pappajacks

Forwards: Dany Heatley (Atlanta), Joe Thornton (Boston), Joe Sakic (Colorado), Brenden Morrow (Dallas), Kris Draper, Kirk Maltby and Steve Yzerman (Detroit), Ryan Smyth (Edmonton), Simon Gagné (Philadelphia), Shane Doan (Phoenix), Mario Lemieux (Pittsburgh), Patrick Marleau (San Jose), Brad Richards and Martin St-Louis (Tampa Bay) and Jarome Iginla (Calgary). Defense: Rob Blake and Adam Foote (Colorado), Eric Brewer (Edmonton), Scott Niedermayer (New Jersey), Wade Redden (Ottawa), Chris Pronger (Saint Louis), Ed Jovanovski (Vancouver) and Robyn Regehr (Calgary). Goaltenders: Roberto Luongo (Florida), Martin Brodeur (New Jersey) and Ed Belfour (Toronto). ___________________ I can't believe players like Vincent Lecavalier, Rick Nash, Keith Primeau, Paul Kariya and Jose Theodore were left off the team. The World Cup starts on August 29 and the USA is the defending champion.

Baseball could thrive in Montreal once again if the team is run properly. If we were talking about contraction 20 years ago, teams like Atlanta, Cleveland, Seattle and San Francisco would be long gone. Look how those markets flourished with a winning team and a new stadium. Montreal is no different. Montreal has a population of 3 million, and that doesn't include the potential of the market, which included in the past Quebec City, Ottawa and northern Vermont. The 1994 strike killed the franchise. Instead of investing in the team, the owners decided to hold a firesale and trade away Walker, Grissom, Hill and Wetteland. Pedro Martinez and Moises Alou soon followed. For years the owners in Montreal pocketed revenue sharing money instead of spending that money on players. They filled their pockets with revenue sharing money and I'm glad MLB stepped in and decided to toss them aside. There is a reason the team drew an average of 10,000 a game the last few years: firesale after firesale, crappy stadium not located downtown and constant relocation threats have made thousands of fans turn away from the game. Don't get me wrong, baseball isn't as popular as hockey in Montreal and Montreal isn't and will never be as baseball crazy as St-Louis, Chicago, Boston and New York. But, if run properly with committed owners, it's no worse a baseball town than most MLB cities.

Uh...because Grenier doesn't deserve the time he gets on TV and I was wondering the possible reason behind it. In A-Train and Batista's cases, we all knew that Vinnie mac had a fetish with hosses.

...that he is Pat Patterson's real life partner? Or is it just a rumor started by the IWC?

People are right when they type that you are too white.

There are many other dictators out there. Why doesn't the US go after them? If our attack on Iraq was something you'd oppose, why would you support an attack on somebody else? What is it about Saddam that makes him such a martyr for you? My question was rhetorical. I know why the US went into Iraq (and spent $87 billion) and not into other countries with dictators. Iraq possessed a resource that the US wants (oil). Let's not be foolish and believe that the US went into Iraq primarily to eliminate a threat or to "liberate" the Iraqi people. Those were secondary factors. The US gov lied to its citizens, just like the French gov lied to its citizens. The French didnt oppose the war for moralistic reasons, they opposed it because the US and US companies would get to the "resource" quicker. The French are just as guilty (or innocent, depends on how you look at it) as the US. Both countries acted for their own benefit. As for Hussein, no one answered my question yet. Why would Hussein even consider attacking the US? The guy might be evil and despises the US with a passion, but even he isn't that dumb to attempt to attack the most powerful country in the world and give the US sympathy from the international community like it had after the 9/11 attacks. The last thing he wants is to give a reason for the most powerful country in the world to attack him and consequently remove him from power. The last thing he wants is to give a reason for the UN and ally nations to support the US in a war. He saw what happened to Bin Laden, who now has to hide in a cave for the rest of his life. Hussein would gladly remain President of his country and live as a king for the rest of his life than to give a reason for the world to remove him from power. Hussein knows his limits: he could torture his own citizens. The day where he attempts to attack anyone else (whether the US or neighbouring countries), is the day he stops living as a king and has to hide for the rest of his life (because the international community will come after him). Like I mentioned, the man might as evil as they get, but he isnt stupid. By the way, did Hussein attack anyone outside his country since Kuweit? He learned his lesson and was warned that if he did it again, the allies will go all the way next time and invade his country instead of merely chasing him out of another country. I dont blame Hussein to have weapons (not WMDs though). Hell, he has a resource, and if he doesnt protect it (or give the impression that he has the means to protect it), neighbouring countries will take advantage of his weakness (lack of defense) to get to the resource.

Sadaam isn't the only dictator in the world guilty of those crimes. Many are still running their countries the same way and yet the good ol' USA doesn't give a damn about them. To think that the US attacked Iraq to "liberate" the Iraqi people is naive. To also think that Sadaam was a threat or would be a threat to the US is also naive. The man isn't as stupid as you think. The last thing he wants is to give a reason for the most powerful country in the world to attack him and consequently remove him from power. The last thing he wants is to give a reason for the UN and ally nations to support the US in a war. Sadaam might be evil, but even he knows his limits.

There are many other dictators out there. Why doesn't the US go after them?

Blix: Iraq war was illegal Blair's defence is bogus, says the former UN weapons inspector By Anne Penketh in Stockholm and Andrew Grice 05 March 2004 The former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has declared that the war in Iraq was illegal, dealing another devastating blow to Tony Blair. Mr Blix, speaking to The Independent, said the Attorney General's legal advice to the Government on the eve of war, giving cover for military action by the US and Britain, had no lawful justification. He said it would have required a second United Nations resolution explicitly authorising the use of force for the invasion of Iraq last March to have been legal. His intervention goes to the heart of the current controversy over Lord Goldsmith's advice, and comes as the Prime Minister begins his fightback with a speech on Iraq today. An unrepentant Mr Blair will refuse to apologise for the war in Iraq, insisting the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein in power. He will point to the wider benefits of the Iraq conflict, citing Libya's decision to give up its weapons of mass destruction, but warn that the world cannot turn a blind eye to the continuing threat from WMD. But, in an exclusive interview, Mr Blix said: "I don't buy the argument the war was legalised by the Iraqi violation of earlier resolutions." And it appeared yesterday that the Government shared that view until the eve of war, when it received the Lord Goldsmith's final advice. Sir Andrew Turnbull, the Cabinet Secretary, revealed that the Government had assumed, until the eve of war in Iraq, that it needed a specific UN mandate to authorise military action. Mr Blix demolished the argument advanced by Lord Goldsmith three days before the war began, which stated that resolution 1441 authorised the use of force because it revived earlier UN resolutions passed after the 1991 ceasefire. Mr Blix said that while it was possible to argue that Iraq had breached the ceasefire by violating UN resolutions adopted since 1991, the "ownership" of the resolutions rested with the entire 15-member Security Council and not with individual states. "It's the Security Council that is party to the ceasefire, not the UK and US individually, and therefore it is the council that has ownership of the ceasefire, in my interpretation." He said to challenge that interpretation would set a dangerous precedent. "Any individual member could take a view - the Russians could take one view, the Chinese could take another, they could be at war with each other, theoretically," Mr Blix said. The Attorney General's opinion has come under fresh scrutiny since the collapse of the trial against the GCHQ whistleblower Katharine Gun last week, prompting calls for his full advice to be made public. Mr Blix, who is an international lawyer by training, said: "I would suspect there is a more sceptical view than those two A4 pages," in a reference to Clare Short's contemptuous description of the 358-word summary. It emerged on Wednesday that a Foreign Office memo, sent to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on the same day that Lord Goldsmith's summary was published, made clear that there was no "automaticity" in resolution 1441 to justify war. Asked whether, in his view, a second resolution authorising force should have been adopted, Mr Blix replied: "Oh yes." In the interview, ahead of the publication next week of his book Disarming Iraq: The search for weapons of mass destruction, Mr Blix dismissed the suggestion that Mr Blair should resign or apologise over the failure to find any WMD in Iraq. But he suggested that the Prime Minister may have been fatally wounded by his loss of credibility, and that voters would deliver their verdict. "Some people say Bush and Blair should be put before a tribunal and I say that you have the punishment in the political field here," he said. "Their credibility has been affected by this: Bush too lost some credibility." He repeated accusations the US and British governments were "hyped" intelligence and lacking critical thinking. "They used exclamation marks instead of question marks." "I have some understanding for that. Politicians have to simplify to explain, they also have to act in this world before they have 100 per cent evidence. But I think they went further." "But I never said they had acted in bad faith," he added. "Perhaps it was worse that they acted out of good faith." The threat allegedly posed by Saddam's WMD was the prime reason cited by the British government for going to war. But not a single item of banned weaponry has been found in the 11 months that have followed the declared end of hostilities. Mr Blair will argue that similar decisive action will need to be taken in future to combat the threat of rogue states and terrorists obtaining WMD.

Says who? That's what they said in 1987 when Rene Levesque passed away. 8 years later, 49.6% voted yes to sovereignty. Sovereignty will never die as there will always be at least 40% of sovereignists in Quebec.

There was a time where WWE was getting 6.0 and the WCW 4.0 rating every week. The WWE was making the most $ when it had a real threat. Create that threat again and you never know. I sincerely believe if the product is good, there is enough wrestling fans out there to support it. Think long-term more than short-term. 2 brands (feds) going against each other means 24 PPVs every year. Like I said, try it once and see what happens. It's worth the risk considering that ratings haven't picked up since 2002.

Is it possible (just for one night) to have RAW and Smackdown go head to head on a Monday Night? Both shows are on different stations, the question is if the WWE can convince UPN to have the Smackdown show on Monday for a one night shot. I think it would be an idea worth exploring, and who knows, could help the WWE is the long run by further distinguishing both brands and creating real competition between the bookers. Something has to change at this point because the ratings have been stagnant for almost 2 years now.

I dont live in the USA, but from what I've been reading in the last few months, it seems like Hilary Clinton is a lock for the 2008 election. It's her election to lose. Which begs the question: can she actually pull it off?

Is there any free online poker sites? Where I can play with others just for fun.

Noam Chomsky says human survival is at stake The world faces a stark choice between u.S. hegemony and human extinction, chomsky argues. He exposes gaps between U.S. rhetoric and behaviour, but his version of reality has its own flaws AVERY PLAW Freelance Saturday, December 20, 2003 In his latest book, Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance, Noam Chomsky argues that the world today faces a stark and fateful choice. It must choose between "full spectrum American dominance" (which, he says, carries a significant likelihood of human extinction) and human survival (which entails stopping what he characterizes as the U.S. quest for global dominance). Posed this way, the choice is a no-brainer. Nonetheless, Chomsky argues, U.S. policy makers and many citizens have been indoctrinated into a "lunatic doctrinal framework" wherein "hegemony, with its short term benefits to elite interests, is ranked above survival on the scale of operative values." The United States therefore conquers, murders, terrorizes and, ultimately, endangers human survival, all to protect the immediate interests of its corporate and political elites, he says. Still, Chomsky argues, "it would be a great error to conclude that the prospects are uniformly bleak." There is, he says, a second superpower - namely, "world public opinion" - that offers hope. The public may, after all, prefer freedom and survival to U.S. dominion and extinction. It could then present an obstacle to U.S. ambitions. The U.S. state therefore, in Chomsky's view, subverts and controls world (and especially domestic) public opinion: It "engineers consent" through what was "frankly called propaganda before the word became unfashionable because of totalitarian associations." U.S. propaganda disseminates misinformation, constricts public discourse, suppresses protest and dissent, and reduces the public to " 'spectators,' not 'participants,' " in politics. Chomsky's book challenges this "propaganda" by elaborating a counter-narrative that exposes the persistent gap between U.S. rhetoric and action. Despite Washington's declared "War on Terror," for example, he argues that the "U.S. is a leading terrorist state" that organizes and finances brutal state terrorism throughout Latin America, the Middle East and southeast Asia, and that persistently flouts international law and institutions in its direct aggressions against countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama and Nicaragua. Indeed, U.S. President George W. Bush's new doctrine of "preventive war" "effectively grants Washington the right of arbitrary aggression." Such aggression, Chomsky contends, "falls within the category of war crimes." Through his counter-narrative, Chomsky seeks to tear away Washington's "cloak of moralistic righteousness" and expose naked elite interests that drive U.S. policy. He seeks to open up the boundaries of political debate at home and abroad and, ultimately, to mobilize the vast power of world public opinion against the U.S. quest for global dominance. There is much in Chomsky's book that is both persuasive and timely. But there is a danger inherent in seeking to turn even a propagandist political narrative on its head: one often ends up with an equally selective political narrative slanted in the other direction. There is evidence that Chomsky falls into this trap. Reading Chomsky's history of the Cold War, for example, one gets the impression that every conflict, from the Cuban Missile Crisis to Afghanistan, was precipitated by U.S. imperial ambition rather than, at least at times, Soviet aggression. In his chapter on the Middle East conflict, one is inundated with references to aggression by Israel ("an appendage of U.S. power"), but there is no mention of Arab aggression against Israel. Sharon is an "Archterrorist," driven by "machismo and ferocious jingoism," while Arafat is not referred to as a terrorist at all, but presented as a misunderstood peacemaker. These inversions of the U.S. narrative seem no more plausible. Serious problems also arise with the stark choice of "hegemony or survival," around which Chomsky organizes his book. To begin with, he never makes it entirely clear why U.S. hegemony threatens human survival. It is widely believed among those who study international politics that hegemony is conductive to peace, as in the pax Romana, pax Britannica or, today, pax Americana. Chomsky simply ignores this widespread belief. Ultimately, his fear seems to emanate more from U.S. malevolence than from hegemony. Yet, it hardly seems clear that the Americans are morally worse than the Imperial Romans or British or, even if they were, why this depravity threatens human survival. Finally, while Chomsky despises U.S. military interventions like the recent one into Iraq even more than he deplores the preceding regime of economic sanctions, he is never clear about what he proposes as an alternative means of dealing with brutal dictators like Saddam Hussein. Indeed, he often sounds like he believes that all problems would sort themselves out if the Americans would just stop interfering. This assumption may appeal to those who share his anarcho-syndicalist political convictions, but it is unlikely to convince many others. While Chomsky's book offers a potent remedy to self-righteous U.S. hypocrisy in international politics, it should emphatically not be taken as it sometimes presents itself: the final word. Its value lies in the debates that it opens, not those it closes.

ACTUALLY, the ironic thing is that guys like this DON'T tend to off themselves. They will ask and expect their supporters to do it --- but they won't. He didn't. Hitler didn't. When we find him, bin Laden will be alive, too. -=Mike That's because Hussein wants to give his side of the story, the relationships he had with the US, France, Russia and Germany throughout the last 2 decades. A lot of politicians will end up looking very bad. I think they should go even further and find out who entrenched him in power and supplied him with his arsenal.

Well, if idiocy was a WMD, God knows they could find a treasure trove with you. -=Mike Mike, what segment of my post was idiotic? Good to know that opposing views are welcomed in this forum. Resorting to name calling was very mature. Congratulations.

The invasion of Iraq was just a smokescreen for the US not finding bin Laden and throwing Americans a bone to chew on while they failed miserably at protecting their own people. A great day indeed. I feel bad for Americans who continue to be played by their government and media.

I guess they must of searched his beard for those elusive weapons of mass destruction, eh? Freedom and democracy is so beautiful.

Was watching some of his work on tape. Anyone know if he is still alive? Someone told me the actor who played Pussy in The Sopranos was Magnificent Muraco. I have a feeling he is pulling my leg.

There is an interview and nice pics of Summer in Stuff magazine. After reading her comments, it seems like she is playing her real self on the show. Very stuck up.

You should borrow the "Sex, Lies, and Headlocks: The Real Story of Vince McMahon and the WWF" book. It has all the answers you need if you're doing a research paper on the WWF.

Offer a new $15 million contract to The Rock tomorrow morning, with a clause restricting him from going to Hollywood more than 4 months a year. There is no excuse not to have that man on RAW every week. If i was running a company, i'll do everything in my power to keep the employee that makes me the most money. The Rock is still a draw and people like him cannot be duplicated.

Why isn't there OC in Canada tonight?

My bad, didn't know it was posted.