Thursday, October 06, 2005
Quarterback Tom Brady seemed to take exception with comments made by San Diego Chargers coach Marty Schottenheimer, who questioned whether the Patriots have suffered too many personnel losses.
“You don’t talk about our team,” Brady said. “He has no business talking about our team. He’s not our coach. We’ll let our coach talk about our team. We’ll let our players talk about our team. The only thing we ever do is give respect to the other teams, because that’s what they deserve.”
Brady was asked a follow-up question on the subject.
“You hear what people say and you can use it as a way to motivate you, and I guess sometimes it does motivate you. We’re going to approach it very much the same way. We’ve had a pretty good approach here for a while. We don’t intend to change any time soon. We have a lot of confidence as a team, we have a lot of confidence as players and coaches that we’re doing the right thing. We don’t always play the way we wish we would, as evidenced last weekend. But I think we have a great group of guys that works hard. We’d love to all execute better and that’s why we go out to practice and try to work every day.
“Like I said, it’s really easy in hindsight to look back and say ‘this team, these are all the problems.’ We’re looking for solutions. That’s what we’re all about.”
Brady was asked if he was motivated as a team leader to stand up and defend his team.
“You know what? It depends who is saying it. You have to have some credibility for it to mean anything. You look at the source and realize how credible it is and if the person really knows what they’re talking about. I think someone who is very credible is Coach Belichick. That’s who I listen to. When he tells us something, that’s who I listen to. Pretty much every one other than that, I could really care less about.”
Thata boy, Tommy!! Take no shit and show no mercy! Let's go PATS! Atlanta goes down Sunday!!!
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Poor grieving Cindy....
Poor grieving Cindy....Tough Life. . . . . . .camping outside Bush's RanchMore about Cindy . . .What is most interesting to me is that the press gives thislittle bunch of people who are protesting with Cindy so much air timewithout discussing Cindy's background. This is a case of more press bias. It has been pointed out on just a couple of media outlets that Cindy divorced her first husband and left her son with him to be raised while she became a political activist for the Democratic Party. She had very little to do with her son in his growing years. She remarried. The 1st husband remarried. The original father raised the son with his new wife. They miss their son and mourn the loss of his life. They have stated that they are very proud of their son and that they agree with the stance of America in Iraq and on terror. They said that their son was eager to serve and to go fight the terrorists in Iraq. He volunteered. How many news stations carried their interview? Not many.So the son dies in Iraq and then Cindy shows up to make a stink. She gets an audience with Bush. That was not enough. She goes to Crawford and demands another audience. How many news stations carry the ongoing saga of Cindy? Practically all of them. Cindy didn't care about her son. She let another woman raise him. Cindy doesn't care about the other soldiers in Iraq. Cindy cares about her liberal, feminist agenda and about using the death of her sonto lobby against Republicans and Bush. And the press is helping her. Why? Then a few days ago, Cindy's 2nd husband filed for a divorce from Cindy. Cindy sounds like a feminist opportunist who did not have the sense of responsibility to even raise her own son. It looks like her 2nd husband is fed up with Cindy. We middle Americans should be fed up with Cindy also. We should be fed up with the press. They manipulate us into their "group think" and into the responses that they want on their polls.
H. A. Brown
Monday, October 03, 2005
The Nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court
The Nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court
Miers' Qualifications Are 'Non-Existent'
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Posted Oct 3, 2005
Handed a once-in-a-generation opportunity to return the Supreme Court to constitutionalism, George W. Bush passed over a dozen of the finest jurists of his day -- to name his personal lawyer.
In a decision deeply disheartening to those who invested such hopes in him, Bush may have tossed away his and our last chance to roll back the social revolution imposed upon us by our judicial dictatorship since the days of Earl Warren.
This is not to disparage Harriet Miers. From all accounts, she is a gracious lady who has spent decades in the law and served ably as Bush’s lawyer in Texas and, for a year, as White House counsel.
But her qualifications for the Supreme Court are non-existent. She is not a brilliant jurist, indeed, has never been a judge. She is not a scholar of the law. Researchers are hard-pressed to dig up an opinion. She has not had a brilliant career in politics, the academy, the corporate world or public forum. Were she not a friend of Bush, and female, she would never have even been considered.
What commended her to the White House, in the phrase of the hour, is that she “has no paper trail.” So far as one can see, this is Harriet Miers’ principal qualification for the U.S. Supreme Court.