KRC

...and think...there are people who feel that the government needs to get more involved in our lives.

Yes they do. I have been to Milwaukee many times.

Damn.

Yeah, the 95lb German Shepherd.

I am having a problem with the neighbor's cat right now. He lets his cat roam free. We have a fenced-in yard (fence is about 4.5 feet high). Even though there is a fence, the cat can still jump to the top of the fence and into our yard. He likes chasing after the birds in our yard (we have several feeders) and the squirrels. The problem is that I have a 95lb German Shepherd that does not like the aforementioned cat. We generally keep our dog inside, but we also need to let him out to do his business and to get exercise. I talked with the neighbor and he said, "There is nothing I can do to keep the cat out of your yard." Well, then I guess that there is nothing I can do to prevent my dog from ripping your cat to shreds. Problem solved.

It makes a nice soundbite, though. Elections are coming up. Soundbites are needed.

Too late.

Keep going. If you are talking true all-purpose threats, you need to go back a hell of a lot farther. The better players were threats to pass, rush, receive, return kicks, return punts, intercept, fumble recoveries, kicking, punting, blocking and tackling. All from the same player in the same game.

Actually, no it doesn't. I have to side with the monkey on this one. You are trying to use the result to determine the intent. Look up historical revisionism (or negationism). Things does not work that way. They never have and never will. What makes you qualified to determine discrepancies between stated purpose and intended purpose? Your opinion of what you want the purpose to be in this situation?

MY GOD NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! You mean that people have the ability to contribute to whoever they want? What the hell kind of state is this where people have freedom of choice? I am going to have to move. As far as the signatures, you have GOT to be kidding me. Signing a petition does not mean you are voting for that person. I will let you in on a little secret. People signing petitions know this when they sign. Even in your party, people do this (I know it is a shock, but it happens). Again, you seem to have an issue with free and fair elections. Is that because a free and fair election would get in the way of your guy getting elected? Nice to know that trampling over the constitution is acceptable if it means a Democratic win. Again, I will remember that when you rail on Bush/GOP for trampling over the Constitution. It is only acceptable when Democrats do it. Got it. It is the only way they can compete, since you have the Dems doing everything in their power to trample over the consitution and prevent free and open elections.

If he had additional symptoms beyond being tired, I would agree with you. My wife currently has Lyme. Add things like joint pain, nausea, dizziness and a whole list of other symtoms.

It is much better to ignore the constitutional rights of the voters of PA. I'll remember that the next time you rail on Bush and the GOP about violating the constitution.

I can't take credit for it. MelissaInPhilly coined that phrase.

...but, hey...how many Bills message boards can boast that they have a pedantic, supercilious anal orifice and a Nazi geek it out over history.

Yeah. It is horrible that the citizens of the Commonwealth of PA are allowed to have a choice on the ballot. Who do they think they are? Taxpaying citizens protected by not only the Constitution of the United States, but also the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania? It is already been ruled in several courts on several levels that the Pennsylvania Election Code is unconsitutional. Preventing this candidate from getting on the ballot is unconstitutional. Yup. We wouldn't want to have those people allowed to vote for the candidate of their choice. Funny, the Dems get their panties in a bunch when it looks like Bush/Republicans violate the constitution, but it is perfectly acceptable for the Democrats to violate the Constitution. Hmmmm...what is that smell...oh...it is the smell of hypocrisy. It is a step in the right direction. That is more than I can say for the Democrats in PA. All they are concerned with is regaining power in the Senate and they are willing to violate the Constitutional rights of the voters in PA to do it. Again, pretty hypocritical from the bunch who are "outraged" by Bush and his Constitutional issues. What is that saying? Do as I say, not as I do?

It makes it tough for a third party candidate to make it on the ballot, when the Big Two use unconstitutional means to prevent ballot access.

There are other questions, as well. (NOTE: I heard this on a radio news report and have no link). They are saying that he claimed to have picked up the girl from school. The problem is that she was on Christmas (winter holiday for the PC types) break at the time of the murder. There was also another discrepancy, but I cannot remember what they said. This guy's story could fall apart pretty fast.

It is unfortunate that the Dems would spend so much time and effort in both 2004 and now to prevent free and open elections. It is more about gaining/retaining power than it is about the citizens of the commonwealth.

I know it was a big campaign issue (not Roberts, but SC justices in general).

...but...but...but, I thought that if Bush gets his nominees on the court, then they will just rubber-stamp anything the Administration wants. Don't tell me that the Dems lied to me.

The PA Dems are tossing a crap-load of money on preventing the Green Party candidates from getting on the ballot (Governor, Senator, etc). They are more concerned with preventing free and open elections than they are about their candidate. They are continuing their efforts to disenfranchise voters (from the Presidential elections) and are now moving to prevent people from having a choice on the ballot. It is true that Santorum has been spending money of late. He spent no money early, while Casey was spending the money. It has now shifted in the other direction. This gives him momentum going into the debates (they have not started yet). Casey (and the Dems) needs to stop worrying about preventing voter choice and start focusing on pushing Casey. The problem is that he is a bad candidate. Santorum is exposing that and will continue to beat Casey down going into and after the debates. Casey is in trouble and the PA Dems are not helping. They are more concerned with taking away voters rights than they are with getting their candidate elected.

Even if it gets smacked on appeal, there will still be a push to have this taken to the SC. Whether the SC actually hears the case is another story, but the push will be there, regardless of the outcome of the appeals(s).

I pretty much loathe polls, but since you brought up Q-Polls, I thought I would check on the Santorum-Casey battle in PA. Since the Dems are putting so much effort into beating Santorum and you were absolutely glowing at Casey’s poll numbers, I wanted to get your opinion on Casey’s dive in the polls. I mentioned a while back that Casey would be doomed once he was forced to actually take a stand on issues. That premonition seems to be coming true. Here are the latest Q-Poll trends: Favorability rating of Santorum: Favorability: Up Unfavorability: Down Approval Rating for Santorum: Up Opinion of Casey: Favorability: Steady Unfavorability: Up In head-to-head polling: Casey is losing ground (actually at the lowest polling to date) Santorum is gaining ground (highest polling to date) When asked if pollees were voting FOR Santorum or AGAINST Casey: 82% FOR When asked if polees were voting FOR Casey or AGAINST Santorum: FOR Casey: 50% Registered voters, 43% Likely voters AGAINST Santorum: 42% Registered voters, 51% Likely voters Does Santorum deserve to be re-elected? YES: Moving up NO: Moving down I thought that this was pretty interesting. When Casey did not have to stand for anything, he polled well. Once he needed to go head-to-head with Santorum on issues, he is dropping fast. Of the likely voters, a large number were only picking Casey to prevent Santorum from winning. They were not picking Casey because they wanted Casey. The exact opposite is true for Santorum. People picking him were doing so because of him, not Casey. To me, this shows the strength (or lack thereof) of the candidate. If the candidate is not strong, the debates can easy swing against them. The fact that Casey is not a strong candidate does not bode well for his long-term chances. I suspect that this trend will continue when the debates start. Santorum is a good debater and should easily handle Casey. Casey is in trouble.

I know that many of you are WNY pro football history buffs. The Professional Football Researchers Association has formed the Western New York Committee. The committee has just launched their newly redesigned website. One of the items of interest would probably be the game summary for the 1965 AFL Championship Game.

You also have additional things going against any third party candidate: the election laws. The election laws are skewed in order to keep both of those parties in power. Not only does a third party (or independent) candidate have to overcome the hurdle of getting people to break away from their party to vote for them, they need to overcome massive hurdles to even get themselves on the ballot. Even if they jump through all of the hoops put in place to prevent competition, the Big Two will challenge anything and everything to make sure that nobody outside of their little clique is able to run against them.