rain also could cause situations that deviate from normal major-league rules. Games can be suspended, even if they have not gone long enough to become regulation games. If the game affects which teams will advance, organizers will attempt to schedule the completion of the game for the following day. If it the game is suspended again during the first two rounds or the game isn?t finished, the team that is ahead would be declared the winner if it is a regulation game, it would be a tie if the teams are even or it would be ruled ?no game? if it hasn?t become a regulation game.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075 Released: February 28, 2006 U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006 * Le Moyne College/Zogby Poll shows just one in five troops want to heed Bush call to stay ?as long as they are needed? * While 58% say mission is clear, 42% say U.S. role is hazy * Plurality believes Iraqi insurgents are mostly homegrown * Almost 90% think war is retaliation for Saddam?s role in 9/11, most don?t blame Iraqi public for insurgent attacks * Majority of troops oppose use of harsh prisoner interrogation * Plurality of troops pleased with their armor and equipment An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and nearly one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows. The poll, conducted in conjunction with Le Moyne College?s Center for Peace and Global Studies, showed that 29% of the respondents, serving in various branches of the armed forces, said the U.S. should leave Iraq ?immediately,? while another 22% said they should leave in the next six months. Another 21% said troops should be out between six and 12 months, while 23% said they should stay ?as long as they are needed.? Different branches had quite different sentiments on the question, the poll shows. While 89% of reserves and 82% of those in the National Guard said the U.S. should leave Iraq within a year, 58% of Marines think so. Seven in ten of those in the regular Army thought the U.S. should leave Iraq in the next year. Moreover, about three-quarters of those in National Guard and Reserve units favor withdrawal within six months, just 15% of Marines felt that way. About half of those in the regular Army favored withdrawal from Iraq in the next six months. The troops have drawn different conclusions about fellow citizens back home. Asked why they think some Americans favor rapid U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, 37% of troops serving there said those Americans are unpatriotic, while 20% believe people back home don?t believe a continued occupation will work. Another 16% said they believe those favoring a quick withdrawal do so because they oppose the use of the military in a pre-emptive war, while 15% said they do not believe those Americans understand the need for the U.S. troops in Iraq. The wide-ranging poll also shows that 58% of those serving in country say the U.S. mission in Iraq is clear in their minds, while 42% said it is either somewhat or very unclear to them, that they have no understanding of it at all, or are unsure. While 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly ?to retaliate for Saddam?s role in the 9-11 attacks,? 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was ?to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.? ?Ninety-three percent said that removing weapons of mass destruction is not a reason for U.S. troops being there,? said Pollster John Zogby, President and CEO of Zogby International. ?Instead, that initial rationale went by the wayside and, in the minds of 68% of the troops, the real mission became to remove Saddam Hussein.? Just 24% said that ?establishing a democracy that can be a model for the Arab World" was the main or a major reason for the war. Only small percentages see the mission there as securing oil supplies (11%) or to provide long-term bases for US troops in the region (6%). The continuing insurgent attacks have not turned U.S. troops against the Iraqi population, the survey shows. More than 80% said they did not hold a negative view of Iraqis because of those attacks. About two in five see the insurgency as being comprised of discontented Sunnis with very few non-Iraqi helpers. ?There appears to be confusion on this,? Zogby said. But, he noted, less than a third think that if non-Iraqi terrorists could be prevented from crossing the border into Iraq, the insurgency would end. A majority of troops (53%) said the U.S. should double both the number of troops and bombing missions in order to control the insurgency. The survey shows that most U.S. military personnel in-country have a clear sense of right and wrong when it comes to using banned weapons against the enemy, and in interrogation of prisoners. Four in five said they oppose the use of such internationally banned weapons as napalm and white phosphorous. And, even as more photos of prisoner abuse in Iraq surface around the world, 55% said it is not appropriate or standard military conduct to use harsh and threatening methods against insurgent prisoners in order to gain information of military value. Three quarters of the troops had served multiple tours and had a longer exposure to the conflict: 26% were on their first tour of duty, 45% were on their second tour, and 29% were in Iraq for a third time or more. A majority of the troops serving in Iraq said they were satisfied with the war provisions from Washington. Just 30% of troops said they think the Department of Defense has failed to provide adequate troop protections, such as body armor, munitions, and armor plating for vehicles like HumVees. Only 35% said basic civil infrastructure in Iraq, including roads, electricity, water service, and health care, has not improved over the past year. Three of every four were male respondents, with 63% under the age of 30. The survey included 944 military respondents interviewed at several undisclosed locations throughout Iraq. The names of the specific locations and specific personnel who conducted the survey are being withheld for security purposes. Surveys were conducted face-to-face using random sampling techniques. The margin of error for the survey, conducted Jan. 18 through Feb. 14, 2006, is +/- 3.3 percentage points. (2/28/2006)

Do you have any proof that it isn't? http://www.webmd.com/content/article/23/1728_56903 - from WebMD, obviously not a biased politicized source. It's old but still relevant. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9013744/ - recent, from MSNBC, of an analysis of twenty years. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8449 - showing that video games alter the brain's response to real life violence. I could go on. Funny thing about those studies. 2 of them cite aggression increasing in COLLEGE age students. Now I am no scientist myself, but college age kids tend to be over 17, meaning they can buy M rated games, and most are of age and can get AO games all by themselves. These studies say those college age students get more aggressive playing those video games, so do you think we should ban the selling of these games to college kids too? Because if you wouldn't want to deal with an agressive minor, why would you want to deal with an agressive college kid? The third study also cites how violence in TV shows also increases aggression, I suppose we should take all of those off the air. See ya later 24, eh? I also like how you assume aggression leads directly to violence in the streets. http://mentalhealth.about.com/od/cyberment...violence805.htm Recent research confirms that violent video games can increase aggressive behavior in children and adolescents in the short- and long-term. Other recent research found that a particular violent video game, "Asheron's Call 2" did not increase violence in people who played it regularly. So do you think we should ban violent video games across the board? Because by your own studies they are even harmful to those of age. Could you possibly believe for two seconds that people like playing video games because of their own pre-disposition, and it is their own pre-disposition why they enjoy those games and act like they do.

When I was 15 I knew kids' parents who would let their kid and their friends drink and smoke in their house. In one such situation a kid was so drunk he fell down the stairs and died. The parents "took a role in what their kids were up to," but it was wrong and ended up with a kid dying. Comparing giving kids drugs and alcohol to giving them a video game? :lol :lol :lol It seems relatively clear that with video game violence has come more street violence among kids Proof? and if that can be proven it shouldn't be up to the parents to decide whether or not they want their kids racing cars down a street at 125 miles per hour, etc. So when a parent gives an M rated video game to their kid it is their way of saying, "Hey, I want you racing down the street at 125 mph"? It impacts our entire community, and once you start screwing with other people's lives it isn't just up to the parents anymore. So do you honestly live in fear, and think little 15 year old Johnny down the street poses a threat to you as he sits infront of his PS2 playing some GTA?

Besides, if you want to make an argument, banning violent video games is more of a Democrat/liberal stance. I mean, your beloved Hilary Clinton wanted a $5000 fine on people who sell violent video games to kids - hey, doesn't that osund kinda like this? Major difference here, this takes the right away from the parents deciding. Should kids be able to buy AO and M rated games? Maybe parents should have to intervene in that sale, but they can buy the game for the kid if they want to. If this legislation passes if they buy the game for the kid and give it to them then they are doing something illegal, taking the right away for the parents to decide what is the best for their kid. This would be like outlawing parents brining kids to rated R movies. The other legislation would be like fining movie theatres for selling a group of 15 year olds tickets to a rated R movie. See the difference? No, this would be like outlawing parents bringing kinds to NC17 movies, whereas the other legislation would fine movie theaters for selling kids tickets to NC17 movies. I think AO makes it pretty clear - ADULTS ONLY. Much like NC17 is no child under 17. What you're saying is that a parent would have a right to let their kid have access to media specifically intended only for adults, in which case that makes a parallel to NC17, which is only for adults. AO games would be NC17 in this equation. And M rated games the R ones, because M rated games are "not suitable for kids under 17", which is basically the same definition of rated R movies. AO games would be the NC-17, which both are intended for adults only. Like I said the Utah legislation takes away parents rights, while the other legislation leaves it up to the parents to make the decision which is fine with me. Parents should take a role in what their kids are up to.

Besides, if you want to make an argument, banning violent video games is more of a Democrat/liberal stance. I mean, your beloved Hilary Clinton wanted a $5000 fine on people who sell violent video games to kids - hey, doesn't that osund kinda like this? Major difference here, this takes the right away from the parents deciding. Should kids be able to buy AO and M rated games? Maybe parents should have to intervene in that sale, but they can buy the game for the kid if they want to. If this legislation passes if they buy the game for the kid and give it to them then they are doing something illegal, taking the right away for the parents to decide what is the best for their kid. This would be like outlawing parents brining kids to rated R movies. The other legislation would be like fining movie theatres for selling a group of 15 year olds tickets to a rated R movie. See the difference?

If legislation passes: http://videogames.yahoo.com/newsarticle?eid=439073&page=0 Utah House approves game legislation Bill that would include violent games under obscenity laws passes state House with ease, moves on to Senate. By Brendan Sinclair 1:39 pm PST February 24, 2006 A bill that would alter Utah's criminal code to include violent video games under the banner of "material harmful to minors" has passed the state's House of Representatives with ease. The bill passed the House by a vote of 56 to 8, with 11 legislators absent or not voting, and was introduced to the Senate this morning. If it becomes law, Utah HB 257 would make it illegal for anyone to show or give games containing inappropriate violence to minors. The law originally would have applied to movies, music, and other media as well, but it was revised after failing to make it out of committee in its original form. Under the state's current law for exposing minors to harmful material, each separate offense would be a third-degree felony with a minimum fine of $300 and imprisonment (with no option for a suspended sentence) of at least 14 days. If someone has already been convicted under the law once, however, the crime is then a second-degree felony with a minimum fine of $5,000 and at least a year in jail, again with no possibility of a suspended sentence.