In partnership with CBSSports.com
The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports
Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports
A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics
Feedback for IMS and 247Sports
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
well, the Dem wingnut groups and unions seem to be more in line with the thinking of regular voters than the Pub wingnut groups like religious wackos, pro-gun lunatics that advocate the murder of law enforcement, the obscenely rich tax-dodgers, etc.
PS, I love that "greens" are radical, as if believing things like conservation of natural resources and the preservation of the planet we inhabit is a bad idea. Teddy Roosevelt was a staunch republican and staunch conservationist.
Go check out the numerous predictions of complete and utter disaster for "Mother Earth" at the hands of mankind, in the next ten, twenty, fifty years - Paul Ehrlich is the most notable example, Al Gore also. They've all been proven wrong.
And for your information, I was in my twenties when EPA was established, and took many conservation, agricultural engineering, and resource economics courses as an undergrad at UMD, then went to work for the state of MD specifically in water pollution abatement. In those days, pollution was a real thing - I'm sure you've heard the story of the Cuyahoga River catching on fire, and yes, pollution was serious and needed to be addressed in a big way, and it was.
Now, pollution in the United States is exemplified by radicals (yes, radicals) calling rain runoff and your own exhalations as "pollution." I'm sorry, but natural processes are not pollution. The planet is in no danger, though it is possible that the human race may be. You should really watch the many "Life After People" shows to get an entertaining look at how easily the planet absorbs the things that occur, whether we call them pollution or not.
Well, as part of the human race I'd tend to think that it possibly being in danger is a bad thing.
Plus, disregarding the politics of it, there's no downside to trying to conserve resources, look for alternative energy sources, and preserve the natural beauty of our country.
Interestingly enough, "Race pimps, and other wing nuts" is the name of SATerp's new jazz fusion album with the smoothest, most Reaganite sound in today's game.
Available at fine music establishments this April.
"And I try to har-mo-nize with songs the lonesome sparrow sings...
There are no kings inside the Gates of Eden."
Imprecision in the way that radicals speak ("the earth is in danger!!1") betrays their imprecision in thought. I'll take my scientific conclusions from science, not emotion.
And there are always tradeoffs in making decisions, especially in the areas of pollution abatement and in resource conservation. Greenies never mention those tradeoffs, eg, the increase in deaths due to raising the mpg in cars, or the estimated millions of deaths due to the banning of DDT.
Ryan on Hillary/Obama.
Appearing on NBC's Meet the Press this afternoon, former GOP vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) praised Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and lamented that she did not win the presidency in 2008, as he believes that would lead to a better chance for deficit reduction today than under President Obama.
60 Minutes = State Run Media during Obama/Hillary interview?
Underestimated? Its not possible. Dude is a clown. When he ran on his own (i.e. when he is making the decisions) he stepped all over his dick. Obama and his campaign kept him on a very short leash and he still screwed up from time to time. (Thankfully it went largely unoticed thanks to the press hard on for Palin.)
Clearly you are too young to remember his 1988 Presidential campaign?!! What a @#$@# show. In short, he got crushed by the likes of Dukakis.
then in 2008...he wasnt much better. He got crushed in Iowa. 5th place and less than 1% of the vote? Freaking Bill Richardson did twice as better as Biden in Iowa. I can think of about 6 Democrats that would have to sit out for Biden to have a chance at the nomination.
Hey....as someone who leans right. I'd LOVE Crazy joe to win the nomination.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by rthhokie92 18 months ago
History control straight out of Orwell - is the only thing missing the airbrushed photos?
Well I was in 3rd grade in 1988, and I can imagine a guy can learn from something in the next three decades.
In 08, he was up against three big candidates (Hillary, Obama, Edwards) and another well known one (Richardson). He never had a chance, even though he had some of the best debate moments that summer/fall.
The advantage he has also comes with a disadvantage. Because of his personality, he can get away with saying things other candidates can't, because it's just "Joe being Joe." That's a big deal. The disadvantage with that is he may not come across as presidential enough, which could hinder him.
If Obama is relatively popular he would be running for a third Obama term. It's not a ridiculous notion, though nobody would call him the favorite looking at it now.
(a) It is pretty absurd - because as a top man - he is terrible. he showed that in 1988. he wasnt in it long enough in 2008 to fall on his face. Big difference being second bananna. (Joe is more like Dan Q. than he is H.W. Bush)
(b) Richardson is not that well known. Certainly not anymore than Biden who has been around for decades. He got slammed.
(c) The odds of Obama becoming suddenly popular...let alone finishing popular. Second half of second terms are always @!#$@# shows.
Again..Im not saying he wont run. And given that he is the current VP he wont have - as bad - the money problems he suffered. But, as I said....6 or 7 Dems would easily be favored over Joe. Also, I doubt he gets less crazy as he grows older.
Yeah, I think Joe as President is a complete non-starter. The only way I can see him be the nominee is if Obama's second term is a complete cluster#*%&, it becomes plainly apparent that the Democrats will lose control of the White House, most of the big names on the Dem side therefore stay out of it, and the Dems trot out Biden as the sacrificial lamb.
She has decades of lying, that is her track record. She is called to testify, agrees, then miraculously has a fall, an alleged concussion, and then later an alleged blood clot, all of which delays her appearance for two months. Any person trained as a journalist in the uber cynical Merrill Journalism School, should IMMEDIATELY smell a rat. That you do not is telling.
I heard they were healthy sheep...!
I think it's the opposite, his best bet might be if Obama has a good second term and he goes for what GHWB got as Reagan's VP like paul mentioned above. If the Obama brand is damaged, then Biden will also be damaged and the Democrats will want an "outsider." I'm not convinced he runs either way, but he has been getting a ton of praise as a dealmaker and whatnot, hearing all of that attention has to be throwing wood into the already raging furnace of his ego.
I knew Phil Merrill (apparently you did not), and he was a tough SOB and a born cynic who did not trust any pol! I would hope that some of that reporters zeal to out lying politicians might have rubbed off on you.
I showed Hillary has been a liar going back to the Watergate days through Whitewater, and her veracity is what was at issue. Given her long record of lying, why should she be believed, or given any benefit of the doubt, when this delay served her in prep time. You defended her on what basis? Oh, you had none, well good for you.
"...THE GOVERNMENT LIES ALL THE TIME PROVE ME WRONG TAG SOMETHING SOMETHING I KNOW TYDINGS SOMETHING SOMETHING..." written by hgoodman and saved for use later!
Kristin Powers, besides being great to look at, gets it. She was a Hillary person for years by the way.
BTW, wasn't this tantamount to a Hillary veiled 2016 announcement. Sounded like one to me...
This post was edited by tagterp 18 months ago
If you're going to accuse someone of medical fraud and ducking Congress, you should have actual, recent evidence to back it up. That's also something I assume they teach in journalism school.
Asking someone to prove that she isn't lying is foolhardy.
The burden of proof is on the accuser. You said we should think that she lied about her medical condition(s) to avoid testimony over Benghazi. Prove in any way that she did. Until then, the accusations are no different than someone saying "George Bush didn't choke on a pretzel. He fell because he relapsed into his alcoholism and tripped over in a drunken stupor."
It's ugly and small and we ought to hold ourselves to higher standards. Cynicism is fine, but we risk a self-fulfilling prophecy when we make politics petty and awful. Who in their right mind would enter a profession where you can be slandered for having a serious medical condition
Ms. Powers is also a fellow Terp.
Complete speculation on my end, but it seemed like Obama paying Hillary back for being a loyal foot soldier.
In addition to the above, us small-government types should ideally have more of a respect for privacy rights. (And if not for privacy, for federal statutes like HIPAA). I would hope that Hillary's doctors wouldn't just give every right-wing wannabe Woodward & Bernstein the copies of all of Hillary's medical records to disprove her "alleged" concussion and "alleged" blood clot.
(Having said that, if you actually wanted statements from doctors about her medical condition, there are plenty of those available.)
This post was edited by terps99 18 months ago
Nah, the proof is in who is accusing and who is the accused. You guys pick and chose who to believe. Reporters, at least those educated to be reporters are supposed to hold government Officials accountable. this is why I am surprised at hgoodman's defense of Democrats while not affording the same generosity to members of other parties. You are also guilty of the same selectivity.
Frankly, I think I am right far more times then not assuming they all lie. The Constitution gives great protection to a free speech and accords journalism a high level of protection from government bullying so that it may be unrestrained in holding public officials accountable. I believe the public is better served by assuming the cynics role and pressing those who supposedly lead us in important business by honest with us.
Do you believe for a nano-second W invaded Iraq to get WMD? I hope not, as none were found! Did you believe 'Mission Accomplished' rhetoric? I hope not!
We are led by those elected to Office who are fundamentally dishonest, as the politcal parties are dishonest.
In my time involved in more then most anybody here, this is where I came out. You guy (and gals) can believe what you want, but treading down the pathway thinking only one party lies and the other tells the truth, is what these clowns hope for. Just sayin!
My favorite PROVE ME WRONG was Trump attempting to extort a sitting President for his school records by promising lavish donations to a charity of Obama's choice.
In your face, poor saps who won't get that money now!
Our politicians and people need to take the Krauthammer in '07 approach with more things.
"This campaign is knee-deep in religion, and it's only going to get worse. I'd thought that the limits of professed public piety had already been achieved during the Republican CNN-YouTube debate when some squirrelly looking guy held up a Bible and asked, "Do you believe every word of this book?" -- and not one candidate dared reply: None of your damn business."
There is a difference between a healthy skepticism of government officials and their statements, which all should have all the time for all parties, and believing particular bits of nonsense that don't hold up to actual questioning or common sense.
Disbelief for the sake of disbelief is not a virtue.
The Constitution's free speech protections do hold as a bulwark against governmental encroachment. What they do not do is give a license to believe silly things or serious things for silly reasons. One can do that, but he shouldn't claim the 1st Amendment as a shield against others saying he's being silly.
Anyone can believe anything they want, and almost always say it openly--a virtue almost unique to America and NOT held in illiberal countries or even free countries like those in Europe whose free-speech protections pale in comparison to ours.
Right. You have never seen over stated doctors reports? Christ sakes, doctors hand them out preprinted to get people off work. There are Workmen's Comp doctors for hire that common workers get to write disability reports People as powerful as the Clintons, in the major league of politics can get whatever they want.
Dixon and hgoodman prefered to redirect the back and forth to my conclusion she used this fall and the subsequent health issues to delay her appearance in order to rehearse her time on tv before the committee.. I did not see where they actually gave an opinion about what she said.
You come from a position of a need for concrete evidence for the conclusions I made, and I understand what you are saying. BTW, you have not given an opinion of whether or not her testimony was entirely believable...! Please share your thoughts, if you chose to do so. hgoodman and dixon can use this opportunity to do likewise.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports