shooter

But that was Rush Limbaugh's fault, not Bill's!

I believe Josh Canafax attended Woodland Middle School and probably would have attended Scott if Scott would have had a competitive program. The Canafax's considered both Dixie and CovCath and but decided to send Josh to NCC since from where they live in Taylor Mill NCC is about the same distance as CovCath or Dixie and probably more important Kevin (Josh's Dad) is a NewCath grad. (Class of 83?)

I thought that NCC's play calling in the 4th quarter was questionable. NCC's last three series went like this: 1st down: Vicars up the middle for little or no gain 2nd down: Vicars up the middle for little or no gain 3rd down: Long Incomplete Pass 4th down: Punt 1st down: Vicars up the middle for little or no gain 2nd down: Vicars up the middle for little or no gain 3rd down: Vicars up the middle for little or no gain 4th down: Punt With Beechwood now leading: 1st down: Long pass incomplete (30+yards) 2nd down: Long pass incomplete (30+ yards) 3rd down: Long pass incomplete (30+ yards) 4th down: Intermediate pass incomplete (pass dropped by WR)

Wow!!!!!!:eek:

Dixie plays Highlands that last game of the regular season so there is still some football to be played before then. Both teams will play quality opponents before they play each other.

For those Democrats who haven't received a copy of the playbook: http://www.amazon.com/Air-America-Playbook-Teach-Right/dp/1594865140/ref=sr_11_1/104-5478870-7425538?ie=UTF8

I agree. Clinton's a much better liar than Bush.

Holmes' passing game is not as good as last year without Hill. SK's pass defense is better than last year. Holmes won't be able to stop SK's running game. Once SK gets a lead they like to pound you with their running game. SK has more speed than they have had in recent years. All this adds up to SK winning big.

The site that was alleged to be a chemical weapons plant based upon soil samples was actually in the Sudan and not Iraq. The US bombed that site the same day they bombed sites in Afghanistan. At the time it was claimed that the plant had ties the Al Queda network and Bin Laden. Since then the US has admitted that they made a mistake and that the plant produced legitimate pharmaceuticals.

I don't ever recall anyone blaming Clinton for not preventing the 93 attack. I have heard people criticizing Clinton for failing to respond to the 93 attack appropriately.

No it does not. Having a "Democratic playbook" (or "Republican playbook") implies that politicians have standard responses to events and issues that they use over and over again because they think it will play with their constituency. Maintaining that a "playbook" does not exist for either party implies that there is no consistency to a political party's rhetoric. Even a short study of politics would reveal that Democrats consistently respond to certain issues in certain ways as do Republicans. A lone Democrat or lone Republican going his own way doesn't mean that a playbook doesn't exist any more than it means a football team doesn't have a playbook if the QB turns the wrong way and decides to keep the ball himself. Obviously, my little extract from the "Democratic Playbook" was sarcastic but there's enough truth in it to sting. That's not the way it's supposed to work. There should be substantial evidence of serious moral or legal wrong doing before one levies such a serious charge. Given that the charges are totally baseless, there is no need to debunk them other than point out the recklessness of making baseless accusations.

The honest truth is that before 9-11 Bin Laden wasn't the priority he should have been for either Clinton or Bush. I don't know how many anti-terrorism speeches Bush made before 9-11 but I'm sure it wasn't many. I am also sure that when he was president Clinton said very little about terrorism except immediately following a terrorist attack (when he couldn't avoid addressing the issue) and then it wasn't long befre he would go back to business as usual which was to put it on the back burner. Here's a question for you: During the 2000 presidential debates how many questions did the media ask concerning Bin Laden or terrorism? Why so few?

Certainly not every Democrat but you don't have to look any farther than BGP to find Democrats who have made both charges.

Tuning it out doesn't change the facts of Democratic behavior.

The Gas Prices Chapter of the Democratic Playbook Gas prices go up: Claim it's a Bush conspiracy to line the pockets of his oil buddies. Gas prices go down: Claim it's a Bush conspiracy to get Republicans re-elected.

Kinda like Bill Clinton criticizing Fox News during the Wallace interview.

He came unglued because he knows he's vulnerable to the charge that he was soft on terror during his term in office. His full scale attack on Wallace illustrates how hypersensitive he is about his "legacy".

Since when did Paula Jones become a member of the Clinton family?

You must like to hear worthless drivel then since you're the one telling Clinton to preach on.

We'll need to compare notes in 20-30 years.

If Dixie comes to play like they did in the first half against SK they win big. If they play like they did in the 3rd quarter against SK it could be a close game. After an emotional 3OT win Dixie needs to avoid a let down against a team they "should" beat. They need to remember that games are won on the field and not on BGP. This is a district game so I'm sure the coaches will be stressing that point the entire week.

I wonder if Rosie is as concerned about being killed by saber-toothed tigers and velociraptors since there are almost as many of those killing people in the US today as Christian religious fanactics.

Actually the question is: Is Bin Laden still an active threat? If Bin Laden is dead, he is not an active threat. If he spends all his time in a cave without any communicating to the outside world for fear of being discovered he's not much of a threat and he might as well be dead. If he is capable of both communicating and directing Al Queda then he is still a threat. It's very difficult to determine his actual status so it's very difficult to determine the significance of not knowing his location.

Everything that Bill Clinton says is worthless drivel whose sole purpose is to make himself look good. Always was; Always will be. This interview is just another example. Clinton's artfully interweaves facts with misdirection while skillfully preventing the interviewer from responding. Clinton points out that Bin Laden wasn't in Somolia when the BlackHawk incident occured as if that was a "gotcha" to his critics. Not only does Clinton conveniently ignore the major thrust of his detractors' criticism of BlackHawk down, he interupts the interviewer to ensure that he doesn't have to answer to that criticism. Bin Laden is on record as saying that the BlackHawk down incident was evidence of the weakness of the United States, a conclusion that does not now nor has ever required Bin Laden to be in Somolia. It's a fact Clinton's reponse to BlackHawk down emboldened Bin Laden. I am at a loss to explain why pointing out a fact (Bin Laden wasn't in Somolia) that Clinton's critics have never disputed passes for a convincing argument against Clinton's display of weakness.

My head agrees with you. My heart......