Fastbreak

I'm not 100% certain, but I seem to recall something about not becoming eligible until sometime in December due to transfer issues. The last I heard, Ferg is at the school working hard to be ready for when he gets the greenlight. Looking at the official roster you linked, I only see 11 players listed. It would seem to me the coach is leaving a slot open for someone. I could be wrong at this point in time... but that's what I remember.

What I figured... I'm there...

I have no idea how old you are, but I could easily assume you're an old fart like me with such sentimentality... :lol: I know you are aware we are swimming upstream against a growing torrent. I have no doubt it can occur, but it's my personal belief that we will have to return to our cultural and spiritual roots first. There is no other foundation upon which we have stable footing. Anything else is plastic and disposable.

You know Clyde... having an adulterous affairs in office, is a pretty significant moral flaw to a lot of us... whether with a movie star or with a girl less than half his age. The attitude at the time that "we've all done it" or would if we were in their shoes, so who are we to criticize... does not float. Yes virtually anyone has the opportunity to "fool around"... but not everyone does. Some actually resist the urge or avoid such situations and circumstances entirely. When we get a "wink and a nod" and are told not to make such a big deal out of something that is a very big deal to us, and then watch someone that seems to be a relatively decent guy like GWB get pounded for being a boob, a moron, a monkey in an Armani... it just increases the level of distrust all the way around. I'm not defending any particular position, or saying one is entirely right or wrong. I'm just pointing out what I see as a steady decline in morals and civility in our culture. I know why I believe this is so, but don't have the time or inclination to debate how we're (as a culture) steadily turning our backs on God.

I included JFK for precisely the reason you surmized. Yes, he was protected by the media and Secret Service back in the day... although it was not a very well kept secret. Of course, his secrets are public knowledge today. So it was a delayed effect. I actually believe this eased Bill Clinton's conscience in his pursuits to emulate his idol in every way. The simple fact is, people didn't want to believe this about their President... so, there was not quite the same audience for it that we have today. As far as a critical press, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams caught hell from certain publishers of their day. Following the timeline you present, I really believe the modern decrease in respect for the office began with JFK, but didn't manifest until the rebellion of the mid-sixties and early seventies when the Vietnam War was in full swing.

Good timeline... you overlooked Dan Akroyd doing "Jimmuh" Carter on SNL and JFK doing Marilynn Monroe and others wherever he could get away from Jackie... :lol:

When we have a president appearing on comedy shows, talk shows and other pop culture shows, where the host calls him "Dude" or receiving sexual favors from interns in the Oval Office... how can you possibly blame anyone but the man in the office that is placing himself and the "office of President" in less than honorable positions?

:lol: :lol: :lol: I never doubted that for a moment... :lol: So, how would you feel if Fox News received the same federal funding?

Your passion for this topic is admirable. This is very simple to me. Whether through grants won, direct disbursement from, or by other means… NPR does benefit from federal tax dollars. These funds are either very important to NPR or an insignificant part or their revenue stream. If, as it has appeared from the comments of NPR proponents this week, these funds are insignificant, then NPR should not miss them if removed or restricted by Congress. If, on the other hand, federal funds are important to NPR, they need to get over the predominately left slant of their management, editorials and reporting. If they are truly benefitting from ALL the people’s tax dollars, they should endeavor to represent a more balanced perspective of ALL the people. If NPR is genuinely the finest news and information product on the market, they should be able to stand strongly on their own merits. It would seem to me that advertisers would be chomping at the bit to be associated with the most fair, balanced, excellent product out there. Something tells me you (and many others) would not approve of federal grant dollars going to support FOX News. How is NPR an exception to the rule?

Based upon the information available directly from the NPR website, 16% is entirely feasible. The pie chart I posted in #69 shows 5.8% directly from federal, state and local government sources. 10.1% from CPB (of which, a significant percentage is government funded) and 13.6% from universities which receive federal and state funding as well. The mystery meat on this plate is the "Other" category at 7.6%. It clearly is not private or foundation funding. I find it difficult to process 02Ram54's assertion that NPR is not "given" federal dollars or that "NPR receives NOT ONE SINGLE DIME from the CPB directly" when the NPR website and this chart clearly shows they do. The semantic wrangling point appears to be that competing for and winning grants from the government, CPB, etc. qualifies as "earning" government money. That also would explain the lack of a federal line item for NPR. Bottom line... if NPR proponents insist on minimizing the impact of federal dollars on the day-to-day operation of NPR... it sounds as though NPR has grown beyond the need for federal funding. They shouldn't miss it at all if it is withdrawn... in all forms. I have no doubt that George Soros can more than make up what is describned as a paltry amount. Let him go toe-to-toe with Rupert Murdock. May the best spinmeister win. :thumb:

Wow... that seems kinda harsh... but hey, I feel the same way about 300 Democrats in Congress... :thumb:

According to the NPR website nearly 6% of their revenues come directly from government sources... Factor in the % of government funds that trickle through the CPB first, and the percentage could be in the double digits. http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/publicradiofinances.html

Sounds like NPR is clearly stating that Federal Tax dollars are an insignificant source of their overall revenue stream. Under that scenario, it doesn't sound like cutting their federal funding should be that big a deal. We need to cut them off the government teat, and let them thrive on their own merits just like Air America, MSNBC, CNN and others. If all else fails, I'm sure George Sorros can make up the difference. :thumb:

Allow me to say, you are truly capable of being as "offensive" as anyone I know. :lol: :lol: :lol: Sorry, but if you're gonna tee 'em up like that, you can't get too upset that someone just has to put it through the uprights.

World of difference between "perceived" bigotry and the genuine article. Perception is often entirely subjective, whereas the real thing may be discerned by more objective means. Juan Williams, an educated man who has written numerous books and articles on Civil Rights and genuine racism said nothing truly "bigoted". This was all about his liberal superiors at NPR being ticked at him appearing regularly on FOX and looking for an excuse to cut him loose. This will come back to bite NPR big time.

Bernie Goldberg nailed it... "So Juan Williams is fired for saying something the liberals at NPR find controversial?" Goldberg said. "One more piece of evidence that liberals have forgotten how to be liberal." Goldberg continued: "These are the kind of people who brag about how open-minded they are -- as long as you agree with them. And here's the dirty little secret: lots and lots of liberals feel the same way Juan does when they get on an airplane. And a lot of those liberals work at NPR. Juan's 'crime' was saying it out loud."

You are correct Bball... The sunset provision was the only way GWB could adhere to the Byrd PAYGO Rule that allows Senators to block a piece of legislation if it claims to increase the federal deficit beyond a ten-year window. The sunset allowed the bill to stay within the letter of PAYGO. http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4032&type=0&sequence=7 This is exactly the same Congressional Rule that Mr. Reid and Mrs. Pelosi have trampled multiple times in extending unemployment benefits, creating a $63 billion veterans' entitlement, enacting the $787 billion "stimulus" bill, expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), enacting a farm bill loaded with gimmicks… all loaded with gimmicks to create an illusion of deficit-neutrality. Spending has skyrocketed under Mr. Obama. PAYGO is a joke. Congress waives PAYGO every time it proves even slightly inconvenient. GWB got us tax cuts the only way possible at the time and now the Libs are spinning it to be his fault they will expire. This is hilarious. Clearly, the bottom line is, Mr. Obama is not responsible for anything… unless it is good… and those of us who suggest otherwise are dismissed as “haters”.

What I know is Senator Barack Hussein Obama pledged the following multiple times on the campaign trail: "I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." Regardless of how you choose to parse and attribute blame, the above pledge was and is a blatant lie. I find it hysterical that you blame Bush and Reagan when the Dems have dominant control over Congress and the Executive Branch. It is within their full power to extend or make these reductions permanent… whether a significant number of Republicans want to play ball or not. Blaming Republicans for not falling into the lie of class envy is pitiful. Beyond these matters, a tax on indoor tanning services and an additional tax on cigarettes began this year. It affects all income levels. As the Health Care Bill matures, people will have to pay a fine, levied through their income taxes, if they don't have health insurance. Again, this affects all income levels. Please don’t assume that I think or respond as you might. You are correct that I do not like the policies and overall agenda of this president. Beyond that, I hold no malice whatsoever toward the man. To attribute “blind hatred” to me is absurd at best. I do not need to lie to expose the foolishness of BHO’s policies. The fact that you cannot see this is sad.

Whether he deliberately lied, or was merely naïve, the result is the same. A significant percentage of our population was persuaded to vote for the image rather than the substance. Even now, some refuse to acknowledge that the dense cluster of trees we now see is in fact a forest. I did not/do not make such an assertion. To introduce the actions of past presidents is an “ingenuous” attempt to deflect blame from the one president currently with the power to make things better or worse. I never said one way or the other. The shortsighted actions of legislators elsewhere has little to do with the misguided agenda of the current POTUS. I itemized it in very clear detail. How do you suggest that I further explain the obvious. Wow… I could bring up all the times GWB was referred to as GWB, or Shrub, or Dubya, or Bushie, or W, or Junior, or Baby Bush, or Bush II, or Bush Lite, or Incurious George, or a hundred other less flattering names, but like your argument above, that merely deflects from the main point. I have yet to refer to Mr. Obama as anything derogatory, merely his name or his initials. If that’s inadequate for you, so be it. Yeah, it’s mostly the perceived disrespect you feel I have for the office of POTUS, and has nothing to do with the division fueled by Mr. Obama and his political cronies as they use differences in class, race and party affiliation to further their ambitions. You’re pretty adept at prestidigitation yourself Clyde. :thumb:

Sure, give me $800 now so I don’t notice the $3,800 a year my taxes will increase when the Bush cuts lapse… and another $660 when the an inflation-adjusted cap is lifted on the payroll tax that we pay to support the Social Security system… and at least another $5,000 in capital gains increases when I sell a house I own in 2011… and who knows how much more when promised taxes on corporations (especially oil companies) simply get added into the price of their products we all buy… or the numerous increases bundled into the Health Care bill. It’s like watching a bad magician, trying to get us to look at the distraction in his left hand so we don’t see what he’s really doing with his right hand. At the very least, I’m looking at an extra $10K next year alone... and I’m small potatoes. This will be much more punitive on higher earners/investors… but hey, thanks for that $800 Barack! Way to live up to your promise that no earner making less than $250K a year will pay “one dime more in higher taxes” under your administration. :thumb: Oh hey, and way to soak the rich, so they pull back their investments… which we all know is a great way to grow the economy and generate new jobs. Kudos dude… :thumb:

All you're doing is emphasizing my point. A true leader does not place consensus or acceptance ahead of doing what is the highest and best thing to do in any given situation. The problem is, this requires a true leader to look at and do what's best for those he serves... not what's most convenient or expedient for himself. Why should it matter what jingoists or myopic opponents have to say if you are certain what the right thing is to do... and you do it? I pray to God I have raised my children to do what is right regardless of what their peers might be telling them they should do. Surely you do not mean this. Really Zoot... really? I did not open this thread to compare the Gulf Oil Spill to the Chilean Miner Rescue. I intended to compare the leadership styles of the Presidents of both countries. The oil spill and the miner rescue merely provided the most significant crises in each leader's term by which to measure their distinctly varied styles. I am genuinely baffled at how some of you refuse to see what is so obvious to a large and growing percentage of the American people. You are certainly welcome to defend this paper tiger to your last breath, but the numbers of those willing to heed your party/personality loyalty is thankfully diminishing. I would be a hypocrite to suggest that you should change your stance merely because of overwhelming public opinion, but I am hoping you will be able to see the true character and agenda of this man before you choose to fall on your sword for him. :thumb:

Sorry... I actually do have a day job that requires attention. As examples of how the President and his administration could have sped up the cleanup process by removing red tape, or not creating it, I cite the following as just a few I can come up with quickly: The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 makes the response to an oil spill the President’s responsibility. The President did not expeditiously waive the Jones act, which would have allowed needed assistance from other countries with better resources than we had on hand. There were approximately 60 separate foreign offers of resources to help with cleanup, the first one coming only nine days into the crisis… yet, two months later, 46 of those offers remained “under consideration.” Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal repeatedly warned, “It is clear we don't have the resources we need to protect our coast... We need more boom, more skimmers, more vacuums, more jack-up barges that are still in short supply.” And yet... the Administration refused to permit Louisiana to dredge protective sand berms to prevent the spill from penetrating delicate coastal marshes and estuaries. Obama stopped all drilling in the Gulf cutting over 40,000 well paying jobs, when most experts stated it would be safer to continue. The President refused to override the Occupational Safety and Health Administration workplace rules that hampered cleanup efforts. OSHA released a “Heat Stress Management Plan” that mandated workers could only work 10 minutes of every hour for the first two days on the job if they were “workers new to working in a hot environment, workers returning after three weeks of cooler weather, or returning after being sick.” Again, another layer of needless red tape. On May 2 Mr. Obama stated, “I'm not going to rest—and none of the gentlemen and women who are here are going to rest—or be satisfied until the leak is stopped at the source, the oil on the Gulf is contained and cleaned up, and the people of this region are able to go back to their lives and their livelihoods.” Yet during the first 60 days of the crisis, the President went on vacation twice, played eight rounds of golf, was a guest on the Jay Leno and George Lopez shows, and attended two rock concerts and a baseball game. I don’t think it is overly critical to state that this record certainly does not appear to be without plentiful moments of “rest”. The fact that the Chilean President not only eliminated such barriers and governmental red tape, he actively reached out to all with the technology and resources to assist in this rescue. Whether the speed of this rescue may be attributed to him or not, at the very least he had the sense to get the government out of the way. As far as taking advantage of a PR opportunity. Give me a leader able to help get things done and then bask in the limelight over an obstructionist ideologue still hungry for the nearest camera and teleprompter. :thumb:

Way to go 'Cellus! I couldn't be happier for an outstanding young man from a fine family. IUPUI got a true jewel. :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

My singular response to all Obama defenders so far in this thread: No one with any sense would suggest that the President has to run the whole crisis management effort. We simply need a leader able to comprehend the scope and potential impact of such a disaster from the start that will make resources available immediately. He would encourage the utilization of experts in ways to contain and clean up such a mess. He would save all the tough talk about making sure the big corporation responsible pays for their mistake until the crisis was halted and the full damages were assessed. This is almost exactly how the President of Chile led his people through a perilous event. Instead, we have a seemingly angry, anti-private business, anti-fossil fuel, proponent of anything and everything green, that apparently allowed this disaster to proceed unabated to further his political agenda. As Rahm Emmanuel is well quoted, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." I can provide numerous examples that will back my assertions here, but simply stated… Americans do not want or need a President that only seems to respond to disasters when it seems that the polls are favorable to do so. I will be shocked to see that Obama carries one Gulf Coast state in 2012 if he even runs again at that time.

I have to admit... the saga of 33 trapped miners in Chile really hadn't gotten too much attention from me. I did offer a prayer or two on their behalf as their story bubbled up from time to time over the past 70 days. Starting last night and concluding tonight, Fox News has provided on-going coverage of the rescue effort to lift 33 men from a hole a half mile in the earth. I don't even know the name of the President of Chile. I don't know his politics or beliefs. What I do know is that just over a year in office, he stuck his neck out - against the advice of his advisors - and announced to the world he would not rest until every trapped miner was set free. He invited technology and help from around the world. No expense was spared in bringing in topflight drillers and equipment. He oversaw the drilling of a rescue shaft and the implementation of technology assisted by NASA. The rescue was expected to take four months, and was not optimistic in being able to bring all men out alive. The effort took just over half that time. For 24 hours, the President and his wife have been standing near the mine shaft to welcome each man to the surface. They allow the doctors and engineers to inspect them first, then to rejoice with their families and only then to embrace each miner and welcome them back to the surface. If Mr. Obama had moved similarly, the Gulf Oil Spill could have been resolved much more efficiently and with far less impact for all. As for the miners, the quote that stands out so far is, "They say there were 33 of us trapped down there, but there were 34... God was with us and did not leave us."