Terry Tate

Three cheers for the camp reporters! Can't say enough about how this out-of-towner appreciates all your contributions. I've read all of them, and will continue to do so. This board is the best!

[Hitchhiker convulses] Hitchhiker: No! No, no, not 6! I said 7. Nobody's comin' up with 6. Who works out in 6 minutes? You won't even get your heart goin, not even a mouse on a wheel. Ted: That - good point. Hitchhiker: 7's the key number here. Think about it. 7-Elevens. 7 doors. 7, man, that's the number. 7 chipmunks twirlin' on a branch, eatin' lots of sunflowers on my uncle's ranch. You know that old children's tale from the sea. It's like you're dreamin' about Gorgonzola cheese when it's clearly Brie time, baby. Step into my office. Ted: Why? Hitchhiker: 'Cause you're <expletive deleted> fired!

I think Iraq is (was) on a short list with Iran and North Korea. Out of the three, I think Iran and Iraq were #1 and #2 as far as the Islamofacist-driven GWOT goes, with NK being it's own unique brand - which takes them off the GWOT list. Iran would be a much more difficult foe to fight than Iraq, and should you defeat Iran, you're still left with Hussein as a constant threat to destabilize the entire region. Not only in regards to invading his neighbors, but his ties to terrorists (which I am not skeptical of). Militarily, and for the overall effect on the region if you're successful, I know which one I would have rather picked a fight with, and it's definitely Iraq. This is where we at complete odds. I think the few steps were a decade of working through the UN. That seems more like a State Department point of view, and I'm sorry, but I don't have any faith in the State Department to defend us against terrorism. Diplomacy has had some success over the years, but it comes with the caveat that it would still allow terrorists to strike at us (and I say this not knowing if this war will end it, either). I still remember the results of our diplomatic efforts with Afghanistan's Taliban. The commitment of resources is weighed against that; you seem to be sure it weighed in favor of continued diplomacy; I remain unconvinced. I don't know if going to war with Iraq right when we did it was the right thing to do or at the right time. I do know it was a incredibly ballsy move to take a chance on changing the dynamic throughout the entire middle east. Remains to be seen whether or not it is successful.

I'd be happy to flame you, but not without further clarification. Do you see a difference between reporting the facts on both sides of a conflict, and conducting a personal interview, thereby providing a forum for someone who deliberately targets and murders innocents?

I think I understand your point of view; It doesn't appear unreasonable on the surface, and I've heard it voiced by people across the political spectrum. But I'm curious - doesn't the "with us or against us" statement also describe the methods described in the first statement? There was an awful lot of pressure on Iraq throughout the 90's, and it didn't stop them from harboring terrorists. Was the "with us or against us" attitude an arrogant first step with no thought to diplomatic resolution, or was it born out of frustration and necessity, when years of political and economic pressure failed to achieve results? It doesn't appear you are far from the current administrations' actual position on these matters, but are unhappy with the timing and manner of execution - specifically, entering into war with Iraq while still engaged in Afghanistan. But given the circumstances, it seems unlikely to me that a war with Iraq was avoidable. Hussein would've continued to harbor and support terrorism, and I don't think countries like France and Russia were going to be moved from their positions. So I guess what I want to know is if you think a war with Iraq could've been avoided entirely, or could have and should have been put off until a later date. I don't believe it could have been avoided indefinitely, in which case timing - not that it's insignificant issue - would be the only point of disagreement. I don't believe further political and economic pressure would've achieved anything.

Just despicable. I was initially stunned they could find enough people, from camera crew to editors and production personnel to do this. Then I read some of the comments at the end of the story, and I was saddened to see there are plenty of people who think it is ok to do something like this. Maybe if Eric Rudolph had been more successful at killing people with bombs, he could've gotten on Nightline while he was still hiding out.

I don't recall hiring you as my spokesman, but just in case - you're fired.

Obvious expenditures = those actually outlined in the Constitution. Better ways to spend tax dollars = How I learned to love to grow the federal government, or dismantle the Constitution trying.

I guess that explains all the square wheels, stone tablets and everyone eating raw food before the US government was created.

I think my sarcasm was pretty clear, but this is a fun game - let me try it too: I don't get what you're implying. There are no advancements in science unless the federal government funds it?

If the applicant then waits for three days without food, shelter, or encouragement he may then enter TBD and begin his training. People are always asking me if I know ICE. His name is Spiked Lemonade.

"Some people have a way with words, and some people no have way". -Robin Williams

It's always refreshing to see a politician come to his senses and realize nothing important ever gets done unless there's a government program for it.

Glad you have good news. I heard about some guy who beat non hodgkins lymphoma, then went on to win the tour de france 7 times in a row. If you know how to ride a bicycle, you should begin training for next year.

If his dad isn't the one to do it, maybe there's another adult male relative who is willing to help teach him to be a man. The alternative is he will continue to learn lessons from other juveniles, which leads to the kind of genius that lead to kiwi on the walls. Teenage boys need an example to follow and learn from, and often aren't mature enough to pick out a good one on their own.

I drove out to New Smyrna Beach (Bethune Beach) to watch the launch with my son. It's about 40 miles away from the Cape as the crow flies; had a pretty good view from there. What I didn't think about until it occurred was the delay between watching it launch, then hearing and feeling the blast of the engines wash over you after it's out of view. That was pretty cool.

Hope it goes well. I'm thinking of driving out to the Ormond Beach area to watch.

I'm spoiling for a fight? You made a call for a civil discussion - then turn to insults when there's an opposing view. Actually, you began with insults, then made a call for civil discussion, then turned to insults again. "Legislating from the bench=BS?" I think you eloquently defined what legislating from the bench is, which disagreed with your premise and subject title that it has no meaning. You seem to have abandoned your (stated) premise for the thread, since you've ignored my replies to it in favor of attempting to demonstrate I am for a total ban on abortion, which I do not believe in. Of course, you don't believe me. EII calls pro-lifers (me) liars, and you agree. Oh, but EII doesn't think I should be offended by being called a liar, because I'm actually in denial - I really am a liar and I just haven't figured it out yet. And you declare you guys are just yukking it up, and then insult me again for being offended. But I'm the one spoiling for a fight. OK, if you say so. I would disagree, but I don't want to start unintentionally lying or something. Best solution I can think of is not to respond to any more of your posts. That'll do.

What I've been doing over the years is not paying for NHL Center Ice, but subscribing to the package that includes the sports channels. The Empire broadcast would be blacked out for the live broadcast, but Empire would replay all the games, sometimes two or three times, so I could watch (or Tivo/watch) every game. I don't know that MSG will replay Sabres games that they carry, so I may end up buying the Center Ice thing. Gonna wait and see.

Don't care for his politics, and I honestly don't know what he's made in the last twenty years, but his old stuff contains some of my favorite songs of all time. He doesn't suck - I just don't care (about him or any other musician). I promise not to go to one of his concerts and get beered-up and ruin anyone's experience.

I don't know how much they use them, but my mom has been a volunteer for an Erie County library for years, so they do have them.

I lived too far out of town in CA to frequent the library very often, maybe once every couple weeks or so. The one in my town there was pretty substandard. I live in the capital of the county here in FL, and library downtown is pretty sweet. I've been going there to study - kids are out of school, so home is not a quiet place. Speaking of a quiet place - please, if no one has every mentioned it to you, taking cell phone calls in a library is just rude. Put your phone on vibrate (there's a reason it's called "manner" mode) - if it's an important call, answer it in your "library" voice and step outside. And just turn that nextel BEEPing thing right the hell off. Curmudgeon note: it's not just the younger generation, I've seen a couple middle-aged people do this too. Just un-freaking believable.

Oh, I'm sorry - I mistook you for someone who wanted to have an intelligent discussion without the BS. Well, I guess both of you guys can KMA then. So much for this thread.

I think I've been clear in my opinion. It's pretty ill-mannered to call me a liar when I've been as honest as I can. It's been my experience that people who think abortion should be illegal will tell you so. If you think everyone has a hidden agenda, you can just avoid all conversation.

Again, not that I want the states to decide - it's a very difficult issue, and I don't mind getting more opinions/ideas on how best to solve it. Any new state law of any kind on abortion will be challenged immediately and appealed up the chain; 50 different opinions will last only as long as it takes for the SC to hear the arguments on the first few that make their way there.