GO HAWKS!!!
GO HAWKS!!!
GO HAWKS!!!
GO HAWKS!!!
GO HAWKS!!!
................... too well knew thee.
Can you believe it, Steve Alford is gone!!! Light and hope have returned to Carver Hawkeye Arena after 8 seasons spent in the usually frustrated pursuit of mediocrity.
This link is the most authoritative argument for the major step backward in Hawk basketball that was authored by the Lobos new coach.
The debate has raged hot and heavy these last few days but, like political debate, one side is entirely inane.
Let us now bury the past with this brief celebration and welcome our new coach, whomever he might be, as true Hawks. We are restored!
Can you believe it, Steve Alford is gone!!! Light and hope have returned to Carver Hawkeye Arena after 8 seasons spent in the usually frustrated pursuit of mediocrity.
This link is the most authoritative argument for the major step backward in Hawk basketball that was authored by the Lobos new coach.
The debate has raged hot and heavy these last few days but, like political debate, one side is entirely inane.
Let us now bury the past with this brief celebration and welcome our new coach, whomever he might be, as true Hawks. We are restored!
GO HAWKS!!!
GO HAWKS!!!
GO HAWKS!!!
GO HAWKS!!!
GO HAWKS!!!
24 comments:
Reprinted from NewsMax.com
Saturday, March 24, 2007 10:26 a.m. EDT
Poll: Gingrich Receives Big Backing on Web
An Internet poll sponsored by NewsMax.com reveals that an overwhelming number of Americans -- nearly 7 in 10 respondents -- favor former House Speaker Newt Gingrich as their presidential candidate in 2008.
The unscientific poll of nearly 90,000 people also shows that Gingrich would win handily in a GOP primary race against both Rudolph Giuliani and John McCain.
Here are the poll questions and results:
1) What is your overall opinion of Newt Gingrich?
Favorable: 87 percent
Unfavorable: 10 percent
No Opinion: 3 percent
2) Is Newt Gingrich your candidate for president in 2008?
Yes: 68 percent
No: 32 percent
3) In the following field, who is your 2008 candidate?
John McCain: 2 percent
Condi Rice: 4 percent
Mike Huckabee: 2 percent
Mitt Romney: 6 percent
Rudy Giuliani: 12 percent
Tom Tancredo: 5 percent
Ron Paul: 2 percent
Newt Gingrich: 58 percent
Duncan Hunter: 1 percent
Other: 10 percent
4) In a Republican primary of Newt vs. Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, who would you vote for?
Rudy Giuliani: 17 percent
John McCain: 5 percent
Newt Gingrich: 78 percent
5) If the 2008 President race was between Newt Gingrich and Hillary Clinton, who would you vote for?
Newt Gingrich: 95 percent
Hillary Clinton: 5 percent
Reprinted from NewsMax.com
Sunday, March 25, 2007 2:41 p.m. EDT
Poll: Fred Thompson Tied with Hillary
Former Republican Sen. Fred Thompson would be a tough opponent for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in a presidental election, a new poll shows.
According to the first Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey involving Thompson, the actor-turned-politician-turned-actor is neck-and-neck with Clinton, leading her by a margin of 44 percent to 43 percent.
Thompson, who has not yet officially announced his candidacy, doesn't fare as well against Democratic Sen. Barack Obama. In the poll, Obama leads Thompson 49 percent to 37 percent.
Other results of the poll show:
41 percent of voters have no opinion on Thompson.
36 percent have a favorable opinion of Thompson.
23 percent have an unfavorable opinion of Thompson.
Obama's favorability rating is 54 percent.
Obama's unfavorability rating is 36 percent.
Clinton's favorability rating is 50 percent.
Clinton's unfavorability rating is 48 percent.
In a different Rasmussen Reports poll:
46 percent of voters said they would definitely vote against Clinton.
37 percent said they would definitely vote against Obama.
50 percent said they would definitely vote against former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4 percentage points.
© NewsMax 2007. All rights reserved.
Reprinted from NewsMax.com
Friday, March 23, 2007 1:41 p.m. EDT
Club for Growth PAC Targets Democrats on Pork
The Club for Growth has denounced the Democrats for stuffing the Iraq war supplemental bill with $24 billion in pork projects and called upon five Democratic freshmen in the House to live up to their campaign pledges to cut irresponsible spending.
"Many candidates say the right things on the campaign trail, but have little or no intention of following through on their promises once elected,” said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey.
In a release, the conservative Club targeted these representatives:
Nancy Boyda, Kansas:
Boyda recently came out in support of the pork-stuffed Iraq supplemental bill. But when she was running against Republican Jim Ryun, she wrote on her campaign Web site: "Congress must never waste a single taxpayer dime on needless spending … Wasteful spending has increased exponentially in recent years.”
The Club statement asks: "Does Nancy Boyda think $75 million for peanut storage is not a waste of taxpayer dollars?”
Heath Schuler, North Carolina:
In his race to unseat Republican Representative Charles Taylor, the former football player attacked the incumbent Republican for his "irresponsible” earmarks and said that "the people of North Carolina deserve better.”
The statement reads: "We hope he remembers those words when it comes time to vote on the Iraq spending bill.”
Nick Lampson, Texas:
Lampson took a harsh stand against congressional pork on his campaign Web site: "We have terrible waste in our government that can be addressed right now. We shouldn't be spending on pork projects like bridges to nowhere in Alaska and a teapot museum in North Carolina. We must set priorities and stick to them.”
By that standard, Lampson should cast a "no” vote on the Iraq war spending bill, the Club notes.
Tim Mahoney, Florida:
According to his campaign Web site, Mahoney campaigned on wide-sweeping ethics reform that included a platform to "cut the pork.” Interestingly, the supplemental bill includes money for citrus growers in Mahoney’s district.
Harry Mitchell, Arizona: Mitchell wrote on his campaign Web site: "Unfortunately, fiscal irresponsibility and pork-barrel spending has Washington swimming in red ink … In Congress, I will promote fiscal policy that is both responsible and accountable.”
The Club asks: "Now that his own Democratic leadership is the one doing the drowning, will Rep. Mitchell have the courage to just say no?”
© NewsMax 2007. All rights reserved.
a terrific article on why we call them the self hating americans.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/the_blameamericafirst_crowd.html
They always blame America first." That was Jeane Kirkpatrick, describing the "San Francisco Democrats" in 1984. But it could be said about a lot of Americans, especially highly educated Americans, today.
In their assessment of what is going on in the world, they seem to start off with a default assumption that we are in the wrong.
The "we" can take different forms: the United States government, the vast mass of middle-class Americans, white people, affluent people, churchgoing people or the advanced English-speaking countries. Such people are seen as privileged and selfish, greedy and bigoted, rash and violent.
If something bad happens, the default assumption is that it's their fault. They always blame America -- or the parts of America they don't like -- first.
"There is something profoundly wrong when opposition to the war in Iraq seems to inspire greater passion than opposition to Islamist extremism," Sen. Joseph Lieberman said in a speech last week.
What is profoundly wrong is that too many of us are operating off the default assumption and have lost sight of who our real enemies are.
I would say there appears to be much more evidence to the claim that Lieberman is the only D who does not get that the Iraq War has greatly weakened us in our fight against Islamic extremism and terrorism.
From the purely tactical “realpolitik” perspective, why on earth would we take out the most significant counterbalance to the most aggressive Islamofascist state, Iran? Why on earth would we waste our $$ and physical resources on a country that was only a minor player in the global terror network, only to leave us impotent to face even greater threats? Why on earth would we steer away from a logical WOT approach of going into Al Qaeda base in Afghanistan and going aggressively after the terror networks all over the world? Why did we decide to do bin Laden’s recruitment for his cause by launching the illogical and stupid war?
Yes, some terrorists and extremists will be emboldened if we leave Iraq without “victory.” But that damage pales in comparison to the damage we have already done by starting the war and by continuing our presence in Iraq. At this point of time we have no good options. But that’s what happens when you make major mistakes.
10:37. Since you stated your position so nicely… I don’t give a $%@! about Alford or any college sports.
For my part, I would like to extend my thanks to those on this POLITICAL blog who are willing to engage in discussions, even across party lines.
rf,
um, this IS an Alford post.
12:07,
You used shithead in you comment 3 times... good job!
And again, weblinks really are a tool worth utilizing.
WAR Sporer! WAR being able to enjoy Hawkeye Basketball again! WAR having a sense of humor
DOZENS of gay British men have paid about £33,000 to create a baby of their chosen sex on an IVF programme for two-father families.
Nearly 20 male couples from this country have already taken part in the scheme, in which they pay for eggs from a university student which are then implanted in a different woman who bears the child.
The Fertility Institutes, the clinic in Los Angeles which runs the programme, said it had also received 25 inquiries by last week from male couples in Britain thinking of paying for surrogate children.
The programme is thought to be the first specialist surrogacy scheme dedicated to “two-father” families.
The men can even choose whether to have boys or girls, with three-quarters so far opting for male babies.
Call me ignorant, but I fail to see the threat to our society or my personal life posed by same-sex couples raising kids. What causes me personal trouble is an irresistible member of the opposite sex.
And thanks for posting this article. Saves me from an annoying link that I have to click on. ;)
The Hawks will do better without Alford but he can leave town with his head held high in my opinion. He did a decent job but was unable to take the program to the heights they expected. He was not fired and was smart enough to get out before it got bad.
As for RF claiming Joe Lieberman (the real and the nom de guerre) he is sadly mistaken regarding events in Iraq. The WOT came to us and the decision to "hide or not hide" is all we have left. At this point, I am in favor of attacking Iran as I see what they are doing here in Iraq (where I live) and bullies don't respect kindness. Now, an attack on Iran would not be like the PC game we played with Iraq. No sir, we would do some quick bombing and "targeted killings" to affect Regime Change! We could also reduce their future nuclear aims by reducing their facilities and killing their scientists. As for their navy's supposedly vaunted might we can take care of that in about three minutes so they won't have a ship left larger than a fishing trawler.
All my friends here in Iraq are tired of the PC games our own Congress and whacko Liberals play. I think it is time to "dust off those shiny bombers" and go to work!
Oh, and I don't really like the idea of same-sex people raising children and can't believe it is an issue up for debate. It shouldn't be happening period!
So you don’t “like” the idea of same-sex couples raising kids. Any other stellar arguments to support your view?
In my common sense, non-expert view, I feel two loving same-sex parents would be much better for a child than a single parent or unloving opposite-sex parents.
From www.techdirt.com:
"It appears the FBI has finally come up with an explanation for its failure to report on all the national security letters they used for snooping purposes: it's that old, crappy computer system that has been causing so much trouble for the FBI over the past few years. Turns out that, since that system was effectively useless, the FBI was either tracking the use of NSLs via (no, seriously) 3x5 index cards or entering them into a totally separate database. This database was supposedly connected to nothing, and each use of an NSL had to be entered manually using a straining process of filling out a dozen fields. Apparently, filling out a dozen fields in a special database was too strenuous (especially when it came to violating fundamental rights of citizens of the country), so the NSLs weren't well recorded -- and therefore, the use of them was underreported to Congress."
This is troubling, even though I’m one D who is fine with the authorities listening in on my calls to protect us from terrorists. Assuming this explanation is true, it’s the level of FBI sophistication & resources after 6 years of WOT that greatly concerns me.
Congress' New Low
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 3/28/2007
...That Democrats want the U.S. to go down to defeat in Iraq can no longer be questioned.
...Walking away from a just fight in order to gorge on pork hardly counts as a profile in courage. Yet that's precisely what the Democrat-dominated chamber did.
...Each bill also features $24 billion in pork-barrel spending. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid kept it in to buy support from reluctant members.
...It's nothing but blood money for those who otherwise might be troubled by running from a fight we can still win.
...Given Congress' runaway spending, its members' apparent willingness to be bought off and its disgraceful abandonment of the troops, this will go down as one of the most venal votes in the last 50 years — perhaps ever.
...As usual, President Bush hit the nail on the head in a speech Wednesday ...
'If we cannot muster the resolve to defeat this evil in Iraq,' he said, 'America will have lost its moral purpose in the world and we will endanger our citizens. If we leave Iraq before the job is done, the enemy will follow us here.'
...And for what? A hundred million dollars to help fund the 2008 presidential conventions? Thirteen million for sheep 'replacement'? Three and a half million for the Capitol's guided tour program? Three million in sugar cane subsidies? And literally billions more for other pork-laden tidbits too numerous to mention?
...Back then, the war was both popular and just. Today, it remains just — but the Democrats have walked away. A sad day for them, their party and the country they serve.
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=259974388837425&view=1
Hey Ted
I think you ought to take Chuck Hagel off of your poll. I think he's running for President of the Hate America Party, otherwise known as the DemocRAT party.
In the spirit of equal-opportunity name calling, do R’s prefer to be called Defeat America Party or Spoiled Brat Conservative Party?
I agree, pork is not good in any bill. But were these same folks as appalled when the tactic was used by R’s to pass their pet bills?
“If we leave Iraq before the job is done, the enemy will follow us here.” – This line of reasoning is so illogical it drives me nuts. So, if we achieve “victory” in Iraq, we are all good and terrorists will no longer bother us. WTF??
RF,
The Republican Congress of 1994 gave Democratic President Clinton the Line Item Veto but the Liberal Supreme Court overturned that option. How about you agree with a Line Item Veto and we can end the debate of all Pork. The Real Party of Corruption is the Democratic one as the Republicans are a shadow of a reflection compared to the party of greeeeeeeeDemocracts.
rf,
"“If we leave Iraq before the job is done, the enemy will follow us here.” – This line of reasoning is so illogical it drives me nuts. So, if we achieve “victory” in Iraq, we are all good and terrorists will no longer bother us. WTF??"
HTF!!!
If we fail to acheive our NATIONAL objectives in Iraq and are thereby defeated by the loosely allied forces opposing us there, the global Islamofacsist enemy will be emboldened to increasing attacks on other targets. Certainly some will be at targets in the MIddle East as they seek to destroy another regime and forcing us out of bases in the Gulf.
Then, maybe a few more spectacular attacks like 9.11 force us to negotiate with Iran and, as peace activist the buffoonish Mike Farrell expressed, "put everything on the table. Israel, nuclear power, everything".
That's what they mean by follow us here. We saw what happened when we chose inadequate responses to increasingly violent terror attacks throughout the 80s and 90s (Reagan and Bush I both failed to act with sufficient force as well as Clinton, and of course, Jimmah Cartah the aboobination of the post war presidency)and we got 9.11.
Want to wait for it to be nuclear?
Sporer,
See my first post of this thread. I stand by my summary:
Yes, some terrorists and extremists will be emboldened if we leave Iraq without “victory.” But that damage pales in comparison to the damage we have already done by starting the war and by continuing our presence in Iraq. At this point of time we have no good options. But that’s what happens when you make major mistakes.
4:55,
I'm all for line item veto. Another point where we agree.
it is just insane that the president doesn't have the line item veto. the line item veto was a significant, and one of the few, potentially lasting accomplishments of the weird clinton/gingrich era.
however, you greatly overstate the "damage" being done in iraq and dangerously underestimate the importance of the concept of victory in conflict resolution.
these people already think they have us on the run, what do you think will happen if we do run.
they cite vietnam, somalia and the first world trade center bombing (as well as the other bombings in the 90s) as the basis for further attacks.
"you have to think like a gopher to kill a gopher". don't think like a rational, peace loving american/western european, think like Tamerlane, when you fight islamofacsists.
Clearly we have to agree to disagree on the damage the Iraq War has caused. At this point of time, I also fail to see any real benefit from a "victory" in Iraq. WOT will continue with no change.
My fear is that 30 years from now a dirty bomb will be delivered to DC by a zealot born out of this war (you must realize this war has only increased the risk of nuclear attack on us). Or he will blow himself up in NYC subway car. Yes, some zealots would have been around even without the war. But the war has multiplied the number of potential recruits for bin Laden & co.
Clearly we have to agree to disagree on the damage the Iraq War has caused. At this point of time, I also fail to see any real benefit from a "victory" in Iraq. WOT will continue with no change.
My fear is that 30 years from now a dirty bomb will be delivered to DC by a zealot born out of this war (you must realize this war has only increased the risk of nuclear attack on us). Or he will blow himself up in NYC subway car. Yes, some zealots would have been around even without the war. But the war has multiplied the number of potential recruits for bin Laden & co.
Post a Comment